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...?

Comments

[Neil McIntyre]

These are great ideas - environment is the most important aspect of a firm whose success depends on its ability to attract the best in their field. Ideas like this make me want to start my own firm and implement truly revolutionary management methods.

[David Maister]

I agree these are important points and right on target. But I don;t think I really understand why those of us who share your point of view, Michelle, seem to be fighting a LOSING battle. What you advocate is becoming less common, not more. What are we doing wrong in our attempts to have a beneficial impact on the world? If what we suggest would trruly help everyone, why isn't it happening? What do WE have to do diffreently to help make it happen other than just keep on insisting that we're right?

[Harry Styron]

Maybe the demand for potential "great people" exceeds the supply. Also, the capability of people within firms to help ordinary lawyers achieve greatness is in short supply. At the same time, the demand for legal services is high, with clients not much interested in the morale within the firms that serve them.

[Michelle Golden]

Thank you Neil. Your statement about these ideas providing an inspiration to start your own firm, managed a new way, feels rewarding to hear. I hope you will do so one day!

David, it sounds a lot like you are issuing a challenge to energize a larger "movement"! :-) Lots of thoughts coming to mind as I read your comment. One thought is that, though it is our passion, goal, and career choice to positively impact firms--and help them achieve what they say they ultimately want to achieve--isn't it the responsibility of the firms, who look to us for guidance, to ensure implementation?

Believe me when I say that I'm the last consultant on earth who wants a firm to invest in me for research and development of solutions and then, for whatever reason, fail to implement the solutions they participated in creating. Some consultants don't care though I know we have in common that we do care--probably too much.

So, given that implementation is really the firm's responsibility overall, how can consulting experts be more influential in inspiring firms to desire results? I see a few huge barriers on the implementation side:

1) Problems and Solutions are NOT Simple
2) Democratic Leadership
3) Complacency
4) Defensiveness
5) Infrastructure

Perhaps if consultants work with fewer firms but in more depth, the results would be stronger than when working with more firms, but more superficially. I am writing a new blog post addressing the above in more detail.

Harry, thank you also for your comment. If there is a shortage of people to help ordinary lawyers achieve greatness, do you think that because people aren't as bright or gifted as they "used to be" or is it because of lack of training or leadership?

If there is a shortage (and I agree the number of *great* candidates is shrinking) isn't it probably because they have other options?

Just as in any free market economy, buyers are investors and they have choices.

It is absolutely a buyer's market but the tables have turned! Employers are no longer the buyers as they were in years past. Employees are. Today's human capital can invest their career development at your firm or another firm, or in another industry altogether. Employers, now the sellers of an "investment opportunity" find themselves competing heavily to attract (and keep) the kind of people they will find valuable. It's not just knowledge workers, either. Months ago, the news reported an immigrant labor shortage for orange farmers in Florida. It seems oranges rotted on trees (about 10-20% of the 2006 crop) because the laborers had choices...they could earn better wages harvesting other crops or working in construction in the Katrina zone. The fact that entire industries have come to rely on immigrant labor because Americans do not want to perform this work -- wages aren't enticing enough given the effort and conditions required -- indicates that most people have choices and have no qualms about exercising them. So it's not just the educated who have choices, it's anyone whose abilities are in demand.

I have to disagree vehemently with your suggestion that clients don't care about morale. While they might not actively think about it, it does impact them. Professional service firms have known for years that clients don't like the effects they experience of excessive turnover among those who serve their accounts.

Further, it is absolutely proven that employees with good morale provide better customer service and better work quality that those without. Look at SouthWest Airlines versus Delta or US Air. Look at Disney versus Six Flags. Look at Nordstrom versus Home Depot. And think about any company you've contacted where you could tell an employee couldn't care less the company's reputation before during or after dealing with you compared with someone who is clearly answering the phone with a smile.

Clients DO care about morale, or at least its impact on them!

[Julie]

Perhaps the profession would be well served to start more frequent and vivid discussions about the difference between authority and leadership. People who have "authority" but are not leaders need to worry about things like staff retention, cell phone policies and dress codes so that they can feel like they're using the authority they've been given. Leaders rarely need to exercise their authority, because people want to be in their presence, learn from them and follow their examples.

Just my opinion ...