How flexible is your leadership style?

/0 Comments/in , /by

A review of Leadership That Gets Results by Daniel Goleman (Harvard Business Review, 2000)

Daniel Goleman gained notoriety in the mid-1990s for identifying competencies related to “emotional intelligence,” or the ability to perceive, regulate, understand, and work with emotions to enhance leadership. Those competencies are self-awareness, self-regulation, motivation, empathy, and social skill. Based on research by the consulting firm Hay/McBer, Goleman identifies six distinct leadership styles, each of which uses a unique combination of the emotional intelligence competencies.

The selection of a leadership style influences not only the outcome of a particular situation, but the overall organizational climate as well. “Climate” is defined to reflect the organization’s flexibility, workers’ sense of responsibility to the organization, the level of standards set, the degree to which performance feedback and rewards offered are considered accurate, the clarity those in the organization feel about its mission and values, and the level of commitment they hold toward a common purpose. Each style affects each component of the organizational climate as well as the organization’s financial results, and each may be used effectively in certain situations. Highly effective leaders draw on multiple styles:

The styles, taken individually, appear to have a direct and unique impact on the working atmosphere of a company, division, or team, and in turn, on its financial performance. And perhaps most important, the research indicates that leaders with the best results do not rely on only one leadership style; they use most of them in a given week-seamlessly and in different measure-depending on the business situation. Imagine the styles, then, as the array of clubs in a golf pro’s bag. Over the course of a game, the pro picks and chooses clubs based on the demands of the shot. Sometimes he has to ponder his selection, but usually it is automatic. The pro senses the challenge ahead, swiftly pulls out the right tool, and elegantly puts it to work. That’s how high-impact leaders operate, too.

Goleman describes the six styles as follows:

  • The coercive style, in which the leader unilaterally directs action and requires compliance, summarized as “Do what I tell you.”
  • The authoritative style, in which the leader identifies a vision and motivates those responsible for achieving the resulting goal to choose their approach to it, summarized as “Come with me.”
  • The affiliative style, in which the leader focuses on building harmony and strong working relationships, summarized as “People come first.”
  • The democratic style, in which the leader seeks to build consensus among team members by giving each a voice, summarized as “What do you think?”
  • The pacesetting style, in which the leader sets and adheres to high standards for performance for him- or herself and the team, summarized as “Do as I do, now!”
  • The coaching style, in which the leader focuses on developing team members’ performance, summarized as “Try this.”

Although each style can be used well in a particular situation, the authoritative, affiliative, democratic, and coaching styles have a consistently positive effect on organizational climate and results. (The article includes a fascinating table that shows quantitatively the effect that each style has on each component of the organizational climate as well as the overall positive or negative effect.)

An effective leader selects the appropriate style based on the situation he or she faces. For example, immediately following a natural disaster, the coercive style would likely yield a positive effect (the leader would identify and provide direction as to what actions must be taken for the organization to weather the crisis), whereas a democratic style would be ineffective in such an emergency, as team members would waste valuable time reaching consensus.

Becoming aware of the six leadership styles may permit leaders to develop those styles that come less naturally and to choose consciously when to employ each style. Leaders may develop styles that don’t come naturally by studying the emotional intelligence competencies that underlie the style, as set forth in Goleman’s article. Although emotional intelligence may seem like a flighty buzzword, each competency contributes meaningfully toward an individual’s ability to motivate, encourage, and lead team members to high performance.

What’s in it for lawyers?

Unlike many corporate leaders, lawyer-leaders frequently lack training in or vocabulary to describe what creates effective leadership. Studying Goleman’s article is a good first step in understanding the empirical study of leadership styles and the circumstances in which each is effective. For example, though the pacesetting style is not a consistently effective model, it may be quite effective for teams composed of high-achieving, highly motivated lawyers.

Most lawyers have had the experience of working for a talented, demanding (perhaps even “obsessive”) senior lawyer who sets high standards and expects everyone to meet them as well as he or she does – someone who exhibits the pacesetting style, in other words. A pacesetting leader might learn about the drawbacks and dangers of using only the pacesetting style, including low morale that results from overwhelm in the face of unreachably high standards and fear that results from the need to second-guess what the leader wants rather than what might be most effective.

By learning to use other leadership styles masterfully, the pacesetting lawyer may round out his or her leadership repertoire and find more effective ways to evoke high performance from every member of the team. While such development requires consistent effort over time – simply reading the article will not, without more, produce meaningful change – learning the vocabulary and seeing that leadership is a science as well as an art will enhance every lawyer’s leadership abilities.

The Art of Being Fully Present

/0 Comments/in , /by

How often do you find yourself doing one activity and thinking about another? Perhaps you check email while you’re on the phone or talking to someone? Or you read the paper (or browse the web) while your partner or child is trying to tell you something?

It’s so common to do this, and when we do, we generally think we’re making good use of the time by multitasking. And yet, most of us have also had the experience of getting “busted”:  the person who’s talking realizes we aren’t listening, or we make an error because we’re juggling two (or more) tasks simultaneously. At a minimum, our stress level goes up because the brain isn’t wired for multitasking.

Instead, try being fully present with what you’re doing. If you’re in conversation, close your email and put your phone on “do not disturb” so you can direct all of your attention to the discussion. Conversations tend to go more quickly when you’re fully present because you’re at full attention, and you’ll notice that you catch not only what’s said, but also what is going unsaid that should perhaps be explored.

For instance, imagine that a colleague is briefing you on an expert witness deposition prep session and the words say all is well. If you are fully present to your colleague, you might notice tension in his face that you would miss if you were looking at papers or email while he’s talking. Seeing the tension, you’d have an opportunity to inquire and learn that although he can’t put his finger on the issue, something isn’t right about the testimony or the way the expert is presenting it. That’s valuable information that could go undetected. (Should your colleague raise the concern without being asked? Absolutely. However, many of us are uncomfortable bringing up a concern without any evidence to back it up, and so he might well not mention it.)

How to become fully present? I recommend a quick centering exercise, which can be as simple as taking 3 or 4 slow, deep breaths. Bring all of your attention to the present activity, and if you find your attention wandering, breathe deeply again and bring it back. This level of focus will allow you to be more effective and less stressed.

As Malcolm Forbes said, “Presence is more than just being there.” Being fully present focuses all of your senses on the task or person at hand. It’s a learned skill. Try an experiment: resolve to be fully present for a couple of hours a day and see what you notice. I’d love to hear your feedback!

Retreat for professional reflection

/0 Comments/in , /by

In just a few hours, I am going on retreat.  I’ll be in Wyoming, which dials deep into one of my top values — freedom.  (The image to the left is the view from my “office” during last year’s retreat.)  A retreat is, for me, time devoted to looking at where my business is, what’s going well and what isn’t, and what the next steps are.  I’ve gone on retreat around this time each year since I started Life at the Bar, and it amazes me what comes of the time.

One of the problems lawyers have with their practices is that we rarely take time to reflect on our goals and our progress toward them.  Instead, we tend to be in fast forward motion, moving forward all the time, but not pausing to ask whether our motion is getting us toward what we desire.  Michael Gerber, author of E-Myth Mastery and related books, argues that entrepreneurs must work on their businesses as well as in them.  It’s the same for lawyers, because even those lawyers who are working at mega-firms are, in a sense, leading their own businesses.  We too must stop and reflect on how our business, our practice, is running.

A retreat is the ideal way to do this evaluation.  Not the typical law firm retreat, replete with meetings and cocktails and chatter, but a private retreat.  A retreat can be enormously useful in as little as 3 hours, though a longer retreat is restorative as well as better suited for deep reflection.  Depending on what you need, both personally and professionally, you might consider retreating at home, at the office, or to a hotel/retreat center.  Consider what you need, both in terms of what creature comforts will facilitate your turning inward and also in terms of what support you need.

What questions should you ask yourself on retreat?  The list is truly endless, but here are some good ones:

1.  How well am I functioning in the office?  What changes do I need to make either in the office environment or in how I prepare myself for my workdays?

2.  What is my business vision?  What kind of practice do I want, and how well am I developing that practice?

3.  Who are my clients?  How is client development working for me, and what changes do I need to make?  What new activities do I need to undertake?

4.  How satisfied are my current clients?  How can I better serve them?

5.  Am I an active member of the legal community?  Am I meeting my own expectations for pro bono work?

6.  Am I maximizing my energy through good self-care?

7.  How is my work/life integration?  Am I honoring what’s most important to me?

8.  How am I performing as a leader?  Who must I be to become a better leader?  Where do I want or need to step up into a leadership role?

9.  What one change can I make in my life or my practice that will create greater satisfaction for me?

As we move into fall and toward the end of the year, it’s an ideal time for review and revision.  Give yourself — and your practice — the gift of a retreat.  Please contact me if you’d like support in designing a retreat or in helping with strategizing to help you reach your goals.

What challenge bothers you most?

/0 Comments/in , /by

One of my favorite questions to suggest to a lawyer who’s in conversation with a potential client or looking to deepen a conversation with a current client is this: When you’re stuck in traffic and you’re thinking about your business, what’s the challenge that comes to mind most frequently?  I love that question because it’s so universal and because it creates an opportunity for someone to share what’s really of concern, which isn’t always the same thing as the surface concern that may have prompted the conversation.  (The question is drawn from James Hassett’s marvelous book, Legal Business Development: A Step-by-Step Guide.).

Q&A: When an assignment goes awry

/in , /by

I’ve begun including a new feature in my weekly email newsletter Leadership Matters for Lawyers, called “Ask Julie.”  Readers can send in questions, and each week I select one to answer in the newsletter.  Last week’s question and response generated quite a bit of discussion, so I’m sharing it here.
The question…
I’ve been working for a partner for two years now (since I started with the firm) and I still have no idea what he wants.  He assigns something to me and tells me what he wants, but when I deliver it, he tells me he wanted something different.  Last week is a perfect example.  He asked me to prepare an outline for a deposition he’d be taking, and he told me that all he wanted was a topic outline with reference to the key documents.  He specifically said he didn’t want any questions.  So I prepared the outline and left it in his office, and about an hour later, he stormed into my office, furious that I hadn’t given him questions!  I ended up working all night.  I’m at my wit’s end with this partner.  What do I do?
 
Julie responds…

You’re in a tough spot, no question about it.    It’s difficult enough when an assigning lawyer doesn’t give enough information for you to know what he or she has in mind, but when you’re told to do something and then told that you should have done something else, it’s a no-win position.
A few suggestions that might help:  
  • Always, always take notes when this partner is giving you an assignment.  If you see him coming and you don’t have a pad and pen, get one immediately.
  • Be sure you ask clarifying questions so you’ve pinned down exactly what he’s telling you he wants.  For example, if he says he doesn’t want deposition questions, you might ask whether he’d like an outline that mirrors how the questions might go or whether he’d like a topic-only checklist.
  • For larger projects, send a confirming email and check in with the partner while you’re in the process of doing the work.
  • To the extent possible, anticipate the changes that he might make.  So, having had this deposition experience, you might choose always to write out questions (or to dictate them for quick transcription) even when he says he doesn’t want questions.  There’s a balance here, of course, between anticipating what the partner might want from you and burning time that will be cut as unnecessarily spent.  But once you’ve identified a tendency, do what you can to prepare for it.
Consider where your breaking point lies.  Your frustration is evident in your question, but how serious is it?  Should you have a respectful but pointed conversation with the partner about his reversals? (“Bob, it seems to me that fairly often you ask for one thing but really want another.  An example is when you told me not to write deposition questions, just an outline, and then asked for questions when I gave you the outline.  I know you aren’t doing this intentionally, and I want to give you exactly what you want and need to advance our cases.  How can I ensure that I’m doing that?”)  Are you ready to look for another position, either inside your firm or elsewhere?
The sole advantage of this situation is that you are learning to evaluate what’s needed for projects independently of what the partner requests.  Learn to balance your independent action with what’s likely to be useful (and therefore billable) and you’ll stand a better chance of satisfying this partner and advancing your own professional development.

Several readers wrote in either to express sympathy for the questioner or to provide some additional thoughts.  Some of the feedback I received included excellent points that I want to share with readers, especially the questioner.  Those comments follow (with the authors’ permission): 

Reader #1

Excellent suggestions.   
 
Only one additional thought for you.  More senior (than the trapped lawyer) supervisors sometimes operate on the afterthought level.  They may not have said what they meant to or the lawyer may not have understood.  It could be helpful for the lawyer to give the senior a copy of the notes.  Or even better to outline briefly what the senior said is wanted and give that to the senior.  And include a request for any suggestions the senior might have about the work outlined in the notes.  In some cases, it may help to send short work in progress reports to be sure there is a record of what the lawyer understood the senior wanted.  
 
Of course, nothing is simple or perfect.  The senior always may say at the end that’s not what was wanted, but going through an iteration process sometimes does help.  Even with the most inept senior.  And as a last resort could help with the review committee if the firm (wisely) sets that process up. 
 
Reader #2 (edited for emphasis)
I read your response to the young associate’s question of how to keep the partner happy if he changes the assignment all the time and felt compelled to respond even though comments were not invited. Frankly, I think the point of view of the partner should be considered by the associate as it highlights the inexperience of the associate in understanding the nature and purpose of the assignment. If the associate wants to take the partner literally and do “no questions” and a “topic outline” then she will never understand an assignment from any other lawyer. I think for the benefit of your readers, particularly young female associates who I have seen over 25 years not “get it” when they receive an assignment, that you ought to give the other point of view.

Here’s my two cents which comes from being a partner during the past 19 years as well as the owner of two law firms and getting my battle scars in a third large firm where I was an associate and worked with a number of partners. A partner is bombarded with more work and demands than can be met in the available time. He/she relies on associates knowing a file, knowing what information must be extracted from discovery to put together a winning strategy, and having the ability to put the facts and theory in a single lucid and useful document that a partner can literally pick up the day before the deposition, review quickly and take to the deposition with the necessary documents to ask questions.

If the partner asked for questions, the associate (as I have seen on too many occasions) would fill the paper with meaningless questions about background and other formulaic material that a partner already knows how to cover (e.g.. what is your name, how long have you worked at the abc co., what positions have you held?) So as a partner I too would say, I don’t want questions from the associate. What I want and need is an outline, by topic, with a listing of issues and subtopics that get to the heart of the matter, annotated with documents that pin the witness down on key admissions that help the case, with the documents attached to the outline in a useable format (such as one copy for every party attending, the witness and the court reporter, and a blank exhibit sticker on it so the appropriate marking can be added at the deposition, all in a folder or clipped together in a way that I can tell what question the materials apply to, and the top copy being my copy, highlighted in the areas I need to focus on); that would be a useable document and superb work product from an associate.

For example, if the topic is “knowledge of the contract in question”, the list of subtopics should include: did Mr. Smith see the contract, learn of it by reference in an email, learn of it by reference in a conversation, learn of it by reference in a meeting, learn of it by reference in a purchase order or subsequent communication from the other party, and after each subtopic (of course there would be more subtopics) a short sentence that indicates what the law firm knows about each of these scenarios, such as: “Mr. Smith was cc: on the email from Mr. Jones of 5/1/08 referencing the contract” and attach the email.      

But in all my years of practice, the associates focus on the boilerplate meaningless questions that everyone learns in law school or can find in any deposition text. The associates fail to think through why they have been given the particular assignment, how it will be used by the partner, and what is the level of detail that would make it a meaningful document for the partner. After all, the partner thought highly enough of the associate to give the assignment to her, and to charge the client for the time, so this strongly suggests the partner wanted something meaningful and useful that he did not have the time to put together himself.
Unfortunately, associates do not understand a partner’s job. If they did, they would have made partner by now. Associates instead jump on the easiest excuse at hand rather than their own lack of introspection of the assignment and its value to the partner and the client.
Your suggestions to the associate make sense but again, taken literally will cause the partner to not want to deal with that associate because it looks more like she is trying to paper a file than do the task at hand. I cannot imagine walking around a law firm without always having a pen and paper with me. One never knows if they will be stopped in the hallway with an assignment, caught offhand with a telephone call while out of one’s own office, or given an assignment simply because they were the first associate in sight and something needed to be done immediately. In any scenario, few things were more frustrating to me than an associate that walked around the busy law firm empty-handed or worse yet, came into my office without pen and paper.
Clarifying questions should be asked, of course. But if done in a way to micromanage the assignment, they are sure to offend. Similarly, sending a confirming email is seen as nothing more than papering the file, and demonstrating one really doesn’t understand the assignment. (e.g. “This email confirms you don’t want questions but want a topic outline for the deposition of Mr. Smith.”) Repeating the words used doesn’t demonstrate real understanding of what the associate was asked to do. Similarly, preparing statements that end with question marks won’t satisfy the partner when the first approach fails and will unleash his wrath when he sees the bill and the time that must be cut.
Too many associates also do not understand that young partners are in the early stages of learning how to delegate and will make mistakes like not explaining what they really need as part of an assignment; if the associate’s problem is with a young partner, she needs to factor this into her assessment of how to clarify assignments so they are done right the first time.
So what is an associate to do? Think. Think about how the document will be used and what will save the partner time such that he has asked the associate to prepare it rather than do it himself. Ask how the partner thinks he will use the document so its format fits the intended use. Ask if it would be helpful to attach a copy of relevant documents and if the partner wants enough copies for all attorneys attending and for the witness and court reporter; don’t just assume. Consider if the partner is senior or junior and whether he/she knows the file or how to do the upcoming task. (e.g. In one case, a junior partner did not know how to prepare jury instructions and asked an associate to do the project, who also had no clue how to prepare the instructions for a state court case. Regardless of rewrites and sleepless nights, neither one was going to get it right until they asked an experienced attorney what the final work product should look like.)
I have seen too many smart associates dig a hole and ruin their career at a law firm by not thinking through their assignments and then blaming it on the messenger. Inevitably, word travels that the associate doesn’t turn in what was asked for, and the assignments to the associate start to dwindle until the associate gets the message that her services are no longer desired at the law firm. Changing law firms will not solve the problem for the associate if she is not applying her own analysis to the assignment and its purpose and case goals because the same problem will occur at the next law firm.
Having defended the anonymous partner, I note that there are lawyers who change every word in a perfunctory letter, rewrite every billing entry, and change their mind as to what they want from an assignment but don’t bother to tell the associate until the last minute. If the particular partner demonstrates that type of behavior, the associate is past the breaking point and should get reassigned immediately. That type of behavior is not the norm, is rarely seen and clearly is unfair to an associate. If a law firm will not initiate a transfer under that circumstance, where it clearly knows about the partner’s track record, then it is time to move on to greener pastures.
Feel free to reprint, ignore or use my comments, in whole or part, if you wish Julie. I would very much appreciate it if the message could get out to the inexperienced associates that as licensed attorneys they have an obligation to think, initiate and improve a case assigned to them rather than work as an automaton whose every move is micromanaged. Associates need to remember that they are valued by the law firm and partner or else they would not have been hired and given the assignment. Too many good attorneys get discouraged early in their career because they do not understand their role in a case and as part of a team with the partner. As a result, the profession is losing good attorneys who get disillusioned early about the practice. The members of the bar need to be proactive and try to reverse this trend whenever possible.
Julie’s final comments
Excellent points, particularly in the second author’s last paragraph.
I’ll also share that, when I was a second- or third-year associate, I was asked for a deposition outline, with no questions and only topics. (My experience is one of the reasons I chose this question, as a matter of fact.) I asked the assigning lawyer whether he wanted any questions at all, or whether he wanted an outline that tied together the facts, documents, and legal positions so he could formulate his own questions, and he said that’s what he wanted. That’s what I prepared and (you guessed it) he was not happy when I provided him the outline, because he wanted questions. I’m not saying that I clarified perfectly, but I do hold that the miscommunication, if there was one, wasn’t attributable solely to my inexperience.
So, the original questioner must inquire which of the suggestions is most on target for his situation. Does he need to clarify, to think more strategically about the assignment, to seek assistance, or something else? Original questioner, please feel free to write in with any follow-up.

 

Protected: Workshop Audios (private post for attendees)

/Enter your password to view comments./in , /by

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

When personal life impacts professional life

/0 Comments/in , /by
One of the ways that I describe the work I do is “professional and personal coaching for lawyers.” Although I occasionally do what amounts to life coaching for someone who happens to be a lawyer, my passion lies in helping lawyers develop their professional lives, which often relates in some way to their personal lives. We are, after all, people first and lawyers second.
Sometimes, the relationship between the professional and personal sides of life becomes blurred. That may be a work/life balance issue that calls for reflection on the degree, if any, to which the lawyer wants to separate the two.

But sometimes, a lawyer will experience a personal problem that he can’t keep entirely separate from his professional life. Serious illness is one example, though the challenge there tends to come when the actual crisis is over, when recovery begins. My take on that situation is rather clear: do whatever is necessary to ensure your reclaimed health, no matter what professional consequences may follow, but conduct your affairs so that your clients don’t suffer. For more on one lawyer’s solution in this circumstance, see The Complete Lawyer article entitled The Healthiest Lawyer.

Then there are the personal circumstances that don’t have the potential for personal life-or-death consequences. Examples are a family member’s prolonged illness or death, or facing the prospect or reality of divorce. Although most of us are practiced at putting on the “game face” and getting on with work, events of this magnitude may make it difficult or impossible to manage that. Each person is, of course, different, and no solution will fit everyone. Here, however, are some ideas of coping mechanisms.

Support. Get the support you need, whether that’s counseling, a support group, a coach, or some blend of the three. Asking for help may not come naturally, but it can help you avoid mental or emotional tunnel vision and help you identify your best options.

Consider whether to share your news. Depending on the situation, you may need to let a colleague or supervisor at your firm know what’s going on. There’s no need to share details, but especially if you suspect that there will be an actual conflict between your professional responsibilities and your personal ones, it’s often best to let someone else know.

Practice centering exercises. Whether it’s meditation, yoga, or just deep breathing, physical activities can help you center yourself so you are better prepared to deal with work while you’re working and less likely to be pulled away mentally or emotionally by whatever is causing you distress. This can be as simple as sitting in silence for 3-4 minutes and paying attention to your breath, gently releasing any thoughts that may come up. The beauty of a practice this simple, of course, is that you can revisit it at any moment, without even letting others know you’re doing it.

Excellent self-care. Get enough sleep. Eat real, healthy food. Don’t drink too much alcohol. Keep your body well-hydrated. When you’re under severe stress, it’s easy to let this go, but the extra effort will serve you well.

Be realistic. You may need to cut back on your hours, take a “vacation,” or even take a leave of absence. Or you may not. Just don’t try to be a hero. A realistic appraisal of your energy will keep you from taking on too much, causing yourself to crash and burn.

Reflect. Journal writing can be a terrific tool for working through difficult issues.

Manage your energy. Take advantage of the days when you have sufficient energy to work hard. Although you can take steps to keep your energy as high as possible (the other steps suggested here, for instance), it’s a reasonably safe bet that your energy will lag at some point, and you’ll be able to work with that rhythm if you maximize your output when you can.

Remember that this, too, will pass. It’s a trite saying that may not offer much comfort in the moments of deepest pain, but the difficult times will not last forever.

Book Review: The Happy Lawyer

/0 Comments/in , /by

This is a picture of where my “office” was yesterday: I’m on retreat, spending lots of time outside reading, writing, and thinking about my business.  Here’s a link to a post I wrote last year describing how you might engage in your own retreat, to review and evaulate how your practice is running and how it might work better.  I highly recommend an annual professional retreat, whether you choose to leave town or just spend a few hours in a closed-door session.

The book you see on yesterday’s “desk” is The Happy Lawyer by Larry Schreiter.  I’d been wanting to read it because of its description, “How to gain more satisfaction, suffer less stress, and enjoy higher earnings in your law practice.”  Who doesn’t want that?  The book is a quick 188-page read, full of exercises to help clarify the practice and the clients that will allow you to create a satisfying practice.  It then continues with suggestions on how to create that practice once you’ve identified it, how to attract the clients who will appreciate your efforts, and how to engage in a happy practice.  The bottom line is not terribly surprising, though I like the way it’s presented: to be a happy lawyer, figure out what you like about practice and then find ways to get more of that.

The exercises are the backbone of the book: there’s little point in purchasing this book unless you intend to complete  them.  Certain key concepts are identified, such as finding the “Seeds of Satisfaction,” “YES! Clients,” and “Arena of Preeminence,” but since every lawyer will find different parts of practice satisfying, different kinds of clients fulfilling, and different areas of expertise appealing, there are no shortcuts to the answers.  If you’ve ever considered coaching to support your developing a satisfying practice, this book is a nice middle ground.  Similarly, if you’ve purchased this or a similar book and not done the exercises (which are important, but not urgent), you might consider engaging a coach to help provide accountability and reflection so you can get to your answers.

The Power of Nice

/0 Comments/in , /by

I’ve been doing quite a bit of reading lately (a by-product of not being able to work using my own computer) and I’m enjoying the diversity of ideas that are coming through my selections.  From the point of view of the stereotypical lawyer or law firm, the most subversive of these books is The Power of Nice, by Linda Kaplan Thaler and Robin Korval.  The subtitle is, “How to Conquer the Business World with Kindness.”  Makes you feel warm and fuzzy, doesn’t it — or is that the cold grip of skepticism?

The book’s rather unsurprising premise is that business success is facilitated by being nice.  (I prefer the word kind to nice — perhaps because nice has become almost a backhanded slur.)  The authors are in advertising, creating the campaign for the Aflac duck, among others.  They offer 6 Power of Nice Principles:

1.  Positive impressions are like seeds.  In other words, being nice prompts a variety of untraceable positive effects.

2.  You never know.  You never know when being nice to a stranger will pay off — such as holding a door for someone as you’re both entering a building, only to discover that the person is your potential client.

3.  People change.  Be nice to everyone, regardless of social station or power.  This principle is commonly known as, the feet you trample today may be the ones you have to kiss tomorrow.

4.  Nice must be automatic.  The story provided to illustrate this is that of a client who didn’t hire a particular consulting firm because an executive in the firm didn’t help her with her heavy bags when she arrived at the airport.  Had nice been automatic for this guy, the authors argue, he wouldn’t have needed to remember to help a client but would have done for her what he would have done for anyone.

5.  Negative impressions are like germs.  This is the flip side of Principle #2.  Nastiness begets nastiness.

6.  You will know.  Whether you’re nice or nasty, you face yourself in the mirror every morning and every evening.  What do you want to see when you look into your own eyes?

So, perhaps none of these principles is rocket science.  The remainder of the book provides tips on how to be nice without compromising what’s best for your business, plus “Nice Cubes,” which are small exercises designed to help the reader be nicer.  One unintended benefit of reading the book is a reminder of the importance of story to getting a point across.  When I sat down to begin writing this post, I had to look up the principles, but I could quote several of the authors’ illustrative anecdotes.  Litigators, take note.

After I finished reading (which was only an hour and a half or so after I started, since the book is just over 100 pages), I started thinking about how the principles might apply for lawyers.  It’s important to be nice to potential clients, and even more important to be nice to current and former clients, but that’s pretty much a no-brainer, right?  (But what does nice entail here?  Your answer is part of your “brand” as a lawyer.  It’s worth some thought.)

What about being nice to opposing counsel?  I hold that a lawyer may be nice/kind/amiable with opposing counsel without weakening his position.  And fortunately, many lawyers have that skill.  It’s the lawyers who don’t have it who make practice unpleasant.  What would your interactions with opposing counsel look like if you were being nice without being weak?

Perhaps the most overlooked place for niceness is in interactions with our familiars: colleagues, staff, and even our own families.  We justify being sharp and even rude because we’re pressured or stressed.  (And I promise, I’m saying “we” because I do it too!)  Some consultants and lawyers advise the use of an advance blanket apology (“when I’m rude later on this week, please know that I’m just stressed”), but I would suggest that’s a cop-out.  Working relationships are improved by limiting the rudeness and by genuine, specific apology when necessary.  Failure to take either of those steps damages working relationships.  Being nice (which can be anything from saying “thank you” for a job well done to bringing in bagels for the team on occasion) builds relationships. It isn’t a panacea, but it helps.

And finally, I suggest that nice matters especially to job applicants.  I’ve been rejected by a huge number of potential employers, and some of them stick out in my mind.  I can almost list the law firms that didn’t even acknowledged my submission; I can definitely list the would’ve-been employers who were particularly kind in their response.  And when I crossed paths with the hiring lawyer who wrote a rather nasty rejection letter, it was a real challenge to put aside that memory and to interact with her from a clean slate.  She has a reputation as a good lawyer, but I have never and would never refer a case to her because I don’t trust that she would treat the client any better than she treated me.

It’s probably worth it to read The Power of Nice; it’s absolutely worth some reflection for each of us to consider how we might be nicer.  I suspect that members of The Secret Society of Happy Lawyers harness the power of nice on a regular basis.  How about you?

Taking a short break

/3 Comments/in , /by

I suppose the flu is going around everywhere now — part of the last gasp of winter.  And, I’ve got it, and it’s hideous.

I’m going to get some rest and get well.  I’ll be back by Monday.

Until then, here’s a quote for your reflection:

“As a leader, you have to not only do the right thing, but be perceived to be doing the right thing. A consequence of seeking a leadership position is being put under intense public scrutiny, being held to high standards, and enhancing a reputation that is constantly under threat.”

— Jeffrey Sonnenfeld and Andrew Ward
Firing Back