Tony Reiss

Firms often struggle to find effective strategies to communicate with staff. Just what is the best way of dealing with the communication aspects of a cost cutting exercise or a potential merger? Given the likely anxieties, do you keep it quiet or tell people? If you tell people, what do you say, how do you say it and through which channels?

Here are five communication strategies adopted by law firms – you will probably recognise them:

Spray & Pray:  Partners shower employees with all kinds of information, hoping that employees will be able to sort out the significant from insignificant. This is a good technique for putting information out there. But it’s poor at ensuring messages are picked up and understood. It’s as if management are saying “We’ve got this wonderful e-mail facility, so we might as well use it. Besides, I’m busy. It’s their job to know what’s going on.”

Tell & Sell:  Partners communicate a more limited set of messages, first telling employees about the key issues, then persuading them of the wisdom of their approach. More limited information is put out. But communication is still seen as a top down priority. There is not much exploration of the thoughts, needs or anxieties of others.

Underscore & Explore:  Management focuses on developing a few core messages clearly linked to organizational success, while actively listening for potential misunderstandings and unrecognized obstacles. This is a more sophisticated approach with key messages being underlined to ensure they’re fully understood. Also time is given to discussions. Communication is seen as a two way street.

Identify & Reply:  Partners identify key employee concerns and then reply to them. Less information is disseminated using this strategy and it’s probably less effective because management is not fully in control of the process. What if staff members don’t ask questions?

Withhold & Uphold:  Management withhold information until necessary. Secrecy and control are the implicit values of this strategy. This is how I remember firms used to work. Not much is communicated and little is given away even when asked. The attitude seems to be ‘Whose firm is it anyway?’

Another interesting area to explore is which communication channels are best to use. Law firms use email far too much for communication on important projects. Surely there’s a better way of cascading information down the hierarchy and using team meetings more? Then there’s posters, workshops, the intranet etc.

Finally, management seem to think that once you’ve told people, they know. The truth is that we’re all bombarded with information and need to be told several times before the message sinks in. Or is that just me?

For more insights into the important skills of communication see https://tonyreiss.com/2013/05/07/beware-those-communication-icebergs/

For further information on communication strategies see: Clampitt, DeKoch, & Cashman, “A Strategy for Communicating about Uncertainty”, Academy of Management Executive, Winter 2000, 41- 57

We tend to worry about the meeting content and not put enough emphasis on starting the meeting well. The more people present, perhaps with different perspectives, the more important it can be to set the meeting up well. Consider whether the following should be covered:

• Welcome, particularly for those that might not have visited before or who have made a long journey

• Creating the right climate
  • This is particularly important when people do not know each other or where there may be uncertainty or conflict

• Who is present and why they are there
  • Introducing new participants when most people know each other

• Gaining authority and control
  • A professional, rigorous and warm welcome will go a long way to establishing you as a Chair who is going to be firm and fair and in control
  • Consider setting ‘ground rules’ (depends on previous ‘history’ of meetings); eg no interruptions; who restarts after calling a breakout;; how decisions will be made (if relevant)

• Agenda
  • You should consider whether everyone is happy with the agenda; whether they believe other points should be included or whether points should be discussed in a different sequence
  • Check everyone’s understanding of main objectives of meeting – distinguish those things that must be resolved from ‘nice to cover’ matters;

• Timing – How long the meeting will run and how long will be spent on each of the agenda items (may not be possible for drafting/negotiation meetings)

• Your role as Chair
  • This role could include any of the following: timekeeper, “referee” for ensuring that everyone keeps to the “rules”
  • Clarify, if you are in a team, who will be leading the discussion on ‘content’
  • If leading on content as well as process – keep track on both fronts – or share roles if you are one of a team
• Processes – Suggesting any processes that might be relevant (eg whether documents are looked at paragraph by paragraph or page by page or issue by issue; who should speak, in what order, for how long)

For more thoughts about improving the effectiveness of meetings, see:

• Could Lawyers Run Meetings Better?
• Challenging Meeting Coming Up? 
• The Role of the Chair of the Meeting

Many meetings are pretty straightforward and we don’t have to worry particularly about how they’ll go – we’ll be relaxed and can respond in the moment.

Other meetings might be more challenging or stressful. There might be a lot riding on the outcome – a tricky negotiation, some bad news to impart etc. They might have lots of attendees, perhaps with different and competing interests. You may need a strategy for the meeting.

For such more challenging meetings, you might appreciate having a checklist to help you prepare:

• Being really clear about your aims
  • By the end of the meeting you hope that the following things will have been achieved and people will be thinking or feeling what exactly?
  • Are we imparting information; issuing instructions; making or implementing decisions, or; persuading others to accept a proposal
  • Any other aims (such as getting to know the client better)
  • Specific objectives
  • Agenda
  • How long should the meeting run?
  • Any ‘history’ to be taken into account?

• Who else is attending?
  • Who needs to be there?
  • What are their backgrounds?
  • What is their role in the matter?
  • What is the best way of dealing with them?
  • What are their expectations and what do they want from the meeting?

• Roles
  • Who is to chair?
  • What are the roles of others attending?
  • Who will lead the discussion on the different agenda items?
  • If note taking – purpose and level of detail required?
  • What is the client’s role (if present); who will ‘look after’ the client?

• Our strategy or tactics
  • If the other side does such-and-such, how should we respond?m
  • Might we need to call for a break? Who will suggest this ?

• Structuring an agenda
  • Consider providing details of date, time, place, attendees
  • Consider showing who is to present what during the meeting and clarifying what is expected of everybody
  • Consider allocating a time “budget” for each item
  • Consider discussing the most important items early when participants are most alert
  • Consider sending a draft agenda to attendees inviting their comments or suggestions
  • Circulate agenda and papers before the meeting so everyone can consider their views before the meeting

• Consider location/logistics of meeting
  • Home, away or neutral venue
  • Refreshments
  • Support available if needed (eg for redrafting, booking taxis etc)

• Seating plan
  • Do you need one?
  • To reinforce authority, Chair should sit at end of rectangular table or in the middle of one long side
  • To influence a meeting, try putting the “undecided’s” opposite the proponents and divide the opponents

For more thoughts about improving the effectiveness of meetings, see:

• Could Lawyers Run Meetings Better?
• The Role of the Chair of the Meeting
• How to Start a Meeting Well