Printer Friendly

Richard G. Stock*

Stanford University’s Robert Sutton co-wrote a book with Jeffrey Pfeffer called The Knowledge – Doing Gap, based on case studies of companies he and his students prepared. Sutton’s overall findings were clear: the problem is not analysis; it is how to implement. He observed that some companies had a propensity for research and analysis rather than action, and that they needed to re-do their values and vision. In highly competitive markets, new operating philosophies were needed which could be used to guide a wide range of actions in different situations.

The Straight-Talk Trap

Sutton identified five basic causes of the gap to implementation. Some apply to some firms and law departments more than to others. Consensus-building values in legal professionals make the first cause pretty common. “The Straight-Talk Trap” finds firms waiting and planning in lieu of taking action. For this one, Sutton suggests that “people get ahead by sounding smart, not by doing smart things right; the more critical people are, the more they may appear smart.” There are always one or two people in every group of 10 who fit this behaviour and who anchor 80 % of the conversation. Their colleagues incorrectly let them forge ahead. The countermeasures include career and compensation systems that place greater value on action and results than on talk. Even plans and reports that must be reduced to writing should rely on simpler, action-oriented language with systems that monitor follow-up.

When Memory Substitutes for Thinking

The second cause is “When Memory Substitutes for Thinking”. The commitment to the past re-affirms the firm’s social identity and culture. The danger of precedent is ever present, especially if the firm has been successful over the years. The usual phrases are trotted out: “If it’s not broken, don’t fix it!”; “No growth for the sake of growth”; and “We’ve always done it this way.” John Kotter’s Leading Change can help firm leaders and their teams focus on the future. Sutton and Kotter both suggest that one should give people things to do that they have never done before and that the management team be “moved around”.

When Fear Prevents Acting on Knowledge

The third cause is “When Fear Prevents Acting on Knowledge”. Sutton’s research suggested that only 38 % of workers trust their companies to keep their promises. There is a well-established fear of blame in most people. Many lawyers have the additional reflex and training for risk aversion. Few law firm compensation systems reward partners and associates for valiant effort but no success for business origination and non-billable work. Two basic design imperatives for compensation systems are that a firm gets what it measures and what it pays for. The better-balanced compensation systems for professionals provide a meaningful share of total compensation for leading groups and producing results that are developmental, higher risk and of strategic value to the firm.

When Measurement Obstructs Good Judgment

The fourth cause is “When Measurement Obstructs Good Judgment”. The cause takes on a different form in a law firm than it does in a corporate or government law department. Law firms still measure worth based on billable hours and total billings per fee earner. Yes, compensation systems level out peaks and valleys and factor in other contributions. But, while 75 % to 85 % of what an individual receives in total compensation is directly proportional to their personal economic contribution to the firm, not enough is set aside for developmental and management contributions. Ensuring the linkages are in place is critical.

When Internal Competition Turns Friends into Enemies

The fifth and final gap is “When Internal Competition Turns Friends into Enemies”. This is not an easy challenge to meet when the private practice of law tends to attract large numbers of independent-minded high achievers. The situation is not as dire in corporate and government law department settings because of values that are more corporate and reward systems that rely less on individual contribution. Law firms and large law departments must favour team players only and minimize the visibility of and rewards to individuals who do not work co-operatively.

Knowing what the five causes of the knowledge-doing gap are does not eliminate them. Law firm and law department leadership must act to prevent and close the gaps that stand in the way of delivering effective legal services and building a sustainable business.

This is an abridged version of a more complete article to be published in the February issue of Lexpert magazine.

* Richard G. Stock, M.A., FCIS, C.Adm., CMC is a partner with Catalyst Consulting, the firm designated as the Preferred Supplier for Legal Services Consulting by the Canadian Corporate Counsel Association. Richard can be reached at rstock@catalystlegal.com or at (416) 367-4447.