Golden Practices

Creative and Edgy Attracts

I'm so behind in blogging. Seriously. And I know I don't actually have to tell you that. The beauty of blogs is that you, the reader, don't really know all the things I've been meaning to post and haven't yet. Except that, um, now you know.

So now that I've blown that facade completely, let me share some things worth checking out!

1. The all-around BEST website legal disclaimer you've ever seen (you'd sort of expect that from a law firm, but JUST WAIT...) is that of Valorem Law Group. Exactly what I love about Pat Lamb...

2. We've been looking at a lot of career pages on professional firm websites and absolutely LOVE the presentation of the interactive office walkthrough over at Quinn Emanuel.

3. We also love the MySpace approach over at Choate! My favorite is the bouncing ball video.

4. And would you expect anything less than edgy humor and creativity from a law firm that's comfortable with the nickname "MoFo"? I think not. I love their @$%#@! {Pigeonholed} page and their Why Mofo? page

Have you noticed these are all law firms. Ahem. Okay accountants, time to relax and let your creative juices flow!

Contrast the above with this type of video from PwC (who does do some edgy stuff, too) but you'll see their message is good but they are totally serious and low energy. Hmmm.

Any that you like?

Internal Mentoring Programs: The Wrong Approach

This post is for professional service firms who are thinking of starting a mentoring program or who have one and are wondering why it's not a brilliant success.

Assigning mentors doesn't work. And internal mentoring programs are rife with problems.

If you joined your firm before so-called 'mentoring programs' were all the rage, answer the following questions:

1. Who were/are your mentors?
2. Were they within the organization in which you worked or were they outside of it?
3. Did you select them or did they select you? (I'd bet money that no one assigned them to you)

Can a real mentor be selected by anyone but you anymore than your spouse ought to be chosen by someone other than you? (Yeah, I know that this is still done in various cultures, but how often does it work out really, really well?)

Your mentor was probably someone you encountered somewhere in your journey other than your present workplace. And I’d venture to guess that your mentor was somebody who saw promise in you and mutually admired them, and you clicked.

Mentoring is a relationship. Whether you initiated it or they did, at some point you asked their advice and they gave it. And whether you realized it or not, you also brought something to the relationship that they enjoyed. The relationship blossomed and you came to deeply value their opinions, their counsel, and maybe even their approval.

MENTEES...

Being mentored takes an open-mindedness that can only be “heartfelt” and never "required."

It requires a blend of respect for the mentor and trust that when you expose your vulnerability (because you must in order to grow with the guidance of a mentor), they will protect it and won’t judge it, exploit it, or broadcast it.

MENTORS...

Being a mentor requires a sincere desire to help the mentee succeed. It requires seeing in the mentee that ‘special something’ that they want to foster. And it is not something that can be done half-heartedly. As much as the mentee must have genuine desire for the mentor's guidance, the mentor cannot fake or feign his or her role.

Mentoring isn’t something that can be done once a month over a lunch hour. And “progress” can’t be measured objectively. It has to be judged.

MENTORING WITHIN A FIRM

When a mentor and mentee work together in a direct or indirect reporting relationship (ie the mentor has influence over compensation and advancement), there are barriers for either party to be totally “real” with each other, not the least of which is a mentee's desire for advancement and the fear that weaknesses will be held against him at promotion time.

Further, when one’s boss is the mentor, a mentee can be perceived as “a pet employee” because the boss “protects” him or her (a natural role for a mentor). It doesn’t serve either person well among his/her peers when the mentor could be viewed as displaying favoritism and the mentee perceived as a brown-noser--a label which can be unfairly applied when a direct report becomes "close" to a boss.

Having a mentor within one’s company is risky and is generally not very appealing to the mentee. Selecting a mentor outside of one's company alleviates these concerns and provides a level of objectivity the mentee really needs from her mentor.

How the mentor/mentee are paired is becomes quite problematic. Assigning can’t work. That respect/care and trust/vulnerability has to be heartfelt and real.

Some firms think they get around this by "letting" their team members select their mentor from among the partners or managers.

What typically happens is that the same few people the firm are chosen by all, and nobody selects the others. Ouch. Feelings get hurt. And damage is done because it's apparent who's "looked up to" and who isn't. And the chosen few are overwhelmed and they really aren’t inspired to mentor a ton of people (if any at all). 

SEMANTICS?

It seems to me that firms are confusing apprenticeship, or the role of preceptor, with “mentoring.”

I don’t think these are the same as mentoring. I could be wrong. I think what you are actually wanting to accomplish is KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER.

Maybe all this is semantics, but it seems to me that words do matter. I think having a forced internal initiative that you call a “mentoring program” is simply fodder for frustration on everyone’s part. It's pretty much a waste of time and energy. And it's kind of insulting to boot.

In other words, it's very possibly delivering the reverse of the effect you desire. Most “mentoring programs” fall flat in firms--considered laughable by the team members and dreaded by the leadership.

It is probably transfer of knowledge that is the most needed and least attended aspect of the continuity of a professional practice.

INSTEAD

Instead, I would recommend one of two approaches:

1.  Do create a mentoring program but encourage people to find a career/business mentor “anywhere.”  Identify him/her, ask them to be their mentor (a good classic post on this over at Escape From Cubicle Nation), see if the person is into it, connect regularly, and then, in the firm, get together as a group periodically to discuss the experience and share a recent learning.

Perhaps if someone doesn’t want to seek out a mentor, perhaps they will seek out a mentee (again, “anywhere”) and they, too, can share their learnings. A purpose of this would be to show that you value REAL mentoring and that you believe it is important for everyone to have someone who is a career mentor for them.

2. Set up an “apprenticeship program” instead if that is what you are really after (teaching people judgment, behaviors and skills) and create learning goals and objectives. Again, transfer of knowledge is the most needed and least attended aspect in the professions.

Unlike a "mentoring program," an "apprenticeship program" doesn't imply that you have to seek a person's career guidance and advice, but it does imply that the junior person can identify traits and skills to admire and emulate from VARIOUS leaders in the firm. And leaders can identify, from each other, traits and skills to OFFER and give, as a gift, to their team members.

IN CLOSING

Successful people do have mentors (whether the mentor knows that s/he serves this role or not!). But they select their own or really just evolve into the relationship. It's actually a pretty natural behavior for humans and typically begins with admiration and respect.

Let's call things what they really are and work on knowledge transfer as its own effort without trying to force the issue of internal mentoring where it is complicated with politics. Mentoring is best left to individual choice.

Gear Up for the Next Interview Season

An interesting post at HR World talks about "30 Interview Questions You Can't Ask and 30 Sneaky, Legal Alternatives to Get the Same Info"

What I don't like about the post is the title. It presents the article in a light that the content doesn't follow, which brings us to what I do like about the post.

I like the fact that the authors encourage getting past the presumed cause questions (not allowed) and takes the interviewer to the real reasons one is asking the questions.

For instance, asking about religious persuasion is nosy and, clearly, not allowed. But if the purpose is to determine availability to work, say, Sunday mornings, then the author says to just ask if there would be any problems working the weekend hours.

As one commenter wrote:

The title made me think that it would be about how to ask slimy questions in a legal way, but I thought it was actually reasonable and helpful. I would much rather tell potential employers that I am available to work any day of the week than tell them that I am an atheist.

Anyway, I cannot attest to the accuracy of the advice (I'm far from an HR expert) but the article seems reasonable and informative about some of the legalities any employer probably needs to know.

Law Students Building a Better Profession

An excellent blog came to my attention today (hat tip to Ron Baker and Stephanie West Allen). The blog's purpose is noble indeed:

Law Students Building a Better Legal Profession is a group of students from across the country dedicated to helping law firms and lawyers recommit to a legal profession devoted to effective and efficient client service, to lawyers as people, and to the roots of our profession in service. 

We are working to ensuring that practicing law does not mean giving up a commitment to family, community, and dedicated service to clients. By advocating for reforms to law firms we hope to help keep law both a business and a profession to be proud of.

Take, for instance, their insightful post entitled "Costs to the Profession" in which they provide excellent examples and citations (would you expect any less from law students?) for costs of the current system to Clients, Firms, Attorneys, and Community. This is a MUST READ post.

Another excellent post is "The Real Losers Are Associates" wherein ramifications are discussed to the rising associate salaries. After framing the issue of excalating salaries forcing increases to already high billable hour requirements, they refer to inhouse counsel reactions to crazily-high hourly rates.

“At some point, we’ll say we don’t want any associates on our matters,” said Steve Hantler, DaimlerChrysler A.G.’s assistant general counsel for government and regulatory matters.

The reaction of the bloggers is key (emphasis mine):

Uh-oh.  Many of us go to law firms — at least in part — for the training opportunities.  But students don’t expect to be taken off of matters because we’re too expensive. 

Are we really being billed out at rates clients can’t accommodate?

Should law students take this into account when choosing a firm?

Um, "yes" and "probably so."

I'm delighted to see this blog and see the richness of fresh eyes and thinking on these matters. You can read more on this group at Law.com in "Students Seek a More Reasonable Law Firm Life."

If you hire talented people--or want to--and wish for them to stick around after you hire them, I have three recommendations:

1. I'd strongly recommend you read Law Students Building a Better Legal Profession regularly to stay in touch with the thinking of bright professionals.
2. I also recommend that you frequently and fruitfully 'think about' how to improve your firm in these areas that matter tremendously.
3. My third recommendation is to attend VeraSage Institute's meeting on Oct 22 in Las Vegas. We've made it ultra-affordable so price is no barrier--VeraSage operates as a non-profit entity. It's only $129 and the Rio's room rates are running less than that per night.

Fact is, in order to solve the problems these law students so articulately bring to the forefront, some serious innovation is needed.

At the VeraSage meeting, you will meet and learn from the most innovative law firm CEO in the United States, Christopher Marston of Exemplar Law Partners. Despite being described as a meeting for young professionals, it is really a meeting for INNOVATIVE and open-minded professionals of any age.

Register for the event

Stopping the Leak: Attrition in the Professions is Getting Ugly

The legal and accounting professions are leaking like sieves.

In law, there's an 85% attrition rate of professionals who are abandoning the entire profession in their first five years. The public accounting profession is not far behind (about 65-70%, we estimate).

Among those who stay in their firms, an alarming number express no desire to become owners or partners in the business.

VeraSage Institute operates as a non-profit organization that wants to stop this flow of great people out of what could be much more interesting and fulfilling professions. IF a few things are fixed. VeraSage, therefore, is offering its first ever program geared especially for those YOUNG PROFESSIONALS who are feeling discouraged about their choice of profession.

If you feel disenchanted and wonder whether you should leave accounting or law, you MUST go to this one-day session led by two amazing young leaders of Firms of the Future: Chris Marston and Brendon Harrex. (I've written about both guys before). A majority of other VeraSage fellows and founders--from all over the world--will be there as well including me.

VeraSage just posted registration details. Don't miss this OCT 22 event in easy-to-get-to Las Vegas.

The Future is Already Here...It's Just Unequally Distributed

For a profession to be truly innovative, it must not only do new things, it must stop doing old things. It is not possible to create tomorrow without first getting rid of yesterday.

You know there has to be a better way. And there is.

Attend THE event young professionals have been crying out for--given directly by the leaders of two REAL, practicing, thriving Firms of the Future--one law firm and one accounting firm.

Brendon Harrex, 33 year-old founder of the Harrex Group in Gore, New Zealand, and Chris Marston, 31 year-old founder of Exemplar Law Partners in Boston, MA, are revolutionizing the way professional knowledge firms are led.

Brendon and Chris are two of the professions' most visionary leaders because they understand they attract knowledge workers, and therefore treat their employees radically different than the average firm: No billable hour quotas, no timesheets required, investment in education quadruple the average firm, autonomy to set your own schedule, and time set aside to pursue to your passions. Each has a waiting list of people who want to join their organizations!

Brendon and Chris understand that professional knowledge workers sell intellectual capital, not time. They don't treat their people like union employees or children who have to account for every six minutes of their day. You are not galley slaves on the SS Billable Hour, but human capital investors who deserve to be treated with respect, autonomy, and dignity. They also know the partnership model is broken and they each have innovated new ways of running the businesses of their firms.

In addition to Brendon and Chris, many of the VeraSage Founders and Senior Fellows (from 30 to 65 years of age...all doing value pricing and ALL operating without timesheets) will be on hand to share their experiences and answer your questions.

Come hear, from the horses mouths, what the future of the accounting and legal professions looks like. If you're discouraged in your "traditional" firm or wondering why you chose your profession in the first place, this is the knowledge and inspiration you need in order to reinvigorate your career.

This high-energy event promises to be extraordinary because it's the first--and maybe ONLY--time VeraSage will simultaneously feature these young leaders of true Firms of the Future. Several other Senior Fellows of VeraSage comprise a panel to field audience questions about converting a traditional firm or starting their own Firm of the Future.

The future of the profession lies in firms led by innovative individuals. If you want a sneak preview of the improved and exciting future your profession, don't miss VeraSage Institute's Inaugural Young Professional Program.

• 8:30 a.m.- 5 p.m.
• Lunch on your own from 12-1 p.m.
• October 22, 2007
• Rio All-Suite Casino Resort
• 3700 West Flamingo Road
• Las Vegas, NV 89103
• 702.252.7628

Seating is limited to 100. Secure your spot and register now for only $129. (Priced low as possible so you can afford it even if your firm won't pay...)

Accounting and Legal News Media, you need to be there, too. This is truly ground-breaking and if you don't report it, you are going to be missing the boat. Media representatives (or anyone for that matter) can call me directly for more information about this program. Or ask your questions on VeraSage.com.

Recruiting Magnets: Firms of the Future

There's so much more to this story than the recruiting angle. This story is about the future of professional service firms.

But now that I have your attention let me tell you about Brendon Harrex, a senior fellow of VeraSage Institute. He's another innovator turning the professional firm business model upside down!

Brendon, at the age of 31, became the first Chief Value Officer (ever) in his 100-person accounting firm. This means HE was solely in charge of ALL pricing. Read more about this in Ron Baker's post Who's In Charge of Value in Your Firm? where he describes Brendon's role:

If you worked at Ward Wilson, a four-office, ten-partner, one-hundred team member firm in Invercargill, New Zealand, your answer would be Brendon Harrex, who was recently appointed Chief Value Officer, responsible for creating and capturing value across the entire firm. Brendon, at age 31, is the youngest partner in the firm, and is an amazing visionary, bringing leadership not only to his firm, but our entire profession.

Then, at age 33, Brendon was elected chairman of Ward Wilson--the firm had amazing vision. But it also had aging partners who, apparently, were more concerned with their retirement than with the posterity of the profession (my words, not Brendon's!).

Ward Wilson sold to a consolidator. Brendon's window of opportunity opened and he bought out one of WW's offices, the one he led before becoming Chairman. Below is the e-mail he shared with Ron Baker and me about this.

His brilliant ad (pictured, click to enlarge) says:

"If you have get up and go and know you should have got up and left before now, consider the Harrex Group."

Now Brendon has a WAITING LIST of future employees who WANT to come work for him. Read on, the emphasis is mine:

Better Jobs and Better Places to Work

Recently learned about Jobs in the Money, a blog on jobs and career management for accounting and financial professionals. Check it out. It's written by Mark Feffer and Jon Jacobs of www.JobsintheMoney.com and www.efinancialcareers.com.

While the accounting profession goes through shifts to adapt culturally to new generations and to grapple with shortage of talent and waning interest in the partnership model, there is sure to be heightened interest in related careers.

I'm not promoting for young people to flee the profession, but heck, alternatives are out there and young professionals already know about them. So firms better perk their ears and take some action.

How, firms might ask? Step 1 - get open-minded.

My friend Ron Baker was at a conference recently where he met the two women who are responsible for ROWE - Results-Only Work Environment (their company is Culture Rx) that I wrote about awhile back on the VeraSage blog related to success that Best Buy had with ROWE.

Ron's subsequent post hits on a core issue young people have with the professions: time and results are completely unrelated. For the client or the company. Ron's post is called "Why People With No Talent Love Timesheets."

Though his title is meant to spark anger among supporters of the billable hour, the truths embedded in Ron's message cannot be ignored. Time and results are not related. Ever had an employee sit around and do nothing while on the clock? Ever feel unproductive yourself during the workday? Cases in point.

The Culture Rx people have recently launched a blog that is very interesting and will no doubt prove to be viewed as "controversial" by the conservative professions of accounting and law. We'll see. The blog is also called Culture Rx.

Do you have all the great people you need? Maybe. But it's not what I'm hearing from firm to firm.

So do you want really good people to really WANT to work at your firm? Do something about it. First step, start with an open mind.

Autonomy and Excelling, A Powerful Correlation

A lovely illustration of why micromanaging behaviors (including timesheets!) should be avoided at all costs. As Kathy Sierra (author of the wildly popular Creating Passionate Users blog) so wisely puts it:

"The more you use your reins, the less they'll use their brains."

See her whole post on micromanagement where she begins:

If you asked 100 managers which they'd prefer--employees who think, or mindless zombies who respond only (and exactly) as ordered, you'd get 100 responses of, 'What a ridiculous question. We hire smart people and stay out of their way so they can do their jobs.' And if you asked 100 managers to define their management style, none would claim to be micromanagers. Probe deeper, though, and the truth begins to emerge. 

And then she offers ways to determine if you are a micromanager and what to do if you are one or have one. Great stuff!

It's a self-fulfilling prophecy:  In case after case, it is evident that when you trust people to do well, they'll do everything in their power to show you that your trust is well-placed. But if you hold seeds of doubt as to their capabilities, they'll prove that, too.

(same as with kids...think about it, it's true!)

Who Makes Accounting Fun?

My friend Ed Kless (who works for Sage and is a fellow Fellow of VeraSage) promotes the Xerox notion, furthered by David Maister, that:

Employee Satisfaction -->  Customer Satisfaction -->  Increased Profitability (or at least, as Ed says, "Financial Performance")

If it's true, if Employee Satisfaction leads to the performance result, why don't we spend more time innovating in this area?  I think this chain is absolutely true because, quite frankly, you cannot give truly great service if you are miserable in your job.

Just look at Southwest Airlines' people versus, say, oh, any other airline...
or Disney people compared to Six Flags...
or The Container Store people compared to Organized Living...

So, is accounting fun? Does the profession "connect" with today's under 35 crowd?  Not much. But here are two cool examples!

1 - Did you know that the Maryland Association of CPAs has a presence on Second Life? Oh, and did I mention MACPA has a blog?? H&R Block and some firms are involved in Second Life, too. Interesting to keep an eye on, for sure--and a lot of work to do it right...let's see how they do.

2 - Did you know that the Hong Kong Institute of CPAs has a 2-minute music video called "Tute in Da House"? Fantastic!

Now, compare Tute in Da House with Ernst & Young's "Oh Happy Day" video... (pretty long, but the first minute conveys the whole concept).

Which is more cool? Which is more fun? How about more authentic? Which people would you rather work with?

What will your firm do to be more fun?  What should the profession do?

hat tip to Lyne Noella for the HKI video...

It's Official. Demand Outweighs Supply.

Some call this news story "good" but I call it unfortunate. Well, maybe the publicity is good...

Accounting made #1 on a list (in Am City Bizjournals) of most desired grads. It's official, accounting is hurting more than every other sector when it comes to needing qualified, interested people.

Demand officially outweighs supply. Dare I say the future we've worried about is here.

Bizjournals are reporting:

The number of new college grads hired by the service sector is expected to increase by 19.8 percent this year, based on National Association of Colleges and Employers' [NACE--a human-resources organization] findings.

Hot employment fields for grads

Employers are on the lookout this year for graduates holding the following bachelor's degrees, according to the NACE survey. They are listed in order of anticipated demand:

1. Accounting

2. Business administration and management

3. Computer science

4. Electrical engineering

5. Mechanical engineering

6. Information sciences and systems

7. Marketing and marketing management

8. Computer engineering

9. Civil engineering

10. Economics and finance

So, what can we do to make this profession more attractive? (to those in it as well as those thinking about it...)

We have people fleeing public accounting almost as fast as law (new lawyer defections are approx 85% in the first 5 years)--yet the law school pipelines are generating plenty more--not so with accountants.

And in accounting, we have people with 8, 9, 10 or more years of experience with ZERO desire to ever be owners in their firms.

Is it time to look at and try new ownership models? 
(Some of us think the traditional partnership model is broken.)

Explore a new "practice" equation, perhaps?
(My friend Ron Baker, author of Firm of the Future, explains the New and the Old Practice Equations, in this National Law Journal interview transcript.)

What will it take to open firms' eyes to the fact that it is time to do something other than let this become the next generation's problem. Let's work on improving the posterity of this profession!

Fly On The Wall #5: It's Not Us. All About Sam.

This isn't one firm, it's many. This happens several times a year.

A partner calls to tell me, "Sam is leaving...just gave notice...."  Sam is typically going to another firm or into industry.

Sam is a key player. Male or female, Sam is usually an associate or more senior "staff" person. Someone with 3-6 years of experience. A solid up-and-comer. Someone we all had high hopes for.

I'll get the call because Sam was an integral part of the development of a practice group. Sam is usually a pretty decent marketer...gets it. Understands service and relationships. Knows what it takes to make and keep a client happy. And a good enough technician to lead more junior people.

Partners rely on Sam and clients trust Sam. Sam was damn good at a lot of things. Everybody spoke well of Sam.

No one ever said Sam was perfect (no Sam ever is...) but Sam was probably going to be a partner, maybe even the next partner. Nobody had a problem with that...they were glad. Sam was good for the firm.

The firm is a decent firm. Good people who are well-meaning. Average pay. But a typical firm in the sense that deadlines are many and positive feedback is rare. Culture is decent but delegation, training, and mentoring aren't what they ought to be and the partners know they should work on this.

Sam was hope and promise for the firm's next generation. The younger team members looked up to Sam and Sam mentored them. It's a crying shame that Sam left.

It's what happens after Sam leaves that I'm writing about today.

People are heard saying, "Sam wasn't all that good, anyway." Sam <gasp> made some mistakes now and then. Sam could have been better. We'll get by without Sam. No big deal.

Truth? Or sour grapes?

You lose one Sam and maybe it IS just Sam. After all, if Sam got itchy, and no one even saw it coming, something wasn't right. Sam might have been a disloyal, untrustworthy bum. So, okay, it was Sam and not the firm.

But firms tend to lose a lot of Sams. How do I know? Partly because I get a good number of these calls.

But I also know this because lots of firms (across the accounting and legal professions) say they don't have successors. They report that, among their most senior people, none are really strong leaders or "partner material."

It doesn't seem to occur to the firms that they've had lots of Sams over the years, but the Sams were the most ambitious of their people. The most innovative. And the most antsy. They moved on.

Could the Sams see that there wasn't the type of opportunity for entrepreneurial leadership that they hoped for within the firm? Or the timeframe they desired? Could they see that firms are resistant to change and likely to do things the same way they've always been done?

In some firms, all the Sams have moved on. The Sams, being the most leadership-oriented team members, moved on and left the more laid-back, content non-Sams behind. The non-Sams are least likely to want to lead or to develop business.

If this has happened in your firm, don't be unreasonably disappointed in the people who remain. It's not that you have a bad lot--these non-Sam types are necessary, too. It's just that you've lost 'balance' in your mix or blend. Losing the more outgoing performers leaves you with the more steady, calm do-ers.

Moral(s) of the story:

If you lose more than one Sam every couple years, or if you tend to lose your Sams at about the same point in their career, it's probably you, not them. If you're in such a situation, it's most likely a result of one or more characteristics of your firm's culture. It's not usually money.

It's awfully easy to let feelings of betrayal and disappointment about Sam departures lull you into a "well, we didn't want them anyway" mindset. But this defensive mentality prevents you from learning what you need to know to make sure you don't keep losing Sams!

Look carefully at why they're leaving. Try to be open to other perspectives on what it's like to work and build a career in your firm. Understand and accept the REAL reasons people leave.

Then do what you need to do to provide the environment and culture that inspires your Sams to stay, grow, and eventually lead.

3 Positive Ways to Impact Your Firm

In a heavy conversation the other day with a friend who is also in the consulting profession, we reflected on how lawyers and accountants, through their associations, continuing education, and even with their consultants, have belabored much of the same 'stuff' for more than 20 years.

They (you...we...) worry about, ponder, and hear recommendations about, the same 'ol issues and concerns--yet they still go unresolved. These are things like recruiting, retention, cross-selling, profitability, succession, new business development, etc.

Look at the topics of most conferences, seminars, and roundtables and you'll see the same subjects over and over and over. Year after year.

So, we wondered...

• are firms going to session after session on the same topic in hopes of hearing a recommendation that is "easier" or less painful?
• is it that most firm leaders don't want resolution enough to actually take action? (ah, maybe retirement isn't that far away...and it will be the next generation's problem to solve...)
• how much is just plain overwhelm?
• or, maybe, could it be that the problems discussed are symptoms and not the real illness?

We also agreed there are some big problems that don't get talked about much. They are pooh-poohed or  swept under the rug and avoided all together.

My friend asked, "What do you think could most positively impact firms in the next 10-20 years?"

Not an easy question (and my crystal ball is in the shop) but after thinking awhile, I offered these three things:

1. Morale
2. Forethought and Reflection
3. Differentiation

Though they look small, they are not.

MORALE has dramatic impact on customer service and longevity not to mention its benefit for personnel.

Job enjoyment, magnetizing the firm to attract more and better talent, and energy toward learning and excelling--the desire for people to go out of their way to impress each other--are all tremendous results of great morale.

Much of the delegation problem is trust and training based. Great morale creates the behaviors that increase trust. Don't underestimate this as a core goal for your firm and better!

Accountants Round Up

Today is a very special day!

My associate, Sue (over there in the picture), and I are really excited to "unveil" our new blog: Accountants Round Up (pun intended!) that is aggregated accounting industry news. Shortcut URL is accountantsroundup.com.

Here's the powerquote about why we've created this:

"Accountants Round Up is created to introduce more accountants to the blogosphere. Skeptics by nature, they’ve been slower to understand and utilize this technology than many other industries, including law. While this is probably a result of information overload, we aim to show them how much more quickly and easily they can stay abreast of news for their own industry," explains Michelle Golden, president and CEO of Golden Marketing, Inc.

"Our hope is to also demonstrate just how useful RSS technology is for professionals who want to stay attuned to the industry news of the clients whom they are privileged to serve—specialized knowledge being a core element of high level service."

We won't claim originality, though. We were clearly inspired by the wonderful job Nancy Stinson does over at the Stark County Law Library blog providing similar information for the legal profession. If I have no other blog reading time in my day, I am sure to skim Nancy's aggregated news to be sure I'm catching the best posts of the day. The Stark County Law Library blog has been going strong for many years.

Maybe one day, Accountants Round Up will be that same sort of "can't miss it" resource for CPAs and Chartered Accountants, too.

Hope you like the new blog. We're pretty excited about it. Sue manages it and does a really great job. She posts a few items a day. There's about 2 months' worth of content out there now, so please go check it out! And if you like it, it's available by RSS feed or email through FeedBlitz.

Happy reading!

(See our press release on the launch: Download accountants_round_up_launch_pr.pdf )

Client Portability and Trust

Are your clients portable enough?

I don't mean portable for you to move on. I mean portable for others to take them from you. "What?!" you ask?

Always intriguing, attorney Dan Hull (pictured) over at What About Clients? says that if your associates can't steal your clients tomorrow, then they aren't involved enough and your firm isn't providing truly outrageous service.

Dan wrote:

"Dude, if you can't steal our clients, you're fired."

Every day, the client service by associates and paralegals should be good enough to permit those employees to actually steal any client, and take them to another law firm...if they were to leave your shop tomorrow morning. Period.

Fact: that's what we want at our firm, and that's what we tell associates.

If you are not, in effect, willing to go that far with your own employees in instituting and daily demanding client service, you are neither confident about client loyalty (not to mention employee loyalty) nor really serious about delivering outrageous client service to your clients.

I've never heard it put quite like this, but I think Dan's got a great point. See Dan's whole post.

In the interest of a single lawyer or accountant trying to stay "portable" (read: uncommitted, silo'd), we frequently see a tendency away from involving others on their accounts. Not only is that profitability suicide (lack of delegation and training), it's also service suicide (more people means more responsiveness, more value, more "brains" on the job), and it's an associate retention disaster.

Behind the challenge: "can you steal the client?" lies the incentive NOT to. This is a culture thing and it goes hand-in-hand with what's at the heart of Dan's message: trust.

This much trust is a people magnet. Don't you want to work in a firm that has this much trust in people?

When there is trust in a firm, culture is strong.

• Trust that your partners and team members will do the right thing for the right reasons.
• Trust that associates and other team members will learn what they need to know.
• Trust that mistakes will be made, but will be handled gracefully.
• Trust that others will represent themselves effectively with "your" clients.
• Trust that time is well spent by everyone. (no micromanaging!!)
• And trust that your outward trust will come back to you exponentially.

Trust is awesome in that, for most people, the more you trust them, the more they deserve to be trusted and will work hard to continue earning your trust. It's a beautiful thing.

Do you want people to work for and with you?

If you don't or won't trust in these things, you might want to think about what it's costing you in client turnover and lost team members.

Bosses Worthy of Raving About

An uplifting post on Lisa Hanneberg's Management Craft blog just in time for Bosses Day. It's very refreshing to hear people who adore their bosses!

Generation Gap--Less Chasm, More Fissure

I just read with great interest Allison Shields' post "What's Wrong With the New Generation of Lawyers?" referring back to a post Larry Bodine penned back in August called "Generation Gap Hurts Law Firm Marketing."

I really like Allison's take and find myself in strong agreement with her (which happens a lot, actually). What she writes above parallels (though much more eloquently) what ran through my mind when I first read Larry's post.

I don't contest the American Lawyer survey findings that 69% of associates don't expect or desire partnership. I, too, hear this in both law and accounting firms. I agree with her (a former practicing lawyer) that one cannot draw the conclusion (as did Larry) that associates not aspiring to become partner directly correlates with a lack of desire to market.

Allison nicely explains why lack of a clear desire to be partner doesn't necessarily equate to lack of willingness to market.

Just because a lawyer may not want to make partner or have a life-long legal career doesn't necessarily mean that young lawyers aren't interested in their firms, or in marketing. Most young lawyers realize that marketing and bringing in business will increase their professional reputation as well as their own personal bottom line, whether they ultimately stay with their firm or not.

From what I witness, more often than not, associates are more interested in, and willing to participate in, "organized" and "preplanned" marketing activities than are partners.

In the rare instances they don't participate, it is largely because partners don't practice what they preach (i.e. do the marketing planning and activities themselves). Other times it's because associates aren't taught the benefits or techniques of business development. Not taught the benefits to them, they might conclude their marketing efforts are just to drive more profits to partners' pockets.

Stereotypes

In Bodine's post, I really find Cam Marston's narrowly painted stereotypes of Gen X &Y to be heavily (negatively) biased. And Larry's generalization is just as bad: "They don't want to be like the people who are in charge of the firm, the Baby Boomers who have a strong work ethic, are competitive, optimistic and show success visibly with trophies and plaques."

Judging from the people in firms that I meet, this is largely untrue on both sides of the equation. Not all Gen X/Y'ers lack work ethic, competitive spirit, and optimism. Not all "Boomers" have work ethic, are competitive, or care to show success visibly. And certainly, many Boomers have lost their professional optimism.

First of all, I don't think the generations are so far apart, really.

Why do people try to create a chasm, where one needn't exist! Though there are, of course, some differences between people in their 20s/30s and their 50s/60s, it occurs to me that the problems we see in firms aren't so much due to a "Generation Gap." It's a lack of conversation.

Whether in the boardroom, or in the media, sitting around making sweeping generalizations about our differences only makes us less connected, less comfortable with each other, and not more.

Could we possibly approach this in a more UNhealthy manner?

What say we compare what we DO agree on and see how we can build from there?

Where to Start...

Allison writes:

For many lawyers, 'work ethic' has become synonomous with giving over your entire life to your firm and putting the firm ahead of everything else - family, friends, outside interests, and even health. That's not a work ethic - that's slavery. It may bring financial rewards and prestige in some circles, but it also often brings depression, alcoholism, anxiety, stress and a whole host of other problems.

I would say this applies to ALL ages/generations of professionals. Shouldn't we strive to free practioners of ALL ages from this paradigm of unhealthy work attitude?

It's time to have conversations about a better way for the professions to do business. And that includes making it better for all the generations in a firm.

The People Problem is Firms' Fault

Amidst all the legitimate concerns and problems I've seen of late pertaining to finding great people and "retaining" them, I've been extraordinarily frustrated by discussion threads I've been reading.

First, let's define "great people." 

Firms want: smart, self-motivated, self-managing, business development-minded people who will become eventual leaders. These people should be able to exercise substantial judgment in technical scenarios, recognizing when information is noteworthy or merits transmission to others, and in all forms of customer communication. They should be able to train those lower in the ranks than themselves.

These sound like knowledge workers, yes?

So now let's talk about "retention." Isn't this word awful? Doesn't it bring to mind the image of a cage or barricade? In fact, by definition, it is to "keep, hold, hold on to, hold back, keep back, keep in possession."

A knowledge worker is not retained or kept. A knowledge worker is inspired, intrigued, motivated, and intellectually stimulated. A knowledge worker needs to be TRUSTED.

A knowledge worker is, in fact, also a volunteer according to Peter Drucker who said knowledge workers invest of themselves with the expectation of a psychological ROI.

Your knowledge workers may or may not choose to come back tomorrow. Worse than not coming back, they could still come to work, but may no longer be "there" psychologically. If you measure "productivity" with timesheets and attendance, would you ever really know? Yikes.

How much thought and effort do firm leaders/management dedicate to improving their ability to inspire, intrigue, motivate and intellectually challenge their people? Very, very little.

Making minor improvements to common benefits like free sodas or vision/dental coverage is not going to entice someone to stay. These things will NOT make a drop-in-the-bucket difference when firms fail to address the true needs of knowledge workers.

Worse, I want to scream aloud when I see firms focusing intently on micromanaging stupid things like cell phone policies, dress codes and, yes, grooming policies! Good God! If we are having to tell people to bathe and comb their hair, we aren't hiring great people.

These sorts of policies underscore the firms' lack of trust of their knowledge workers. The very existence of these policies in firms draw attention to the lack of alignment between who they are and what they want.

And if we are hiring great people and telling everybody, across the board, exactly how to dress or groom because one person can't get it right, then we don't deserve all those other great people. Frankly, if one person struggles to be appropriate in personal appearance, and we write a "Policy" because we're too chicken to coach them individually, then we get what we deserve when we demoralize everyone who is not the problem.

If we refuse to equip people with cell phones so that we and our clients can reach them (accessibility is still a good thing, right?) then what does that say about the firm's commitment to service? Seriously, how much does a cell-phone cost? What is the cost of inaccessibility?

Where is the firm walking its talk?

Morale in firms is bottom of the barrel low. Adding health club or vision benefits isn't going to solve the problem. Adding petty policies to micromanage knowledge workers is another slap in the face.

Instead of treating people like children, firms should be thinking about:

1. how they are going to train and delegate more interesting work
2. how they will recognize and implement new ideas that come from the youngest, freshest minds in the firm
3. how they will encourage creativity and innovation that will get the profession through the transition to the next generation
4. how they will quit micromanaging every 6 minutes of the day
5. how they will instead look at the value the knowledge worker brings to the firm and its clients

Most firms offer an extremely unfriendly environment for professionals. Most partners agree. But most aren't doing anything to improve it, either.

Associates--the ones who stay--are shunning the "opportunity" to be partners in their firms. The problem isn't that the associates are unwilling to take responsibility, it's the firms failing to offer the opportunity to make a difference to knowledge workers who thrive on the ability to make a difference. I talk to associates in law and CPA firms every week and I hear about this first-hand. They are squelched and discouraged when it comes to new ideas.

Really want an office full of "great" professionals? Then create an environment where they will thrive, not shrivel and conform to a broken firm model.

When your knowledge workers drive home at the end of the day, do they want to come back? Or keep on going...?

Finding (or Becoming) a Great Mentor

An excellent post at Escape from Cubicle Nation is called How Can You Find a Great Mentor? in which author Pamela Slim discusses several facts about mentoring and offers must-read advice.

She notes there are three types of mentors:

1. The technical expert
2. The wise elder
3. The few-steps-ahead peer

She then discusses the characteristics of a great mentoring relationship:

• Encouragement.  A good mentor will not only provide you with valuable advice, he or she will also help you deal with the fear and stress involved in growing professionally and making a big change.
• Reciprocity.  Enduring mentoring relationships have mutual benefit built into them. Your mentor may have years of experience in his or her field, but you also must bring something to the table. Perhaps they are less familiar with technology so you can help them build a website. Whatever you do, make sure they are not the only ones offering support and advice.
• Chemistry.  A mentoring relationship is just that, a relationship. You must truly enjoy each other's company if it is to last. If you put each other at ease and make each other laugh, that will make your time together energizing and engaging.
• Gratitude.  Don't ever forget to acknowledge and thank your mentor for his guidance and advice. Lavish gifts or hollow praise are not necessary.  Good, old fashioned heartfelt thanks in the form of a handwritten note or sincere comment work the best. Let him know what his advice meant to you and how it changed the course of your life.
• Mutual respect. Even if people are very well-known in their field, they don't want to be surrounded by feet-kissing grovelers who deem themselves "not worthy." Let me rephrase that. The mentors you want do not want to be surrounded by arse-kissers. Be confident and present yourself as a humble, less-experienced equal.

She then discusses where to find mentors and how to kick off the mentoring relationship. Where to find mentors is an important topic all its own. I've never been comfortable with the notion that a firm can "appoint" a mentor for new team members.

On the contrary, smart people prefer to select their own members, if you please, and they probably are not the people to whom they report!

In fact, I just read a reference to this in a PRSA article called Ten Things You Didn’t Know About the Grad You Just Hired (And will he or she be working for you a year from now?) (hat tip to David Maister for pointing to the article today). Number 5....

Their bosses aren't their mentors.

Read both articles, you'll be glad you did.