We each have our own view on what good leadership looks like, but it is axiomatic that leaders need followers. It is not enough to think we are a good leader, or even for our boss to think we are a good leader. We each need to find a way of delivering the leadership that others aspire to follow. We may be put in a leadership position by the organisation, but the decision as to being seen as a good leader is for others to judge whether we like it or not. Getting their feedback is a gift we often overlook.
The ability to both give and receive constructive feedback is often seen as a strength, yet relatively few individuals actually enjoy being the provider and certainly not the receiver. This is a common dilemma with professionals who know that to improve they should elicit such feedback but are fearful of highlighting any shortcomings that could hinder any upcoming promotion. Let’s face it, quite often those we see succeed in life, have done so partly as they are incredibly good at telling people how incredibly good they are. By creating their own reality, others get on board with it and once again we are back to the dilemma of whether to elicit constructive feedback and actually improve.
The legal profession is no stranger to this scenario. For some promotion is focused on billing targets without reference to profitability or sustainability of revenue. For others it is about client relationships which are owned by individuals to the detriment of the firm. It seems only rarely because of their ability on an individual to build successful teams that drive all of the things that help the firm to succeed. Perhaps professionals value technical knowledge to the exclusion of skills and behaviours? Few clients choose their lawyer because they know the law – rather they assume that is the case and look for other skills and behaviours.
As a result, it is not uncommon for legal partners, or would be partners, to have a range of incredible professional skills, but lack basic people management or commercial acumen, or lack coaching and collaboration skills that are necessary for modern practice. So clients of all sorts still get frustrated with law firms even when they think the advice is very good. Managing Partners and HR directors at law firms have searched for solutions to this paradox and have occasionally tried to utilise one of the most common professional development tools, 360 feedback, with mixed results.
The main reasons for 360s not having become broadly successful in the legal sector are that they are often used, not as confidential development tools, but either directly or indirectly as part of the performance management process. Enticing open, honest and constructive feedback when it is potentially linked to pay and advancement is doomed to failure. Even when the 36O process is said to be confidential, the process is up against the generally held view that nowadays nothing completed online is confidential, and that any keystroke can be attributed to an individual. Lastly, of the many 360 tools available, all are aimed at the generic management market and thus, assess against a pretty standard range of management behaviours. Existing and future partners in a law firm need to demonstrate a broader range of behaviours than a typical senior manager, and so the 360 tools are insufficiently refined.
So, what are the solutions?
- Be clear about the behaviours and competencies that you as a firm value. It is these that 360 feedback is checking against.
- Articulate and embed these values – using them as a vehicle for discussing a shared view of leadership and organisational culture.
- Use a 360 tool that has been specifically designed to reflect the behaviours of either prospective partners, partners, or the partners within the core executive or leadership roles.
- Do not use internal feedback facilitators, the report should be fed back by an external consultant with the appropriate experience, skill and credibility. They need to have the ability to deal with even your most challenging partners.
- Allocate sufficient time to receive the feedback. A meaningful review will typically last 2 hours.
- Detach the 360 process completely from performance management. To do this, the report should be confidential between the individual and an external consultant. The employer should only see the resulting development plan, which again must be treated as purely a means of ensuring the individual develops and progresses.
- Stress and explain repeatedly to all involved, how confidentiality will be assured.
- Ensure that the development activities identified in the plan are properly supported, and that the plan is reviewed quarterly, (either internally or utilising the same external consultant).
- Make the use of a 360 mandatory for prospective partners and highlight that they are at the optimum time for developing much needed managerial and leadership skills.
- If possible, link the 360 feedback to a programme of executive coaching that is tasked with ensuring the 360 feedback results improve.
- Publicise success stories. If you feel that your partners are sceptical of a 360 process, always start with an individual who is more open to feedback and ensure they act as an internal champion for the process.
The legal market is changing all around us. Increased competition from unregulated businesses and solicitors working in more flexible models, greater scrutiny from regulators and competition authorities, the march of technology, the return of the accountants and ever increasing demands from clients all increase the pressure on law firms. It is leadership (at all levels) within each firm that allows firms to thrive in this environment. And engaged leadership means listening leadership. There is no better vehicle for this than a bespoke 360 feedback tool.
