About Bruce
Search this site:


Subscribe to E-Mail Updates
About the SiteAbout Adam Smith Adam Smith, Esq. Newsletter Adam Smith, Esq. Newsletter

October 2, 2006

Just Accomplish These Three Things

"Management by Objective."  "Management by Walking Around."  "Re-engineering."  "Six Sigma."  "Good to Great."  Even "The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People," "Who Moved My Cheese?," and "Fish." 

Exhausting, isn't it?  Everybody, it seems (at least everybody on the business best-seller list, past or current) has the silver bullet.  Do this one thing, and your organization will be healthy, wealthy, and wise.

But what if we had some real data?  Well, guess who does?  McKinsey looked at some 230 businesses from around the world over the past four years, interviewing over 110,000 individuals, and has distilled the results into some fundamental insights—which, blessedly, accord strongly with intuition—about what really matters in driving organizational excellence.

First, let's start with the sacred cows due for a de-bunking.  I can't do better than their summary, so here it is:

* The carrots and sticks of incentives appear to be the least effective of the four options commonly used to motivate and encourage employees to perform well and stay with a company.

* Applied in isolation, KPIs ["key performance indicators"] and similar control mechanisms (such as performance contracts) are among the least satisfactory options for improving accountability.

* Relying on a detailed strategy and plan is far from the most fruitful way to set a company's direction.

* Command-and-control leadership—the still-popular art of telling people what to do and then checking up on them to see that they did it—is among the least effective ways to direct the efforts of an organization's people.

Now, we know you were at zero risk of employing #4, and #3 is straight from the school of enshrining dusty 3-ring binders on bookshelves, but don't ##1 and 2 surprise you?

If "incentives [are] the least effective" and specified performance expectations ("performance contracts") are "among the least satisfactory options," then what levers are left at your disposal to push?

First, let's get fundamental organizational hygiene down.  McKinsey identifies what it describes as no fewer than 34 management practices at which your firm must be competent in order to even be in the race.  Fortunately for your sanity, there are actually only nine, although there are multiple ways to satisfy each.  An example will clarify.  "Direction," a/k/a where the firm is headed," is one of the nine top-level categories, and per McKinsey your options are:

  • Visionary: top-down, attractive, personally meaningful
  • Directive/strateigc: top-down specifics for achieving a goal
  • Engagement:  driven by input from below

You get the idea.

Back to what really creates organizational excellence, which McKinsey has identified as causally related to financial outperformance.  The three key characteristics are:

  • Clear roles, and accountability;
  • An inspiring vision of the future, a direction; and
  • A trusting culture, an environment of trust, openness, and challenge.

I told you they'd be in intuitive accord with what you know in your heart matters.

As McKinsey puts it, "Employees perform well when they are working toward a future that attracts them, know when they can operate freely, and are encouraged to improve constantly."  Whether or not you have on your bedside table a representative sampling from the current management best-seller list, we're all subject to the winds of fashion. 

"But the evidence from McKinsey's database suggests that a company's performance and underlying health are much more likely to be improved by a combination of complementary practices—especially those that provide for clear accountability, help set goals and priorities, and encourage a high-performing corporate culture. Top managers would be wise to base their actions on this evidence of proven success."

I would add this, importantly:  These McKinsey findings, albeit derived from corporate-land, have particularly dramatic application to law-firm-land.  After all, if there's anything that motivates high-performing, highly-demanding, Type A professionals, it's precisely the environment envisioned by these criteria:  An inspiring, well-articulated vision of the future; a clearly defined role for how you can contribute to getting there; and an environment of autonomy, independence, and collegiality every day.

Would you like to work at a firm like that?  So would I.

Posted by Bruce at October 2, 2006 7:23 AM | TrackBack
Posted to Cultural Considerations | Leadership | Partnership Structures | Practice Group Management | Strategy

Printer-friendly version
Comments
The McKinsey findings you so rightly publicized are easy for us to nod knowingly at. However, they contradict daily practice in most businesses, as you suggest. The mantra of measurement ("if you can't measure it, you can't manage it"), despite being flatly wrong on the face of it, is particularly widespread in the business world. Measurement as a management tool works best on impersonal processes, e.g. supply chains. In the world of human behavior, and particularly as it is applied at more and more a micro-level, it breaks down. People just flat don't like having their micro-behaviors analyzed in minute chunks. Link it with another management passion that McKinsey debunks--the insistent belief on the power of monetary rewards--and you get the dominant, low-grade, chronic management delusion of our time: linking behaviors to money. How did the modern business world come to believe in the Skinner Box model as the height of management savvy? The results are clear. We now have customer service reps scripted to ask "how may I provide you excellent customer service" and then beg for our ratings after not having done so. We now have "loyalty" programs that are based on price-shopping. And we have companies who mouth allegiance to "customer focus" and incent employees solely to extract money from said customers. The solutions, as you and McKinsey point out, lie in things that affect our humanity, not our ability to calculate money--values, visions, respect.

Posted by: Chollie Author Profile Page at October 9, 2006 7:47 PM

Email this entry to:


Your email address:


Message (optional):


Post a comment

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)


Remember me?


Law Firm Finance 101 Seminar

People Are Talking

"Adam Smith, Esq. is, and will remain, the definitive voice on law firm strategy."
David Jabbari, Global Head of Know-How, Allen & Overy

"I just don't know what the profession would do without you."
—Chairman, AmLaw 25 firm

“Constantly stunning.’—Managing Partner

"I read three things:  The Wall Street Journal, The Economist, and Adam Smith, Esq.—and I tell my partners to do the same."
—Managing Partner, AmLaw 50 firm

“You have a fascinating niche which you cover ever so much better than does the conventional legal press.”
—Walter Olson of Overlawyered

“Required reading: Amazing.”—Venture Capitalist

"You're the brand name in law firm economics. There is no one out there—repeat, no one—who covers this business better, or thinks about it more creatively, than you. I tell people this guy is really, really good."
—Chair/Managing Partner, AmLaw 50 firm

Links: law
Links: corporate law
10b-5 Daily
Business Pundit
CorporateCounsel.Net Blog
Conglomerate

links: economics
Atlantic Blog
BusFilm by Larry Ribstein
Business Pundit
Carnival of the Capitalists
Chicago Boyz
Ensight
Marginal Revolution
Ronald Coase Institute
Stephen Bainbridge
Links: tech & culture

"Adam Smith, Esq.,"® an inquiry into the economics of law firms, and the maroon banner, are a federally registered trademark belonging to Adam Smith, Esq., LLC, which is partially owned and controlled by Bruce MacEwen.

Creative Commons License
This weblog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.