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.
