Could Law Firms Learn from a Football Club?

Posted on 21 September 2016 by tonyreiss

goalkeeperSounds like a bizarre question. But the answer is yes and firms could learn lots from the Civil Service and GB’s track cycling squad and so many other sectors. Here’s why…

  1. No sector has a monopoly on good ideas. As an example, the top team at a leading telecoms company has been to watch the Samaritans in action and seen how to build rapport. Also Southampton FC has visited the Yehudi Menuhin School of Music to learn more about the art of practicing. Top leadership coaches have attended a rehearsal of The Bach Choir to see how to enhance performance.
  2. Diversity provides different viewpoints. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that it’s the law firms that have recruited senior people from outside the profession that have been more innovative (eg BLP with Lawyers on Demand and DLA Piper with an Innovation Director hired from PwC)

Here’s a specific tip. If you are interested in looking for ways of keeping your top female talent motivated and aspiring to be partners, try looking at how the Civil Service does it (38.7% women in senior roles overall with many departments at 50% senior women).

As markets get more competitive and go through much more change, so there are greater challenges facing law firms. Those that succeed will innovate and there are so many great ideas out there beyond the boundaries of the legal market. Go and look!

Posted in Leadership and Management, Managing Change, Strategy | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Measuring Sales Relationships but not by Value

Posted on 18 September 2016 by tonyreiss

measuring

Many organisations measure their sales efforts in too binary a way – they either have work from other organisations or they don’t. I think this is a mistake. It encourages a particularly pushy style of selling, to get their contacts to buy.

This approach is particularly inappropriate for complex, high value and repeat products or services, where the service provider needs to be seen as a trusted adviser. In many businesses, it can take months or years to win work from a rival firm.

Then, of course, what makes matters worse is that the accountants in your firm will want to measure the sales value (and the write off’s and margins).

On top of that, management tends to reward those who sell more than others by giving them a promotion or bonuses.

This culture and method of measuring and rewarding business development might not be encouraging the right behaviours. Why should anybody focus on building a relationship with a new large company where it might take 3 years to win the work when there are easier pickings from an established, though perhaps declining, client?

Here’s the answer. It’s a 10-point measurement scale and a way of putting a value on the progress of developing a relationship with a contact over time. And I think it’s totally objective. After all, there’s either evidence that the contact has returned calls or emails or there isn’t.

0 = we haven’t met them and they have probably not heard of us

1 = we have spoken on phone or sent an email

2 = they are returning our calls/emails or reading our e-newsletters 

3 = we have met them

4 = they know us well, what we do and that we are good

5 = they have said they will use our services when they have a budget

6 = they have asked for a proposal

7 = they have instructed us once

8 = they have instructed us more than twice

9 = they have referred us to other parts of the organisation

10 = they have recommended us to other organisations

Each person with responsibilities for building client relationships should set a target for their contacts – perhaps moving Joe from level 4 to level 8 over the next 12 months. At performance reviews it will be perfectly possible to assess whether objectives have been reached or not.

If the specific targets associated with my 10-point scale don’t work for your firm, I’m sure you could design your own scoring system.

As an aside, it seems to me that many established clients only get to level 8 and don’t make any referrals. That’s a shame. The best business development is usually a loyal client saying great things about you to others in the marketplace. It’s more convincing that you saying great things about yourself! So get your key relationship managers out there looking for shifts from clients from level 8 to level 10!

 

Posted in Business Development and Selling | Leave a comment

Power in Law Firms and How to Get it

Posted on 31 August 2016 by tonyreiss

powerIt was Lord Acton who said “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. But I start with the premise that some power can be a good thing when working in a law firm.

Leadership and power are closely related. People follow those who are powerful. And because other follow, the person with power leads. With enhanced power you might:

  • Get a specialist to prioritise your work over their own to provide some important advice
  • Persuade a junior to work over the weekend
  • Delegate some work upwards when you might be overloaded
  • Persuade a partner to put you on an important client team when they might have selected someone else
  • And so on!

Let’s explore power in two different aspects: hierarchical and personal.

Sources of Hierarchical Power

If you’re a partner or senior associate you can legitimately tell junior people what to do. Indeed others are probably expecting you to do so. There are thought to be three related aspects to this hierarchical power, as follows:

  • Reward Power

People in power are often able to give out rewards, such as bonuses, promotions, desirable cases or an opportunity to leave early for a dinner date! If others expect that you’ll reward them for doing what you want, there’s a high probability that they’ll do it. Even giving compliments such as ‘well done’ can be associated with this reward power.

The problem with this source of power is that it may not be as strong as it first seems. Your boss rarely has complete control over bonuses or promotions by themselves, and even partners might need permission from their head of practice for some actions.

  • Coercive Power

Sometimes you just need to get something done and don’t need others to want to do it. There may be a crisis, for example. So this is a legitimate source of power. However it can be abused. What’s more, it can cause resentment among the people it is applied to.  They might become demotivated. Some might leave if this power is over-used.

Threats and punishment are common coercive tools. You use coercive power when you imply or threaten that someone will be fired, demoted or denied privileges.

  • Informational Power

Having control over information that others would appreciate puts you in a powerful position. Having access to confidential reports, being aware of who’s due to be promoted or asked to leave, and knowing there’s a potential merger in the frame are all examples of informational power.

This power derives not from the information itself but from having access to it, and from being in a position to share, withhold, manipulate, distort, or conceal it. With this type of power, you can use information to help others, or hinder them!

But what if you are seeking power but you’re not the boss? The good news is that this is still possible. Here’s how.

Sources of Personal Power

Relying on these hierarchical sources of power alone results in a cold bossy style of leadership.  To be a more rounded leader, you need a different source of power than an ability to reward or punish or access to information. Here are two ways:

  • Expert Power 

Expert power is derived from possessing knowledge or expertise in a particular area. Such people are highly valued by organizations for their judgement and problem solving skills. People who have expert power perform critical tasks and are therefore deemed indispensable. The opinions, ideas and decisions of people with expert power are held in high regard by other staff and hence greatly influence their actions.

Possession of expert power is normally a stepping stone to other sources of power such as hierarchical power. There is widespread empirical evidence that law firms tend to promote those who are considered experts in their field – even if some other skills are missing!

  • Referent Power

In a workplace, people with referent power often make everyone feel good, so they tend to have a lot of influence. It comes from an ability to build rapport and be trusted. This might be achieved, for example, by a Human Resource manager who is known for ensuring employees are treated fairly and coming to the rescue of those who are not.

Relying on referent power alone is not a good strategy for a leader who wants long term respect. When it is combined with expert power, however, it can help you to be very successful.

You can learn lots more about power by watching others using it…and abusing it! For more on the art of influencing, see https://tonyreiss.com/2016/08/17/aristotle-on-the-art-of-influencing/

Footnote:

For more information see the original writings by John French and Bertram Raven who carried out a major study on power in 1959. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_and_Raven%27s_bases_of_power

Posted in Leadership and Management | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Training Strategies in Transit

Posted on 18 August 2016 by tonyreiss

SRAThe new SRA rules on CPD come into force on 1 November 2016. So it’s time to review your strategy for delivering training, if you haven’t already done so!

Our work with more than 60 firms in the last few years shows that firms are adopting radically different strategies for training, as follows:

Level 1: Getting Off the Ground

Most of the smaller law firms are at this stage, starting with technical legal training. There may be some, limited skills training, such as presentation skills programmes, carried out on an ad-hoc basis, often by ‘volume’ providers of training with ‘off the shelf’ designs.

Partners may be uncertain that any more training is needed – after all, they got to where they are today without it! Some partners may introduce their own training contacts and even clients as potential providers of training. There probably isn’t a specialist training manager and there probably hasn’t been a rigorous analysis of training needs.

Level 2:  Low Level Flying – Comprehensive Suites of Training Programmes

Many of the larger firms are in this category and such firms typically have established competency frameworks, performance/development reviews and clear guidelines on career progression. There is at least one senior training specialist in the firm, possibly within the HR function, though there is trend towards having directors of training and a separate training department. The separate departments tend to employ more staff, some of whom may deliver programmes.

Analysis of training needs is often done but there may not be a rigorous assessment of the overall business strategy for the firm and much attempt to link training to business strategy. There is buy-in from most of the partners, but not all, and there will be partners sniping from the side at the cost or relevance of some of the programmes.

Level 3: Stratosphere – Integrated Learning

There are only a handful of firms attempting to move to this level. Most of them have a large number of offices and practical difficulties getting the Level 2 approach to work. They tend to see suites of training programmes as the equivalent of offering a ‘sheep dip’ approach.

Instead, these firms want to tailor training strategies and delivery more closely to specific practice group or office needs. Indeed the word ‘training’ will have been largely replaced by the words ‘learning’ and ‘development’. They are using technology (eg intranets, e-learning and well-designed workshops using Video Conferencing) and on-the-job or executive coaching to supplement or replace training courses.

In these firms, there tends to be learning and development ‘account managers’ assisting the practice groups evaluate their development needs. Induction programmes are typically run locally so that participants are more aware of the business plans of their particular practice groups.

There is also an increasing trend to using 360 degree feedback and Development Centres as a basis of making training more ‘participant-centric’ and more ‘pull’ than ‘push’ in style. Action learning sets are being encouraged so that groups continue to meet up and support each other in their ongoing development. Participants are more strongly encouraged to have pre-programme and post-programme discussions with their ‘mentor’ to ensure there is a relevant and practical focus for the development.

Programmes are being assessed on more stringent criteria, such as return on investment and tangible effects on margin, growth, retention etc.

Flying Higher – Making the Transitions

For those firms considering flyer higher, there are challenges in making the transitions.  The following are suggestions for professionalising your training offering.

1. The need for buy-in

Firms will need buy-in from the partners and those for whom the training is designed. The cost of moving from Level 1 to Level 2 will raise some eyebrows with some partners unless the benefits of the programmes (as well as the risks of not running them!) are clearly expressed. Partners may find the transition from Level 2 to Level 3 easier. There is an investment needed in Learning & Development account managers and systems support, but the ongoing cost of running programmes may indeed be reduced.

To get partner buy-in for either transition, some firms find it useful to run ‘pilot’ programmes with practice groups that are ready to try something different. If word catches on that the experiment works, this helps generate some momentum for change.

2. Appropriate resources 

Level 2 training strategies can be delivered with small in-house training teams, but firms will need a squad of external training providers. The challenge for the internal team is to be clear about the learning outcomes they need from their providers and to be able to monitor the effectiveness of the training verses the objectives and the business need. They need to be involved with the external faculty in the initial phases of set up and design to ensure the messages are in line with expectations of the business.

The in-house function also needs to ensure that messages are consistent between the different providers. Some firms provide ‘faculty’ meetings to brief external providers on firm developments and look at specific issues (eg measuring the effectiveness of training interventions).

For the Level 3 approach to be effective, firms need a larger in-house team with some members of the team much closer to the business units so that appropriately-tailored programmes can be put together.

3. Processes to support the strategy

These are particularly important for Level 2 firms who need:

  • good processes for advertising programmes
  • efficient ways of diagnosing training needs
  • assessing external providers and
  • collecting assessments on the effectiveness of the training.

4. Systems to support the strategy

These are important for firms up in the stratosphere, who are finding ways of using technology to help develop knowledge and skills. For example, one firm has replaced its induction course by an on-line system in which new joiners are given tasks to go and find out information (eg through arranging meetings or interviews with key staff).

In summary, it is clear there are substantial challenges in making these transitions from Level 1 to Level 2 and even bigger issues moving from Level 2 to Level 3. The role of the Training (or Learning & Development) Departments is very different and firms will need to consider buy-in, resources, processes and systems for the transition to be successful. Perhaps the biggest challenge of all is getting partner buy-in!

For more on how trainers should deal with Prisoners, Protesters and Passengers see – http://wp.me/p1X1So-1i7
 

 

 

Posted in Coaching and Training | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Aristotle on the Art of Influencing

Posted on 17 August 2016 by tonyreiss

aristotleWhat did we ever learn from those Ancient Greeks? Well, quite a lot actually. Just take Aristotle for a start. He was interested in rhetoric and believed there were three aspects to the art of influencing. In his language these elements were called:

  • Logos
  • Pathos
  • Ethos

You might recognise these words. Our word ‘logic’ comes from Logos. We get ‘empathy’ from Pathos and ‘ethics’ derives from Ethos.

To be logical implies you’ve got the facts and figures to support your argument. It implies that you know your stuff – that you’ve not just been there, but you got the tee shirt! It means you’re credible. For me the vital element often missed in being credible is that your demeanour matches your message. Your voice and body language has to exude the fact that you are confident about your assertions.

Most of us think we’re persuaded by logic but the truth is that emotions are usually more powerful, particularly to our subconscious. That’s where the empathy or rapport comes in.

Emotional appeal can be accomplished in a multitude of ways: by a metaphor or storytelling, by a general passion in the delivery and an overall number of emotional items in your proposition Rapport can be particularly powerful if used well. But most presentations do not solely rely on empathy. Rapport is most effective when you have made the effort to get to know your audience and their values.

To the Greeks ancient and modern, the meaning of Ethos is quite deep – they saw it as the inner source, the soul, the mind, and the original essence, that shapes and forms a person. It appeals to the audience’s sense of honesty. For me a key word is trust. Will you put the considerations of others at the highest level. Do you have integrity? Do you do what you say – even if nobody is looking? How can you convince them of that?

So, Aristotle was pretty wise, at least on the influencing front.

For more on power and influence, see https://tonyreiss.com/2016/08/31/power-in-law-firms-and-how-to-get-it/

Posted in Business Development and Selling, Leadership and Management | Tagged , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Are You Biased at Work?

Posted on 12 August 2016 by tonyreiss

ThinkerSorry to be so blunt, but it turns out that you are biased! And that we all are! We tend to recruit people like us and are generally more likely to see the good in people like us. Extroverts tend to take an immediate liking of other extroverts etc.

But I’m not just talking about biases in terms of age, class, gender or psychometrics. Our unconscious biases run deep. An experiment was done that showed that job applicants were more favourably received if they had the same birth date as the interviewer!

Biases are simply preferences. They are stories we make up about people before we know who they really are.

There are good reasons why we have biases. Our brain needs to keep us safe. We are bombarded with millions of signals all the time and our brain can only cope with processing a few at a time. We fill in gaps and make assumptions. We need to make quick decisions. Is the other person ok or not?

Daniel Kahneman makes the point clearly about our tendency to think quickly (and get things wrong!) in his book Thinking Fast & Slow. Here’s a question he poses:

If a bat and ball cost $1.10 and the bat costs $1 more than the ball, how much does the ball cost?

Most people do a quick calculation and say the ball costs 10 cents.This is clearly wrong!

Different Types of Bias

There are several types of bias, but here are three important ones to consider:

  • Affinity bias – our natural bias towards those who we see as being ‘like us’, naturally excluding others as a consequence. They become part of our ‘in-group’
  • Confirmation bias – protects and strengthens our beliefs giving us reason to continue believing our own thoughts. Once we think someone else is good we can then think that everything that person does is good (the so-called halo effect)
  • Benevolent bias – we want to be kind and make decisions on others’ behalf, thereby not giving others a choice

If you’d like to tune into the realms of unconscious bias, a good place to start is to consider your current levels of awareness. Here are some ways of doing an internal audit:

  • Consider things your parents told you when you were young. Any ‘you should do this…’ or ‘you should do that…etc?’
  • Review your early experiences at work. Any memories of ‘this is how to write a good email…’ or ‘this is how to behave in a meeting…’ etc?
  • Consider what values you hold as to what is good or bad behaviour.

Next, you might explore your own biases about certain people or groups in more depth. Ask yourself:

  • What assumptions are you making about these people?
  • What effect might these assumptions have on your approach to these people and your leadership style?

The next step is to question your beliefs. For example, you may harbour a belief that part-time workers are not committed to their careers, or that working mothers may be less available for short notice travel. Such beliefs can lead to behaviour that disadvantages some over others.”

Wrapping up I’d like to consider why this is such an important issue.  I think it’s because it has been shown in various studies (see below) that diversity is good for many different reasons:

  • improved client service – with a more diverse workforce you’ll be more able to recognise the diverse needs of your client teams
  • more innovation – to be innovative you need the different ideas and perspectives from a wider range of people
  • better recruitment and retention – a more diverse culture will attract a wider range of talent who will want to stay

We probably can’t ever become bias-free. But we can look out for them and try to compensate. When recruiting, considering promotions or giving bonuses pair up with somebody who is different to you.

I’m indebted to Helen Krag of People Development Team for these insights given at a Sherwood Consulting informal lunch for clients. Helen’s latest blog deals with four challenges to address for greater diversity in law firms.”

For further reading, there are dozens of research studies on the importance of diversity. Here is a selection:

http://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/organization/our-insights/why-diversity-matters

https://hbr.org/2013/12/how-diversity-can-drive-innovation

http://news.mit.edu/2014/workplace-diversity-can-help-bottom-line-1007

 

Posted in Leadership and Management | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Merging Firms with Different Cultures

Posted on 13 July 2016 by tonyreiss

mergersMergers are still in the air – law firms, accounting firms, banks, even stock exchanges! Yet we all know that most mergers fail to deliver added value. One of the main reasons attributed to these failures is that the merging entities have different cultures and that integration is not handled well.

The following process has been designed by my Lumina Consulting partner Simon Allen and colleagues, using original thoughts developed by Barry Oshry (see http://www.powerandsystems.com). The process brings about a shared culture in the new firm. It encourages both sides to share their thoughts and feelings and most importantly both sides create the values and working practices of the new firm.

Here is an outline of the process to be used by a facilitator with further details below:

1: Define the cultures in legacy firms – One definition of culture is ‘what you stop noticing about a place after you have been there six months’…it’s the set of taken- for-granted-assumptions, mind sets and meanings that collectively reveal ‘the way things are around here’. Acknowledging and sharing the legacy cultures is an important first step. 

2: Share the legacy cultures 

3: Agree the purpose of the merged firm – ‘But what culture do we need going forward?’ This question needs to be examined in the context of the future purpose of the firm. 

4: Shift from legacy cultures to the new desired culture 

5: Develop the new culture going forward 

6: Reinforce the new culture and behaviours

Here are further guidelines for facilitators to use:

Phase 1: Define the cultures in legacy firms – work in original legacy firms:

A) Describe the values of your firm. (Note to facilitator; this makes it easy to see the priorities of each firm.)

B) Describe what is unique and special about your firm? Highlights achieved? What are your key behavioural norms? What are you proud of? (Note to facilitator: this is their culture in their own words. Aim here is for each firm to do a real boasting job.)  

C) Where do you have real or imagined difficulties with the other firm? What is the source of that difficulty? And what is the value of them? What don’t we understand about them? (Note to facilitator: the aim here is to get differences and issues articulated and also to see that differences can have value.)

 Phase 2:  Share the legacy cultures – working all together

A) Share the unique and special cultures of each firm.

  • Share what you value about each other firm.
  • State what you are proud of about your own firm.

B) What don’t you understand about the other firm?

  • State areas of non-understanding and seek responses.

Phase 3: Agree the purpose of the partnership/ merged firms – all working together  

A) What is the mission and purpose of this new firm? (Note to facilitator: it is likely that firms will have some common and some different understandings – depending on their own priorities. The aim here is to develop agreed understanding as to the purpose …..and from that start to develop ideas around vision, strategy, aims, objectives and action plans to inform the working structure and process of the new firm.)

  • Each firm share why they think they are here.
  • Identify the common ground on the purpose and build on this to develop a vision, ideas for strategy and action plans.

B) What do we need to be doing to deliver this purpose?

  • What values and behaviours are going to be needed to develop this purpose?

Phase 4. Shift from legacy cultures to the new desired culture – work in original legacy firms

A) Given 3 A) and 3 B) above, what of our legacy values and culture would we want to preserve and protect? And what of the other legacy culture would we want to allow and adapt?

B) Generate some behavioural proposals and ideas for working together in the future to make the new firm succeed.

Phase 5. Develop the new culture going forward – all working together

A) Join together and share 4A) and 4 B). Identify the common ground. These then become statements as to how the entities are going to work together. They should ultimately be seen as enshrined commitments.

B) Explore the different views.

C) Explore and decide processes for dealing with the differences.

Phase 6: Reinforce the new culture and behaviours – all working together

Agree processes for acknowledging and noticing the new behaviours. e.g. Informally via personal appreciations, e-mail etc.

Consider formally reviewing behaviours as an agenda item for team meetings and conference calls.

Consider adding appropriate sections on the firm’s intranet site etc.

Most newly merged firms get themselves snazzy new logos, but fail to address the issues of building a shared new culture. Try this process out – I know it works.

For more on merger failures see https://tonyreiss.com/2012/05/16/why-most-mergers-fail-to-deliver-on-their-promises/

For more information about Simon and Lumina Consulting see http://www.luminaconsulting.com/

Posted in Leadership and Management, Managing Change | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

How to Negotiate with Liars and Cheats

Posted on 1 July 2016 by tonyreiss

deceptionAccording to social scientists we all tell one or two lies, on average, every day. Negotiators are no exception. They may even be more deceptive as they attempt to get the upper hand. So it clearly makes sense for negotiators to take steps to deal with deception.

Leslie K. John, an associate professor at Harvard Business School has some tips in HBR July/August 2016. She points out that we’re not good at spotting deception (only 54% success). Apparently we are particularly useless when we are being flattered.

Instead of trying to improve our skills at spotting deceptions, she suggests we should adopt prevention strategies, as follows:

1. Encourage Reciprocity

Humans have a strong inclination to reciprocate disclosure: When someone shares sensitive information with us, our instinct is to match their openness. Reciprocity is particularly pronounced in face-to-face interactions. Some research also shows that people lie less to those they know and trust than they do to strangers. The world really would be a terrible place if the opposite was true!

A good way to kick-start reciprocity is to be the first to disclose something important because your counterpart is likely to share something similar.

Leslie John gives this example: ‘Imagine you are selling a piece of land. The price it will command depends on how it’s developed. So you might tell a potential buyer that you want to sell the land for the best use. This could prompt her to divulge her plans; at a minimum, you are encouraging a conversation about interests, which is critical to creating mutually beneficial deals. This strategy has the added benefit of letting you frame the negotiation, which can enhance your chances of finding breakthroughs.’

2. Ask the Right Questions

Many of us lie in a different way, by not revealing pertinent facts. A typical example would be a seller not revealing that vital equipment needs replacing—a problem imperceptible to a buyer. It might seem unethical for him to withhold that information, but he may feel that by simply avoiding the topic, he can charge a higher price while still maintaining his integrity. “If the buyer had asked me, I would have told the truth!” he might insist.

So buyers need to ask direct questions. A study found that 61% of negotiators came clean when asked about information that weakened their bargaining power, compared to 0% of those not asked.

Ms John explains:’ Research  indicates that people are less likely to lie if questioners make pessimistic assumptions (eg “This business will need some new equipment soon, right?”) rather than optimistic ones (“The equipment is in good order, right?”). It seems to be easier for people to lie by affirming an untrue statement than by negating a true statement.’

3. Watch for Dodging

Savvy counterparts can play the politicians game and answering not what they were asked but what they wish they’d been asked. Unfortunately, we are not necessarily good at spotting this sort of evasiveness. Listeners usually don’t notice dodges, often because they’ve forgotten what they originally asked. In fact, the researchers discovered that people are more impressed by eloquent sidestepping than by answers that are relevant but inarticulate.

Dodge detection is improved, however, when listeners are prompted to remember the question. It’s also a good idea to come to the table with a list of questions, leaving space to jot down your counterpart’s answers. Take time after each response to consider whether it actually provided the information you sought. Only when the answer to that question is “yes” should you move on to the next issue.

4. Avoid Dwelling on Confidentiality Issues

Apparently the more we raise the issue of confidentiality the more we can raise the counterparties concerns, causing them to clam up and share less.

Ms John and colleagues have discovered that strong privacy protections can also increase lying. In addition, they’ve found that when questions are posed in a casual tone rather than a formal one, people are more likely to divulge sensitive information.

She gives this example: ‘Imagine you are negotiating a job offer with a prospective employee and would like to assess the strength of her other options: Does she have competitive offers? She’s likely to be more forthcoming if you avoid or at least minimize confidentiality assurances and instead nonchalantly broach the topic: “We all know there are tons of great firms out there. Any chance you might be considering other places?” Of course, you should still properly protect any confidential information you receive, but there’s no reason to announce that unless asked.’

  1. Encourage Leaks

People inadvertently leak information in all kinds of ways, including in their own questions. For example, if a supplier asks what happens if they deliver late, it might signal his worries about meeting the schedule? So you need to pay attention.

In a negotiation, you might use indirect tactics to glean information. For example, give your counterpart a choice of two different offer packages—two possible ways of dividing the spoils—both of which would be acceptable to you. If she expresses a preference for one over the other, she is leaking information about her priorities and giving you insight into what’s more important to her in the negotiation.

These insights look to be really useful. With so many mergers and acquisitions out there going wrong, these tips have got to be worth a try. Happy and successful negotiating!

 

Posted in Fee Negotiating, Leadership and Management | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

How Well Do You Know Your Clients? The Magic 10 Questions.

Posted on 13 June 2016 by tonyreiss

checklist_1468169311Client satisfaction surveys confirm that clients want their professional advisors to understand their business. But how well do you know your clients?

Most firms allow partners and associates to work across a wide range of industries. This makes it very difficult to get to grips with the complexity of the competitive pressures of each client, thereby making it hard to truly provide added value.

You can probably tell that I’m a great fan of encouraging advisors to focus on particular sectors.

I’ve developed a Client Planning Tool to help you get closer to your clients. Here are the key questions you should ideally to be able to answer:

  1. What business is the client in and in which geographical markets?
  2. What strategy does the client have for developing their business over the next 3 years or so?
  3. What are the key competitive pressures in the clients’ industry? (regulatory changes, new online competitors, pricing pressures etc)
  4. Who are their major competitors and how can we help maintain their competitive advantage?
  5. Who are the key decision makers and influencers as to which professional advisors get appointed?
  6. How well do we know them individually and how can we get to know them better?
  7. Which other advisors do they currently use and what do they think their existing firms could improve on?
  8. What are they looking for from professional advisors in terms of service – relationship, cost, service, quality, responsiveness or something else?
  9. In what ways does our firm have a distinctive offering compared to rival firms?
  10. What strategy should we adopt to develop this relationship?

It may help to carry out a SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) analysis of the relationship to help you answer this last question.

Some of the answers to these questions can be found from online research. But many of them can’t! You’ll need to ask the client some questions. If you’ve invested in building a relationship with the client, there’ll be happy to supply answers.

Finally, to be successful in developing client relationships, it takes persistence and a thick skin. They might say they are going to attend a seminar and not turn up. This doesn’t mean you should give up. Keep looking for those hooks.

I did a survey for a particular firm to discover that it took an average of 3 years to become a panel firm from scratch!

For the results of a survey on client relationship management with top firms, see https://tonyreiss.com/2011/11/14/latest-developments-in-client-relationship-management-in-the-professions-based-on-a-research-study/

This is an important issue to address. Please share any other insights.

Posted in Business Development and Selling | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Are These the Reasons Women are Leaving Law Firms?

Posted on 23 May 2016 by tonyreiss
Source: Fiscal Times

Source: Fiscal Times

Sherwood Consulting has carried out an online survey with woman lawyers to find out why so many talented women are leaving the profession.

We received 59 responses and here are the key findings:

  1. Only 30% are getting sufficient developmental feedback, suggesting that most don’t feel they’re learning enough and don’t know how their performance is perceived
  2. Only 34% has a mentor who is actively supporting them
  3. Only 32% of women feel there is someone in their firm who knows what they want to achieve in their careers and is helping to create opportunities for them
  4. Most firms don’t offer any female-specific training or personal development opportunities. Only 30% of firms do.
  5. Only 23% of the respondents thought their firm offered coaching support for those returning from a maternity break
  6. Only a quarter of the respondents thought their firms offered alternative career paths and some thought such roles were looked down on
  7. Only one in three felt that their firm’s agile/flexible working arrangements meant that they could work at home when they needed to
  8. 23% of women thought their firm had a fair and transparent process for work allocation, implying there was a predominant sense that men got the best work and best clients
  9. Similarly, less than 30% of respondents thought that the system for selecting teams for pitches for new work or new clients was fair and transparent
  10. Overall, 27% of women agreed with the statement that their firm was taking enough positive steps to encourage more women through to partnership, implying that most thought their firms weren’t doing enough!

Sherwood has interviewed partners in 28 firms to hear what approaches they are adopting on gender diversity. Here are our thoughts on what they said:

Sherwood Report on Gender Balance in Law Firms – Could Try Harder!

One wonders what firms need to do differently to make better progress. Any ideas?

If you are interested in completing the survey (takes 2 minutes and you can get a full set of results), click here https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/F9ZFMD5

Sherwood is also happy to carry out a confidential survey with female lawyers in your firm so we can help diagnose what firms need to do differently to keep top female talent.

 

 

Posted in Coaching and Training, Leadership and Management, Managing Change | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment