Saying “NO.”

/1 Comment/in , /by

Almost all of my coaching clients have said at one time or another, “I just don’t know how to say no.”  Whether it’s an associate or partner who’s so overburdened that she’s having trouble meeting her deadlines and/or producing an acceptable work product, a lawyer who’s bemoaning a difficult client and wrestling with how to screen clients in the future, or a lawyer who wants to establish strong boundaries to prevent his work from overruning his personal life, saying “no” emerges as a key skill.  But especially for lawyers in private practice, “no” can feel like blasphemy.

Often, part of our coaching work is to reframe what “no” means.  For instance, saying no to additional work when your plate is already full to overflowing is actually saying yes to the question, “Shall I meet my current deadlines and deliver a good product?”  Saying no to a client who’s clearly going to be troublesome (perhaps expecting unreasonable results, challenging every item on a legitimate bill, or being just plain nasty) means saying yes to reserving your time and energy for clients you can help who will faciliate and appreciate that service.  And saying no to work-related demands that burden personal time is critical for the selective disengagement that allows full professional engagement at the appropriate times.

The underlying step that makes this reframing possible is knowing what you want.  These examples are fairly simple, but clients of course face more challenging situations, such as taking on time-consuming work that will be demanding and draining but will give the lawyer an opportunity to shine within the firm and with clients.  When that’s weighed against a long-awaited vacation or even serving more routine client needs, the lawyer needs to know where her priorities are given all of the circumstances.  Billing heavily everyday for a month takes on different meanings at the beginning of a job, during an emergency situation, and during times of ordinary workflow.  Knowing where to set the boundary is critical to knowing whether a request oversteps that boundary.

Are you facing a situation in which you should say no?  What will you say yes to instead?

Feeling a bit out of control? Welcome to law — and life.

/0 Comments/in , , /by

I was visiting DC earlier this week and flew out on a 7 AM flight.  Thanks to the early hour and my grogginess, I put my regular reading material to the side and spent some time reading Business Traveler magazine, dreaming about luxury travel.  And then I happened across an article titled Flight Fright, which included this paragraph:

Many of the people who are afraid to fly say their anxiety stems from the lack of control they feel onboard a plane . . . SOAR’s Tom Bunn agrees.”A lot of my clients are lawyers,” he says.”They’re used to being in control, and then they board a plane and suddenly they’re not.”

And suddenly, there I was, pondering the effect of control and being out of control on lawyers’ lives.  Are lawyers, as a group, a class of control freaks?  And if we are, what does that mean for practice and for “civilian life”?  I came up with three observations.

1.  Successful lawyers know that they’ll find themselves out of control at some point, and they know how to recover.  A client told me a story about a lawyer who was taking a case to trial.  He’d won partial summary judgment, so the trial was limited to a single issue of liability and damages… Or so he thought, until the court opened the trial by reversing the grant of summary judgment and announcing that trial would proceed immediately on all issues.  He had a good team of junior lawyers and a paralegal with him, and he revised his opening statement while the team revised their trial strategy.  Several steps allowed him to excel in an out-of-control situation.

  • He accepted the situation on its face (as unpalatable as it was) and moved forward.  When it was apparent that the court intended to proceed right away, the lawyer set aside his outrage and moved to what he could control: the presentation of his newly defined case.  Had he distracted himself by composing the appellate brief in his head, there’s no way he could have performed well.
  • He relied on the input of others.  While lead counsel generally sets the course of a representation, this lawyer was able to get the ideas and input from every member of the team.  That’s the benefit of having top-notch professionals as colleagues and team members: when you really need to rely on them, those relationships must already be in place.
  • He requested time to regain some measure of control.  Although the 1-week continuance was denied, the court agreed to giving him two hours.  He spent the first part of that time making the strategic decisions that made him master of his newly defined case.

2.  Successful lawyers know when and how to loosen the reins.  Lawyers who don’t delegate well tend to fall into one of two traps: either they fail to provide sufficient information to guide the performance of the work and get back imprecise results or a product that doesn’t meet their needs, or they over-describe, micromanage, and rework the finished product because they believe no one can do the work as well as they can.  Knowing when to accept work performed in a different, but equally effective style, is a key skill.

3. Successful lawyers understand that control is, in many ways, an illusion to be held lightly.  Whether in a professional or a personal setting, control is often illusory.  For instance, turning back to the fear of flying article, travelers may feel safer because they’re in control while driving, even though studies show that flying is safer — and even though we all know intuitively that controlling the wheel won’t always provide safety.  In the practice context, “control” over a book of business is important for professional advancement, but that control lasts only as long as the clients are satisfied.  Personally, we can control nothing except ourselves, and even that’s a dicey proposition at times.  Being in control, then, is actually a delicate balance that requires attention and adjustment.

Control is often a topic in coaching.  The questions I pose to clients and now offer for your consideration: Are you really in control of this situation?  In what ways are you not in control?  And what’s the impact?

The reset button

/1 Comment/in , , , /by

One of the interesting things about coaching is that periodically, the topics on which I’m coaching someone will rise up and smack me in the face.  Pride may go before a fall, but working with someone else on an issue they’re facing seems highly likely in some bizarre cosmic way to raise the same issue for me.  Recently, it’s been around time management.  A client is known for being busy.  Frantically busy.  Ridiculously busy.  Productive, but busy beyond all measure of busy.  And he doesn’t like it, he doesn’t want it, and he’s ready to explore change.  Fortunately, after we explored some strategies that he created to meet his own needs and tendencies, things are improving for him.

Can you guess what my last week has been like?

I caught myself yesterday feeling as if I had so much to do that I’d never catch up (which may be true, but is hardly fatal) and bemoaning my lack of time.  Nope, can’t work out; I don’t have time.  Return calls to friends?  Not possible, there just isn’t time.  Post on the Life at the Bar blog on Monday morning as usual?  Not this week!

And then, two strategies came my way that have created a radically different experience for Tuesday than I had for Monday.  I’ll share them here in the hopes that they’ll help someone else.

First, eliminate the word “busy” from my repertoire.  I discovered that every time someone asked how things are going, I would reply “BUSY!” and immediately feel more stressed.  So, I’m practicing today with using other words: productive, effective, fruitful, joyful, full of accomplishments, etc.  (Thanks to Coach Kimberly for leading the way on this!)  Nothing has changed about my workload, of course, but my relationship with it has changed dramatically.

And second, at someone’s suggestion, when I felt that time was flying and I would never catch enough of it to get anything done, I stopped and watched the clock for one minute.  Have you ever noticed how long a minute takes when you’re just waiting and watching?  It was like being a kid waiting for summer break all over again, living in a state of seeming suspended animation.  Again, it didn’t change the items on my “to do” list, and it didn’t really even change the fact that I have more to do than I have day in which to do it, but that one-minute break helped me to realize that time isn’t really going so quickly, that just noticing it would make it slow down.

So, today I remain productive and cognizant that time isn’t actually flying by me.  I fully expect to hit “reset” again tomorrow by stopping myself from proclaiming my busyness and taking a one-minute break.  Will I get more done?  I don’t know.  But I will feel less pressured, which will make me less hurried, which will prime me to be less likely to make mistakes, which will make the day flow more easily.

Not bad for a small semantic change and a one-minute dance with time.  Would anyone else care to try it with me?

Habit: the enemy of entropy

/1 Comment/in , , , /by

I’m not a physicist (I can barely spell the word) but as I remember it, the second law of thermodynamics is that entropy, which for purposes of this post only might be a synonym for chaos or disorder, tends to increase.  Another way of saying this is that systems tend to move from a state of higher organization to a state of lower organization.  I see that law play out, albeit in utterly non-scientific ways, in my life and in those of my clients.  A simple example is the level of order in my office.  At the beginning of the day, my desk is fairly tidy, and by the end of the day, it’s typically a mess; if I don’t neaten it at the end of the day, the cycle will just start again the next morning, with eventually disasterous results.  But when I do take the time to discard the things I no longer need, to stack papers, to return files and books to their proper spots, I have the pleasure of walking into a (relatively) orderly office.  And so, habit is the enemy of entropy.

Most of us have routines that allow our lives to function.  We typically brush our teeth in the same phase of getting ready for the day and for bed, we tend to drive to work or home in the same way, etc.  Professionally, the same kinds of activities keep our work lives on track: tidying the office, noting appointments on a calendar or PDA as soon as we make them, completing time sheets on a regular basis.  Although these tasks are in themselves rather small, they keep things running.  And that’s something to consider both in creating routines and in adhering to them.  Building a habit that supports you is a key skill for any lawyer.

Likewise, it’s worth noting that we all stray from our habits on occasion.  There’s nothing wrong with that, so long as we get back to the beneficial habit.  An example from my own life: last year, I joined a networking group and attended regularly.  If it was the third Thursday, I was at the meeting.  I enjoyed it, I made great contacts that produced business, and all was going well.  But then the group skipped a meeting.  And I was out of town for the next one.  Before I knew it, 8 months had passed, and I hadn’t been to the meetings.  Returning wasn’t hard, but it did take more effort than going as a part of my regular weekly habit.  I had to miss last month’s meeting, and I made sure that I’d made my appointment for the next meeting and that it was marked on my calendar in ink.  A part of suspending my regular practice is now planning to resume it — not because the habit itself is so important, but because it produces great results that I won’t get otherwise.

What habits or practices support you in being healthy, productive, happy, etc.?  Once you’ve identified them, pay attention when you stop following those routines.  There’s no harm in pausing; the key is to have a plan that will support you in resuming those patterns.  What’s yours?

Maximum effect: change behavior, thought, or feeling.

/2 Comments/in , /by

Sometimes I work with clients who are caught in a pattern they want to break.  It may be a behavior that doesn’t serve them (for instance, not completing time sheets until the morning they’re due and losing the details that would yield more billable time), a thought that produces an action that doesn’t serve them (such as, I don’t have time to deal with timesheets right now), or a feeling that generates such a thought (the panic of too much to do in too little time).  It’s easy to say, just change the behavior!  And sometimes that works, and on we go.  But sometimes it doesn’t work, because the thoughts and/or feelings that produced the behavior are still present.

That’s when I introduce something I learned at the Georgetown Leadership Coaching program.  Alexander Caillet has created The Thinking Path, which holds that thoughts (including assumptions and beliefs) produce feelings, which produce actions, which produce results.  One interesting facet of applying The Thinking Path is that it’s possible to jump in at any point, so changing actions can result in changed feelings and thoughts; changed feelings can produce changed thoughts and actions; and changed thoughts can bring up changed feelings and actions.  But it isn’t magic; effort is required.

Here’s an example, drawn from one person’s experience:

Bob was having a great deal of trouble communicating with a particular partner who intimidated him.  He’d lose his train of thought and his presentation in describing a case and the controlling law just didn’t hang together well.  He tried making notes before going to talk with the partner, he rehearsed what he wanted to say, he anticipated the questions the partner might ask… But none of this really helped.  Through our conversation, Bob realized that his intimidation was self-reinforcing.  Because he felt intimidated, he didn’t present well, so he felt even more intimidated, as well as embarrassed and angry and incompetent.  I asked Bob to notice his thoughts as he was preparing to talk with the partner, and he discovered that his thoughts were negative and predicting poor performance: here you go again, you’re going to screw up just like you always do, why can’t you just do it right with this guy, you’re such a failure, you’re probably going to get fired.

Ouch!  Those thoughts, not surprisingly, made Bob feel embarrassed, angry at himself, and shamed.  So, Bob devised alternative thoughts that would be more geared toward success.  When he caught these negatives going through his mind, he substituted instead, I present the facts and laws well to all of the partners, including XYZ; I’ve done the research and I’m prepared to answer the questions; I have prepared well for this conversation and it’s going to be fine.  And, of course, he did prepare well, he was ready for questions, and he knew fully what was going on with his case, how it related to the caselaw he’d researched, and what the likely outcome would be.  Finally, he examined the belief that he was going to get fired because of his presentations and concluded that although poor performance certainly wasn’t advancing him, his performance was sufficiently good that his job wasn’t really on the line.  This isn’t magic; it’s doing the work and putting all the pieces in place to lead to a positive outcome.

Bob had projected that his substitute thoughts would make him feel more confident, more calm and less jittery.  And sure enough, that’s how he felt when he approached the partner for the first time after this exercise.  I’d love to write that the conversation was perfect and Bob didn’t stumble once, but this is real life and not magic.  He stumbled, but his performance was much better than it had been, particularly because when he stumbled he stopped the failure thoughts and substituted thoughts that encouraged him.  And now, after plenty of practice, he interacts beautifully with this partner.  Is he intimidated?  Yes, a little, but he’s confident in his own abilities and doesn’t dwell in that intimidation.

How might you apply The Thinking Path?  What thoughts, feelings, or actions can you identify and change as your entry point to creating a different result?

Finders, minders, grinders, and binders

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Have you heard this old saw?  People used to say that law firms need four categories of lawyers: finders, minders, grinders, and binders.  It’s still true to some degree, though today’s atmosphere requires lawyers to develop their skills in each of these areas, rather than simply selecting the most comfortable skill set and roosting there.  So, let’s unpack what these labels mean… And then we’ll explore how a lawyer can identify her natural inclination, lead from that strength, and develop at least rudimentary skills in the areas that perhaps come less naturally.

First, definitions.  Finders are those who find the work, better known today as rainmakers.  Minders are those who perform administrative tasks and coordinate the efforts of the finders, grinders, and binders to be sure that the firm will run as a cohesive whole; examples include managing partners, the executive committee, team leaders, etc.  Grinders are those who grind out the client work, and binders are those who bring the members of a firm together by (for example) inviting a small group to lunch or recognizing achievements of the firm’s lawyers.

Chances are that just reading these definitions is enough to let you identify your area of strength.  If not, consider this brief list of questions.

*  Imagine a great opportunity for your firm.  Is the opportunity you thought of more in the practice, marketing, administration, or social area?

*  Do you feel that you’re acting in the highest and best service by being out in the world meeting people, billing time, or working on firm matters?

*  When you think you ought to drop by and congratulate a colleague on bringing in a big new client, winning a case, or receiving some award, do you actually do it?

*  Would you gladly trade billable hours for working on administrative matters?  Is administration important enough to do you take on both tasks?

*  How skilled are you at signing new clients?  Does your marketing tend to yield results fairly quickly?

Answers to these questions will point you toward your area of strength.  Although most of us tend to spend time shoring up our weak areas and working to improve them, studies show that people are much more effective when they spend development time making those strengths even stronger and figuring out how best to use them.  (This is the thesis of Now, Discover Your Strengths by Buckingham and Clifton, among others by Buckingham.)  Accordingly, it’s critical to recognize and leverage your natural abilities.

As recognized in this Altman Weil report, a lawyer today likely doesn’t have the luxury of  existing in only one dimension of the finder/minder/grinder/binder quartet.  (The report is directed to partners, but equally applicable to associates and sole practitioners, albeit in a different context.)  Though exceptions may exist by agreement of the members of a firm, each lawyer is asked to put each of these skills into play.  Though it isn’t necessary to become a virtuoso in each area, it’s critical to have some level of skill.

Frederick Shelton, a legal recruiter, argues persuasively that lawyers acquire these skills at different stages of their development in this article.  (It’s worth noting that Shelton considers minders to be those with responsibility for client contact — a reminder to check definition when somewhat arbitrary terms are being used.)  Although seniority does bring opportunities to develop these skills, even the most junior associate can begin developing them today.  How so?

Being a grinder is the expected role for a new(ish) lawyer, as the first few years out of school are focused on developing the craft of lawyering.  It’s important not to skimp on that stage.  However, there’s every reason to begin networking, which will lay the ground for development of finder skills.  Likewise, it’s never inappropriate to congratulate others in your office on their accomplishments, to send a note when a family member dies, or to take on the other “binder” tasks that create a collegial sense.  Finally, though it’s difficult to take on administrative tasks as a junior associate (though more possible in smaller firms), it’s incumbent on each lawyer to learn the business of the firm, which is step one toward acquiring the skills of a minder.  Other opportunities for developing these areas will arise, particularly if you’ve trained yourself to be aware of them.

Today, identify your area of strength as a finder, minder, grinder, or binder, and then notice over the course of the week whether (and how) you perform tasks in the other areas.  That’s step one in expanding your skills.

Networking technique: bring a friend along

/0 Comments/in , , /by

For those who hate networking, walking into a room as part of a team may increase comfort and confidence.  The real beauty of this approach lies in having someone who knows you ready at hand to trumpet your skills — in other words, to introduce you glowingly (and truthfully) in a way that would come off as bragging if you do it yourself.

Here’s how it works: you and your colleague split up and circulate.  When you see your colleague in conversation with someone, you join them, and your colleague introduces you by referencing your background, your accomplishments, and what a great person you are — “Barb, meet Joe.  Joe’s an associate in my firm, and he’s doing terrific things for us.  Just last week, he argued a tough discovery motion in front of Judge Smith and not only won, but got our fees as well.  He’s a real go-getter, but I guess that’s what they teach at University of Fantastic, you know?”  (Of course, you should make sure that your buddy knows enough about you to tailor her introduction of you to the interests of the person you’re meeting.)  Following the introduction, you pick up the conversation and, after an appropriate time, your colleague drifts off to meet someone new.  You’ll want to return the favor for your buddy, and if applied well, you can make much deeper connections ripe for a follow-up using this method than you might by yourself.

From a coaching perspective, the questions to consider are these: how would you like to be introduced?  And what do you need to do on a regular basis to merit the introduction you desire?

 

Long-term career options

/0 Comments/in , , /by

When I finished law school in 1993, the expectation of joining a firm, making partner there, and staying for the entirety of a career was beginning to fade.  By this time, it’s almost an anomaly for a young lawyer to walk that path.  In 2006, a NALP study (reported in a Law.com article titled Firms Losing Top Talent to Clients) showed that 19% of associates leave their firms after their first year in practice, 40% leave by their third year, and 78% leave by their fifth year.  Where the departing associates go varies, of course — some to other firms, some in-house, some outside the law entirely.  But the bottom line is that for the majority of large firm associates, becoming a homegrown partner is no longer the presumed outcome of joining a firm as an associate.

The often-repeated “joke” that partnership is like winning a pie-eating contest only to find that the prize is more pie may well cast light on why the career path has changed so dramatically.  Equally likely is the emphasis on profits-per-partner and the rising level of what’s an “acceptable” profit.  Whatever the reason, an associate is well-advised to consider early what path she’d like her career to take.  Although the paths don’t necessarily diverge completely (because, for instance, building credibility and respect with colleagues and clients pays dividends regardless of which career path the lawyer selects), it’s possibly to think strategically toward a goal only if that goal is clear.

This month’s Law Practice Magazine is one of the best resources I’ve seen recently for hitting the highlights of the career route decision in short firm.  Articles include Making Partner — or Not: Is It In, Up or Over in the 21st Century? (reviewing modern alternatives in law firms to the old rule of make partner or get out), Is There Life After Law Firms?: Getting Off the Partnership Path (reviewing some options outside law firms), Going In-House?  Prepare for Culture Shock and Partnership Criteria: The Ground Rules of Moving Up (criteria and issues involved in making partner).  Also included are two articles written by lawyers who’ve chosen careers outside the practice: From Antitrust Lawyer to Executive Coach (written by Deborah Katz Solomon, a remarkable coach whom I’m delighted to call mentor, colleague, and friend) and From the Courtroom to the Classroom (the story of a lawyer who has moved to teaching after 25 years in practice).

While the articles included are probably not sufficient to inform career decisions fully, if you’ve been considering your long-term career plan, this issue is a must-have.  For newer lawyers who have perhaps been drifting along and hoping for the best, this issue will help you think strategically and clearly about what you want from practice and what you’re willing to put into it.  It’s great weekend reading.  Enjoy.

What could a professional coach do for your practice?

/0 Comments/in , /by

Lawyers and law firms increasingly have the concept of coaching on their radar screens, particularly as coaching continues to filter into the mainstream.  Now that the concept is well-known, the next step is gaining familiarity with how coaching actually works, what topics may be addressed, and what the effects may be over a given period of time.  The ABA Journal has stepped up to offer case studies, in which it matched 3 lawyer clients (selected from more than 100 volunteers) with 3 coaches.  The results offer tremendous insight into how a coaching relationship may function and the benefits that may result.

The ABA Journal offers three issues that stand between interested lawyers and coaching: uncertainty about what a coach might do for them, how to find the “right” coach, and how to find the time to engage in coaching.  The three lawyers (Jamie Abrams, a 5th-year associate wanting to “sharpen her career management skills;” Larry Koch, a partner in practice for more than 25 years seeking to get more clients following the loss of a significant corporate client that was acquired by another company; and Frank Petrosino, a lawyer in practice for 9 years aiming to refine his area of practice) met with their coaches for one month, and the result are impressive.

Career management

The first lawyer/coach pair met by telephone two to five times a week.  (By way of contrast, I talk with most clients twice a month, and almost never more than three times a month.)  The engagement began with an assessment that helped the associate to identify her strengths and to facilitate her growth, particularly in delegating work.  The lawyer said that working with a coach permitted her to reach for opportunities more effectively because she was prepared, and also that the coaching allowed her better to articulate her value to the firm and to develop practice goals for the next year.

Client development

The second pair spoke weekly for an hour at a time.  The engagement began by defining the state of the lawyer’s practice, including naming his key clients and clients who hadn’t terminated the relationship but also hadn’t given him any work recently.  The next step required evaluation of the lawyer’s current client relationships and how well they were functioning.  Coach and lawyer also explored the lawyer’s comfort level in business development activities — avoiding the hard sell, for instance, preferring instead to continue an organic client development path by seeking new opportunities to help clients.  These steps yielded a plan composed of practical goals (taking someone to lunch, for example) with deadlines.  The lawyer’s summary of the coaching engagement: “I think most people need this type of assistance-someone to help them with planning, execution and accountability,” Koch says. “Especially with activities that don’t come naturally and for which you haven’t been trained. . . [It] made me think about other relationships, other possibilities-and then take a disciplined approach to it all.”

Sharpening a practice area focus

The third lawyer wanted to “become the go-to lawyer for the Vermont hospitality industry.”  During the five calls of this coaching engagement, the lawyer identified his areas of marketing strength, refined those to be maximally effective, gathered data on the target client market, developed support within his law firm for going after his target clients, and came up with a strategy for setting aside time to continue his efforts.  Between the first and second calls, the lawyer arranged several lunch appointments and speaking engagements, and he even managed to sit in on a client’s management meeting.  Reflecting on the coaching experience, the lawyer said, “Obviously I have a full plate at work that I need to get done, but David’s calls gave me motivation, encouragement and energy that maybe I wouldn’t have had if he wasn’t there cheering me on.”

Conclusion

It appears that each of the clients came into the engagement highly motivated and willing to make the effort necessary to see results.  Although coaching engagements are occasionally as short as a month, they usually last in the 3-6 month range, and not infrequently they continue much longer.  However, the ABA experiment is a terrific example of what can be accomplished even in a very short period of time.  The unspoken question, of course, is whether any or all of these three lawyers would hire a coach on their own dime.  I am admittedly biased — since I am a coach for lawyers and since I’ve also been a coaching client for my legal practice — but the lawyers’ comments suggest to me that they did find significant value.

Two questions that the ABA Journal story raised but didn’t address: how to find the “right” coach and how to make the time.  Making the time does require commitment, of course, but I’ve found that the stronger the motivation to make a change, the more likely the lawyer will set aside time for coaching (and the related work) and hold that time sacred.  The “right” coach will vary among clients, but I always suggest investigating a coach’s background, experience, and coach training; the next, and most important step, is talking with a coach to get a feel for the coach’s style and personality.  Most coaches offer free consultations before beginning an engagement, since the “chemistry” is important.

What restores your professional self?

/0 Comments/in , , , /by

I often write here about taking the time for real recreation and relaxation.  It’s important for all of us (lawyer and non-lawyer alike) to do something that refills the pitcher of “self” so that we have more to pour out in service to our clients.

But there’s another dimension to restoration, and that’s getting the professional self recharged and refilled.  Have you ever been to a CLE meeting that’s so full of exciting ideas and interesting people that you feel yourself swelling with delight?  Remembering that sense of why you became a lawyer?  Knowing that, even on the difficult days, your decision was correct?  If not, you owe it to yourself to seek out that kind of experience.

Last Friday, I attended the annual conference of the DC chapter of the International Coach Federation.  (For those who are unaware, I split my time primarily between Atlanta and Orlando, but I’ve also elected to remain part of the DC coaching community following my completion of Georgetown’s Leadership Coaching certificate program.)  Make no mistake, I am delighted with my work as a coach on a daily basis.  And yet, attending this meeting popped my excitement to the next level, fueled my desire to learn and do more, and reignited by commitment to bringing the best of my self, my skills, and my experience into every coaching interaction, all in service to my clients.  It was an incredible day, and echoes of it will show up here over the next few weeks, I’m sure.

Several topics grabbed my attention sufficiently to share them here, albeit in shorthand.

First, sustainability.  I attended a program that asked how those of us who coach leaders can bring sustainability into the equation, and I expected to hear about personal sustainability.  Instead, the presentation addressed environmental and social sustainability.  I left mulling over what it means to be a citizen, personally or corporately.  I have an inchoate sense that there’s a role for lawyers beyond legislation and even beyond pro bono work… But I’ll tease that out over time.

Next, Marshall Goldsmith, executive coach extraordinaire to CEOs of companies such as Glaxo SmithKline, Ford, and many others, spoke about “feedforward” as opposed to feedback.  Rather than focusing on what’s happened in the past — which is, by definition, unchangeable — Goldsmith recommends a forward-looking process in which the subject selects a behavior to change and solicits suggestions on how that change might be accomplished.  The exercise is positive and forward-looking, and regardless of what idea is set forth to facilitate the changed behavior, the only acceptable response is, “Thank you.”  It’s a terrific process, and I commend the linked article to you for more information.  Can lawyers implement a feedforward process?  Hmmm, more to come on this.

And I attended a presentation on leadership in the context of advancement.  Perhaps you’ve seen the recent statistics showing the 40% of newly-promoted managers and executives fail within the first 18 months.  Scott Eblin spoke on his book The Next Level: What Insiders Know About Executive Success, particularly highlighting what behaviors will support leaders and which will undermine them.  There’s much more to say here as well.

Throughout the day, I met coaches with diverse specialties and training/experience.  Wonderful conversation popped at every turn.  And although I’d had only 3 hours of sleep the night before, I was energized by the day.

So… Where can you find professional reinvigoration?  How can you build it into your schedule?  Perhaps there’s a magazine that feeds your professional self?  Or a CLE topic, possibly directly related to your area of practice or possibly not, that stirs new ideas and excitement?  Perhaps it’s the pro bono work you do, research and writing or speaking, or simply meeting with colleagues for conversation about wide-ranging topics?

Next time you notice yourself feeling more energized professionally, notice what’s created that for you and notice the results it yields.  Chances are that you’ll find it develops you as a better-rounded lawyer who’s more committed to your profession and your clients.  It’s a win-win situation that deserves to be cultivated.