Corcoran's Business of Law Blog

Entries from September 2009

Fungibility – An Organizational Malaise

September 20, 2009 · Leave a Comment

I’m a longtime fan of Stanley Bing’s irreverent take on business in his Fortune magazine column.  As with many columnists, he takes a slightly edgier tone on his accompanying Bing’s Blog.  In a recent post Bing discussed the critical employee, the one with specialized knowledge, the one who is irreplaceable.  It called to mind the old joke:

A factory machine shop mechanic retires.  Some weeks later, the machines at the factory stopped working. No one can get the equipment running again, and the factory is losing hundreds of thousands of dollars every day. The factory manager call the retired mechanic back in as a last resort. The mechanic walks through the whole place then tells the factory manager, “It’ll cost $50,050 to fix the problem.” “Anything!” he cries. So the old mechanic walks onto the factory floor, approaches a complicated series of pipes and valves, and taps a stuck valve with a small hammer. All of the equipment instantly comes online and starts humming. The factory manager exclaims in surprise, ”You’re charging us $50,050 to tap a pipe?”  The old mechanic responds calmly, ”No, I’m only charging you $50 to tap the pipe; the $50,000 is for knowing which pipe to tap.”

Too often, we fall into the trap of believing that we alone know the right pipe to tap.  This malady applies to assembly line workers, secretaries, salespeople, corner office managers, executives and even to the CEO.  In my career I’ve encountered this multiple times.  There was the sales manager who bragged that he “closed every one of his sales team’s deals personally” and the finance manager who proclaimed that “the revenue recognition model is so complex, no one else can run the reports.”  I’m sure that they believed they were establishing job security.  After all, if no one else can do the job, then they should have jobs for life.

There was once an unwritten rule in sports: you never lose your starting position due to injury.  Then in the early 1990s, Joe Montana, the 4-time Super Bowl winner, was injured and his replacement, Steve Young, had successful starts and ultimately won the starting job even when Montana was healthy again.  Montana left in a fury and was never as dominant again; Young brought another Super Bowl win to the franchise over several successful seasons.  In sports as in business, the organization or the team is what’s important.  If you are so critical to the team that we can’t live without you, then the team’s highest priority is to find a way to live without you.  Or, in other words, your irreplaceability makes you highly risky, and, therefore, replaceable.

This sounds counter-intuitive.  After all, why would we risk offending a star performer and potentially hasten his or her departure, just to ensure that we have someone ready to take his place?  It’s all about reducing the organization’s risk.  If I can’t live without you, then I can’t live with you.  If your knowledge is unique and specialized and mission critical, then my obligation as a business owner is to add redundancy.  In many cases we find that these star performers aren’t as unique and specialized as they claim.  But in other cases, we find that they are as important as they say they are.  It doesn’t matter.  The organization must reduce its risk by spreading that knowledge.

Like all aspects of organizational behavior, it’s a balancing act.  Do some managers mistakenly assume that everyone is fungible, that no one has specialized knowledge?  Yes, it happens all the time.  An old employer of mine routinely re-assigns salespeople to new territories and product lines, without any apparent regard for the importance of the relationships the salespeople have established.  And many companies lose good people and solid performers during layoffs, because they try to spread the cuts evenly rather than measuring the relative contributions of those impacted.  But just as risky is allowing the organization’s success to be funneled through one person.

In Bing’s anecdote, one of these irreplaceable employees recognizes his importance and makes some outrageous demands.  His plan backfired, and his manager began planning for a different future:

“Otto has succeeded in doing one thing,” he said darkly. “He’s made it necessary for me to think about life without him. Once I started thinking that way, I realized it was possible. Now I’m thinking, what do I need this aggravation for… to pay this much for the job that cost me so much less last year? Sure, it’ll be hard to replace him. But nobody is irreplaceable. Sometimes I have to remember that.”

Good business owners don’t allow themselves to be painted into a corner.  It’s important to grow your people, to provide them training so that they become subject matter experts.  But at the point where this specialized knowledge becomes mission critical and no one else can perform the role, then it’s time to share the knowledge.  Done right, the expert then moves up to bigger and better things.  Whether or not we actually have a plan in place to keep star performers moving up is a topic for another day.

Update: According to Bing, Otto ultimtely received the raise he demanded.  I faced this same situation some years ago when I met a valued employee’s aggressive demands.  I then spent the next year making him dispensable, and eventually he moved on.  While some thought it was retaliation, it actually resulted from his raising my awareness to the shocking fact that we couldn’t operate without him.  Had he never made the outrageous demands, he might still be there today.

Categories: Business · Law Practice Management · Legal Vendors

The ACC Challenge – What does it mean for law firm technologists?

September 17, 2009 · 2 Comments

I recently had the pleasure of speaking on a panel at the ILTA 2009 Conference in suburban Washington, DC.  ILTA is “the premier peer networking organization, providing information to members to maximize the value of technology in support of the legal profession.”  The panel was organized by Bryan Cave partner John Alber, a longtime thought leader at the nexus of technology and the practice of law.  See here for some excellent examples of his mind at work.  I was joined by Connie Hoffman, CIO at Bryan Cave, a woman with a very distinguished career leading technology initiatives in the corporate sector, and Fred Krebs, the President of ACC, the Association of Corporate Counsel, which launched the initiative that formed the basis for our discussion.  Fred has led his organization for many years into the tough issues surrounding the in-house counsel and outside counsel relationship.

The panel was attended primarily by law firm technologists, most in senior roles, along with a smattering of law firm leaders from varying firm sizes.  The purpose of the panel was, as described by the title, to describe the ACC Value Challenge and how it will impact law firm technologists. Or, more to the point, how law firm technologists can impact the ACC Value Challenge.  Regular readers will recognize the ACC Value Challenge right away.  ACC has put a voice and a framework around the need to improve the value proposition for long-suffering in-house counsel, that is, deriving quality work product at a fair price.  I say long-suffering partially tongue in cheek.  As I’ve written previously, any party who considers himself long-suffering at the hands of another is partly culpable for not changing his situation.  ACC recognized that in-house counsel lament how the balance of economic power in their relationship with outside counsel has long been dominated by the law firms, so they decided to stop complaining and do something about it.  Hear hear, I say.

FarSide

I commenced my remarks with this Gary Larson “Far Side” comic.  I’d like to say that improving the dynamic between in-house and outside counsel, that improving efficiency, that deriving better value, is all about better use of technology tools.  But it’s not.  Unlike the dog chieftain, it’s not necessarily our time as technologists to save the day.  At least not primarily through the use of technology.

I strongly believe, through long trial and error in my own career, that real transformation comes from business process improvement, of which technology is and should be a vital component.

I won’t replay the entire panel discussion here, but I have provided a link below to an excellent recap of the session.  I will, however, emphasize one of my closing points.  While technology may not be a miracle cure to help law departments and law firms improve efficiency and drive costs out of commodity services, the processes that good technologists utilize to implement technology are exactly the skills needed now.  Good technology implementations start with business process reviews, understanding what works, and what doesn’t, what are the dependencies, where are the decision points, and so on.  Then there is a rigorous methodology to move from idea to implementation, with tracking and reporting along the way to measure progress, and post mortem analyses to identify opportunities for improvement.

In part due to the ACC Challenge, in part due to the efforts of the Legal Process Outsourcing (LPO) providers offering commodity legal services at a fraction of the rates charged by Biglaw, we will soon see more in-house counsel and outside counsel adopt project management techniques, allowing them to better deploy resources and reduce inefficiencies while continuing to deliver quality services.  Technologists are perfectly positioned to contribute to this transformation by modeling these behaviors that are so vital to the implementation of good technology solutions.  But be forewarned, a technologist braying that “technology is the answer” and ignoring business process improvement is as markedly out-of-step with the times as a Biglaw leader claiming that with the end of the recession will come a return to the rightful balance of power where law firms dictate the prices.  You know who you are… don’t you?

For a much more robust recap of the ILTA session, see Susan Jacobsen’s article here.  See also Fred’s commentary here.

Categories: Law Department Management · Law Practice Management