The power of a great story is derived in part from the power of the character or characters on which that story is based. That is one reason that an increasing number of sophisticated organizations are telling their stories through the character of their leaders, members, customers, clients and contributors.

These organizations are better defining themselves to the public in the reflective light of those characters who are shining examples of what they value, how they perform and the company they keep.

For example, the law firm of Bass Berry & Sims commits significant efforts and resources toward the profiling of its most brilliant clients in an annual report they call “Momentum.”

Similarly, the Legal Marketing Association has dedicated 12 monthly profiles to the “thought leaders” in the fields of marketing, sales, service, and communications. To see examples of these profiles, click on this LMA Website link.

Colleges and universities have also developed some excellent feature stories about the ways in which their alumni have changed the world for the better. For just one example, see some of the features about alumni over the decades by clicking on this Northeastern University Website link.

Such stories are not only highly effective, but they are easy to develop if you have a compelling subject and a skillful writer who can capture the special essence that makes your subject relevant and uniquely appealing to readers.

A lot of law firms have adopted the “buzz words” of being “client-based” or “client-centric” as a kind of variation on the business theme of “customer driven.” But how many understand the origins and true meaning of the terminology?

When Edwards Deming and other disciples of the Total Quality Movement pioneered the concept of “customer driven” organizations, they helped their client companies to improve quality and to meet customer demands by redesigning company systems. These pioneers also had a vision that a true “customer driven” organization is one in which the organizational chart is actually inverted.

At the bottom of the pyramid, the CEO serves and supports the functional units and department heads. The senior managers serve the line managers, who support those on the front lines interacting with and serving the customers. At the very top of the pyramid is the broad base of customers, who tell the servers and line managers what to do, what not to do, what needs fixing and what doesn’t. The middle and senior managers exist primarily to push the necessary resources and support upward to insure that customers get what they want.

Deming and others like him essentially built the Japanese auto industry at a time when GM had a lock on nearly 50 percent of domestic market share (now a paltry 18 percent). While Detroit kept pushing “bigger is better” themes that came from the boardroom instead of the customer, Honda and Toyota were designing their products so that they fit the specs demanded by customers in surveys.

These foreign companies were also determined to change the perception that “Made in Japan” meant junk. So any one worker on the assembly line could pull a cord and halt production if there was a quality assembly problem. The customers were put in touch with the workers and they told management what needed to be fixed. It was management’s job to design a fix that worked for the customers and those who served them.

So how many law firms work this way? How many survey their “customers” and how many have “bottom up” or “360 degree” reviews? How many begin each and every day in each and every meeting by asking “how can we produce better quality, better pricing, better technology and efficiency, and faster delivery for our customers?” How many include all their employees in system redesigns? If your firm does all that, then it can truly say that it is “client-based” and “customer driven.”

If anyone knows of law firms that do operate in this manner, I am always looking for feedback on this and leads for new articles.

In recent years, in-house general counsel have responded to pressures to operate their legal functions like a business, grappling with the concept of just how to demonstrate a “return on legal investment” to their corporate executive teams. Some have also hired professional operations managers to help them develop and track various metrics that can gauge productivity and value, which are essential to measuring return on investment. 

 

As we enter a new era of incredible cost-consciousness and tight credit, it is a certainty that those law firms and law departments which have embraced the concepts of measuring legal value and return on investment will thrive; and those who fail to do so, will be at a competitive disadvantage. 

 

But the process of measuring and stating the value of a legal service, which is a predicate to measuring productivity and return on investment, presents a communications challenge that has baffled many. While business people have long dealt with the issue of measuring and stating the value of intangibles (like the value of advertising or new equipment or training programs) lawyers have resisted it for years.

 

It can be done, however, and great lawyers have the analytical skills, the creativity and the dedication necessary to accomplish this. Some have measured the legal ROI of maintaining a trademark by calculating the sales of branded product minus the sales of identical or similar generic product divided by the legal cost of maintaining that trademark. Some have measured the value of legal training and prevention programs by gauging the average annual cost of various liabilities and exposures (under the ADA, the securities laws, or the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, for instance) both before and after instituting relevant training and prevention. In defense litigation, some in-house lawyers have attempted to forecast their total defense costs for a case (verdict or settlement plus legal fees) based upon various possible strategies and past experiences. Some have also calculated the long-term “cost” of quick settlement vs. fierce defense by comparing regions or periods where each method has been tried.

 

Ultimately, the challenge is one of analysis and communications. Lawyers have the personal attributes and skills needed to rise to this challenge. They also have no shortage of consulting groups offering one or more services related to legal measurement, analysis and management. See, e.g.:

http://hildebrandt.com/

http://www.bticonsulting.com/

http://www.altmanweil.com/

http://www.crai.com/

 

So, is there any reason to resist tackling this communications challenge when there are surely business benefits that will accrue to those who do? 

 

 

The Value Of Listening

When you think of great communicators, you probably think of great speakers, but truly great communicators are also terrific listeners. They know the value of understanding the other person, and the importance of hearing from the audience to which they speak.

In fact, poor listening not only negates the value of crystal clear communication, it creates misunderstanding, results in misdirected action, and ultimately shuts down feedback and trust.

On the other hand, active and attentive listening not only affirms the value of good messaging, it encourages further communication, greater trust and more teamwork.

John Wooden, the most successful college basketball coach in history, once said that a player’s value to the team was just as dependent on what he does without the ball as with it. That is because there are 10 players on the court, so most players have the ball just one tenth of the time.

A good team player in a business organization knows that listening is a lot like playing without the ball. The speaker may be doing the scoring, but the listener often sets up the speaker for success or failure. Furthermore, a ball-hog talker discourages sharing of ideas, while an unselfish listener encourages teamwork and trust.

Organizations spend a lot of money on internal messaging and external PR, but most invest sparingly in “active listening” programs, which are badly needed in an age of excessive self-absorption and noisy distractions.

For more on active listening, check out: “The Zen of Listening” by Rebecca Shafir.

Communication, Kindness and Success

For those who missed it, you might want to check out PBS  for the Charlie Rose interview of Professor William Baker, who has co-authored “Leading With Kindness: How Good People Consistently Get Superior Results.” 

Baker’s findings, based on quantitative study of successful companies and qualitative interviews with their employees and leaders, reveal how leaders known for kindness breed organizational trust that facilitates more open and honest communications. Not surprisingly, the end result of that communication enhancement is greater success. See American Management Association release.

“Kindess” in the workplace is defined by the authors as a mixture of compassion, gratitude, honesty, humility, and humor. You might not think of those traits as keystones to organizational communication, but apparently they are. Kind bosses hear more from their employees and are heard better by them as well. Kind employees also work better with customers, and are a natural byproduct of kind bosses.

So if you are launching a communication program, and really want to insure delivery and receipt of critical messaging within your organization, ask yourself if you have first put the foundation in place for effective transmission – a culture of kindness!  

Sending the Wrong Message

 

The news in recent weeks has starkly illustrated how companies and firms can send incredibly damaging messages to their shareholders, clients and the general public solely through the actions of their leaders.

 

Whether it is the president of Merrill Lynch lavishly redecorating his office and handing out executive bonuses in the wake of bungled, highly leveraged investments, or Citigroup taking delivery of corporate jets after accepting federal assistance, or AIG executives taking exotic vacations and cashing large bonus checks after begging for taxpayer support, in each case the executives diminished the value of their company brands.

 

These are all organizations who depend on the trust of their clients. Trust is essential to the decision-making process of those purchasing insurance, investments or loans. But the leaders of these companies, through their actions, raised doubts about whether these instiutions can be entrusted with funds put into their custody by shareholders, clients and taxpayers as well.

 

So if you are an organizational leader, it is important to ask yourself: What can I do to send the right messages? How can I communicate, through my actions, that our brand is trustworthy? Your thoughts on this are welcomed.