Dream deferred

I've been exploring the possible sources of innovative thinking in law firms. Wondering where the good ideas come from. . . .why some firms can make amazing things happen. . . what causes and supports the challenge of change in an inhospitable environment.  Here's one possibility -- and why in some cases it doesn't work.

On the staff side of things, in many instances, the marketing director or CMO is best situated to drive innovation in a law firm.  It's a combination of things. 

• By nature, a good marketing person is creative and driven to avoid precedent -- it is his job, after all, to help a law firm differentiate, not conform. 
• Strong marketing conversations almost always touch on product development or packaging of services.  Both fertile breeding grounds for new thinking.
• Unlike nearly all other staff positions, the marketing executive works shoulder to shoulder with the firm's leading decision-makers. . . . working on the promotion, characterization and amplification of the very legal work they do.  Speaking truth to power on behalf of the clients' needs and market trends.
• No one keeps an eagle eye on the competition like a CMO driven to help her firm compete.
• Nearly every job description or hire order for a law firm marketing executive contains language like, "strong leadership skills," or "creative and innovative," or "capable of leading change with and through firm leaders" and the ever popular "catalyst for change."

At the same time -- or, actually, because of this charge to innovate - the marketing function is also the clearest and biggest target when it comes to resistance. Few people like to be challenged to think differently, even fewer if they happen to be lawyers.  A marketing director talking about "better, faster, cheaper" in the context of the marketplace can - if not careful - be seen by those who are quite satisfied that what they're doing is the very best, thank you very much, as an irritant at best and an in-firm terrorist at most extreme.

Ouch!  It takes an extremely self-confident -- perhaps pathologically so? - person to throw their "really great ideas" into the maw of criticism time and time again. 

So where does this wildly creative and innovative thinker turn when this situation flares?  When the CMO feels beat down and devalued by the resistance to his ideas - the very ideas for which she's paid the big bucks by the thinkers in the firm who know that fresh ideas are needed?  When the firm's leadership shuts him out for fear of criticism of themselves?  Where do you turn to salve your wounds and renew your energy to try again? 

Easy answer:  Elsewhere.

We've all seen it happen.  A law firm hires a "water walking" CMO, pays so much money it hits the internal grapevine like a bomb and then, writing a blank check for great and new stuff to happen, steps back.  Two to three years later, the CMO is:

• Spending more time building her own credentials than promoting the firm,
• Appearing in articles, pod-casts and interviews as an expert at least as frequently as the firm's lawyers,
• Cranking up firm travel expenses on the speakers circuit,
• Being photographed with movers and shakers,
• Taking. . . .mmm. . . . perhaps a little too much credit for the firm's success, and
• Launching their own independent business activities on the side.

Then begins the doom loop.  Talk in the hallways focuses on "What does she do, anyway?" and "Who does he think he is?"  While firm leadership naively scratches their collective head about the fact that it seems the exterior world values their CMO more than they do.

The CMO starts to itch.  Her willingness to invest time (personal as well as the firm's) in outside activities brings greater and greater industry recognition - a situation so out of kilter with the internal negativity it becomes intolerable.  Headhunters start to call.

Oh, did I mention few CMOs enjoy the kind of coaching from a firm leader playing the supervisor or collaborator role that would help dodge or at least pull out of this nose dive?  Meanwhile, the important driving force for effective business innovation within the firm is essentially neutralized.

Whose fault is this?  Oh, it's different in every case.  But in all likelihood, it's shared:

• The CMO has failed to bring the necessary skills and patience to the table to provoke new thinking AND enable it through firm leadership to become a reality.  The firm's reality.  Great ideas just aren't enough for success in an environment with no hierarchy and a passion for precedent. "Telling" isn't all it takes to cause great change.  You've got to "work it," build confidence in your capabilities, build alliances, demonstrate small successes if that's what it takes to get to the big ones.   
• Firm leadership has been unrealistic about what it takes for a creative person to succeed in their firm and have been too focused on "not getting anything negative on themselves" instead of digging in and taking risks to ensure success for the program into which they originally invested so much of the firm's money. Too much managing partner time is spent neutralizing partners' complaints instead of working to improve a bad situation.

As in all situations, there are extremes.  Some marketing executives are untalented self-promoting opportunists.  Some law firms are poorly managed, short-sighted and foolish in how they spend their money and their people.

But in the end, the possibility of a great catalyst and investment for innovation. . . .for improvement. . . . for energy and enthusiasm . .. and for firm success and profitability. . . is spent. And if everyone involved is lucky, one of those headhunter calls will result in a chance to try again.

Perhaps next time we'll all be a bit smarter. 

Comments

[Anonymous CMO/JD]

Oh, Merrilyn, I'm not sure where to begin. I feel both depressed and reassured in reading this. It captures both where I am, and the state that I'm working to push through. I think you have to be so enlightened to work in this job, to be willing to subsume your ego, and to be, as you point out, soooooo patient and so willing to work within the reality of a law firm to bring thought to action. It's rewarding, but only for people who are interested in the organizational dynamics of effecting change in a law firm. You have to really love the chess game of aligning people and ideas with motivation, reward and accountability. You have to be willing to wait for months or years for your vision to be adopted. You have to be strong enough to be summarily and thoughtlessly dismissed by lawyers. You have to accept change in increments rather than as a whole. You have to wisely seek forgiveness rather than permission. And you have to really love and respect the lawyers you work with - if you don't, you won't be able to forgive their foibles on a daily basis.

The trick here is to avoid getting into the negative feedback cycle that pushes CMOs outward and breeds resentment within the firm. How do I do this? Well, I take on a couple of outward projects to feed my soul, but not too many. I feel that if I take on a few of these projects, respect for me within the firm builds - if other people think I'm an expert, perhaps I am. But too many of these, and I'll be seen as only looking out for myself, and I'll also be tempted to move on to seemingly greener pastures. But then you have to face how to keep your soul from withering when you're not feeding it a healthy diet. For me, it's the constant reminder that I have a nice, manageable life, wonderful people to work with, and a good team that is looking out for each other. Will that be enough for me for the rest of my career? Maybe not. But I try very hard to think in shorter intervals than the rest of my career. And I firmly believe that not everything is roses on the consulting side - while you may (or may not) get more respect, you don't get the pleasure of seeing the job through and witnessing your final accomplishments.

I firmly believe that only those CMOs who combine creativity and vision with emotional intelligence, relationship building, perserverence and patience are successful. And to have the latter qualities requires you to be willing, on a daily basis, to set aside your own needs and work to push the organization along. This is not "fun," or "glamorous," or "edgy," or even "respected," it is hard, often unrecognized work. It is the willingness every day to say "I would rather effectuate change than be seen by my firm (and perhaps more importantly, my peers) as a star." It is so much more subtle than the job of a CMO for a corporation or a product line. The reward is in the people part, and I'd venture to say that most CMOs don't go into that line of work with an organizational dynamics perspective or interest, which is why they are constantly moving, looking for positive feedback (that may never come). And I think that many CMOs don't spend enough time on the coaching aspect of their jobs, which for me is absolutely the most rewarding feedback loop that I can have.

You should know that your writing touched me today. I've seesawed lately in my love/hate relationship with this firm, and I'm on my own journey through this dilemma. It was good to read that someone else really understands the tension that makes the CMO position at odds with the law firm business model, and the personal consequences that flow from that tension.

[Merrilyn Astin Tarlton]

Dave, I meant to cast a skeptical eye on both sides of the equation. Often we creative types fail to be realistic about what it really takes to make magic happen in this environment. In our world, it isn't the person with the hottest new concept that wins the day. . . . it's the one who can work the system, sell the concept, get the buy-in and lead the way to something surprising.

Having a great idea? 50 cents.

Making it work against all odds? Priceless.

[Dave Bilinsky]

Merrilyn:

I think you have described the typical life-cycle of a creative person working in the daily grind of a law practice. They *say* they want innovation – but what that translates to (using a bablefish) is that they want new clients and new income streams without having to change anything to get them.

Law does not always equal innovation. Perhaps when the underlying structure is changed – ie public ownership in law firms and outside scrutiny of performance and the move to separate the practice of law from the professional administration of a law practice..then we will start to see some innovation.

But not while you have to tear the reins of power from the cold, dead hands of the partners...

*sigh*

I hope people are listening..

Dave

Dave Bilinsky
daveb@thoughtfullaw.com
blog: www.thoughtfullaw.com