Dynamic Strategic Planning at Clifford Chance

This being an equal opportunity blog in terms of eligibility for criticism or praise, today I offer a heartfelt endorsement of what Clifford Chance is doing right—and add that other firms aspiring to a truly sophisticated approach to their strategic decision-making could do worse than borrow from Clifford Chance's playbook.

Lest there be any misinterpretation of my previous post recounting Clifford Chance's travails following the unintentional release of information from its Paris office's CRM system, let me be clear:  The target of my ire at recounting that sorry story was Clifford Chance in third place.  In first place was the anti-intellectual, anti-nuance, anti-original-thinking scourge of Political Correctness; and in second place was the abject and jejune cowardice of Airbus/EADS, taking offense at purely imaginary slights.  Indeed, the clearest indicator of Clifford Chance's actual thinking in regard to the leaked data can be found simply through textual analysis of their spokeswoman's statement which, as I noted, used the phrase "highly inappropriate" in no fewer than three different formulations. 

"Highly inappropriate" is second only to "some concerns..." as the phrase people grasp for when they cannot figure out for the life of them what's actually wrong with something but they know to a fare-thee-well that deep moral opprobrium will attach unless they condemn it.  In other words, Clifford Chance was a victim of the toxic intersection of PC'ness with, evidently, one of the world's most thin-skinned clients.

But today we have reason to celebrate genuinely forward-looking, thoughtful leadership.  CC, in conjunction with Oxford Analytica, has developed and distributed to its partnership a geopolitical forecast for the next ten years laying out three scenarios:  (1)  That China invades Taiwan with economic embargoes against Beijing as the result; (2) that the US, licking its wounds from Iraq, retreates into isolationism; or (3) that the status quo more or less prevails.  [My money's on #3, just for the record.]

Carefully selected groups of partners within CC, organized primarily along geographic lines, have been asked to respond outlining the implications for their regions of each scenario, and estimating the likelihood of each.  Based on that, Peter Cornell & Co. will plan the firm's strategic asset allocation, with the expectation that it will commit far more resources to the US and triple headcount in China.  [Sounds like Peter's money is also on #3, no?]

But wait, there's more:  CC is also in the midst of a stem-to-stern re-evaluation of its partnership compensation system (an issue which, as we know, perpetually evades a settled equilibrium), with the expectation here being a firmer, albeit broader, endorsement of lockstep.  For a firm at CC's point on the growth/maturity trajectory, this surely sounds correct.

In short:  A highly sophisticated, rigorous and yet flexible approach to strategic planning, together with a clear-eyed attack on probably the single most contentious issue for the firm over the past five years (lockstep)—a model of professional management at the highest level.