|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
In-House at The American Lawyer April 2004
When new owners put together American Lawyer Media six years ago, most of the attention focused on whether their roll-up strategy would succeed. But for me, as a newcomer and a professional watcher, the more interesting question was not about the business strategy but about a sort of organizational experiment in which the new team of senior managers seemed to be engaged: In a craft famous for its outsized egos and petty bickering, could a company succeed without hiring jerks? We won't know for a while, but so far, so good.
I was pleased, therefore, to open the latest Harvard Business Review and find that my observation had been transformed into number seven on the magazine's list of 20 "Breakthrough Ideas for 2004." In a short essay appropriately called "More Trouble than They're Worth," Robert Sutton, a Stanford professor of management science, argued that "there's a simple practice that can make an organization better. . . . [Managers] enforce 'no asshole' rules." He goes on to cite a couple of law firms that have attempted to make their names in the marketplace by adopting just such a policy. And he concludes, mordantly, that maybe the optimal situation is an organization that, despite its best efforts, still has one or two jerks running loose. They then become models who "show everyone else what not to do."
This is, as we all know, a real issue in some law firms. There are a few places where being an arrogant ass is not a badge of honor but a requirement for admission. We may not like dealing with them, but we can all respect the honesty of their consistent in-your-face approach to hiring. But most places don't aspire to that Hobbesian state; they don't want their partners fighting; they don't want screamers in the hallways; they don't want books or BlackBerrys hurled in frustration.
This, then, is the moment to institute a firmwide Jerk Audit. Most firms are in that blessed period between the end-of-year jousting over points and the arrival of the new, delicate, heavily recruited, $2,500-a-week Phi Betes who have surely read about but never actually witnessed a defenestration. A formal audit may be unnecessary, because many of you will have a list of usual suspects in need of reeducation. But a process--be it a series of off-the-record lunches with staff and junior associates or a formal survey--will send a message to the firm, provided that you act on the problems.
Partnership and brilliance have their privileges. And, to their credit, most lawyers seem to manage a decent politeness even under stress. Which only makes the outliers seem worse. At a minimum, what I'm suggesting is that you ask yourselves this question: Why do we put up with this behavior? If the answer is 2,500 value-billed hours, at least you will have identified your priorities without incurring the cost of a consultant.
To vary the old saw: can't live with them, can live without them. That's easy when they're associates, hard when partners, harder still when they're partners with real business who bridle at the thought of behavior modification. But there is a price to doing nothing.
For backbone--sorry, for expert confirmation--I refer you to number 11 on the HBR list: Accentuate the Positive. This is a paean to a new field of study called Positive Organization Scholarship, or POS. The early returns of POS suggest that successful organizations "carefully protect and nurture" employees. "It's beginning to look," the magazine concludes, "as if a positive workplace atmosphere is worth developing, and not merely for its own sake; it may be the foundation of true organizational success."
As with so much else in the law and life, it's a balancing test: true organization success or enabling the jerk? The good news is that you get to choose.
Aric Press
|
