Consider a nonrandom selection of headlines from The New York Times, The Financial Times, andThe Wall Street Journal:
- Citigroup Pays for a Rush to Risk
- Citigroup Tries to Steady Stock
- Turmoil Continues in Banking Sector
- Citigroup: You Can’t Step Into the Same Crisis Twice, Right?
- Citi crisis deepens as shares fall further
- Pandit denies break-up as Citi tumbles
Aside from the obvious, that these articles all revolve around Citi, they have, I suggest, one core theme in common: An erosion of trust in Citi. Theobvious question is whether this skepticism is warranted. Some think not:
"The earnings power is there," said Charles Peabody, a financial services analyst at Portales Partners. "It’s a question of getting through the credit issues."
But is that the right question? Trust may be intangible, but it’s an intangible with extraordinarily powerful repercussions. Trust is granted by grace, not demanded or usurped by fiat, can only be cultivated over an extended period of time, and can be forfeited in a heartbeat (Exhibit A: Eliot Spitzer).
Now,this may seen an exercise in rehearsing the obvious, but at times a return to first principles is in order.
We sit astride or at least within firms which may have hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt per partner, and extensive long-term lease obligations, often in far-flung networks of offices, yet whose assets voluntarilly choose each morning which building to enter and which elevator bank to go to.
As Citi’s recent experience deonstrates, these are not abstract issues.
How, then, can you reinforce the cultural glue that brings people back to your offices every day?
I submit you have two tools at your disposal: (1) Communication; and (2) Behavioral Incentives.
Communication means constantly telllingpeople how the firm is doing and reinforcing that message at every opportunity you have.
Be candid, or don’t bother. People have shockingly acute sensitivity to insincerity, and an incomplete or half-hearted effort will do more harm than good.
If there are challenges facing the firm, explan them. Call for collaborative action and, if necessary, shared sacrifice. You’d be amazed at people’s ability and willingness to rise to the occasion when hard times are at hand.
How will you know if your message is getting through? Ask them. Ask your partners, associages, and staff if they feel they understand the firm’s situation, meaning the external threats and opportunities, and the internal strengths and weaknesses. And, of course, your plans for addressing those threats and weaknesses.
Afraid that if you communicate it will appear on Above The Law in no time?
Get over it.
We live in the YouTube/Above The Law era, but that does not relieve you of your obligation and your duty to lead. It makes it more challenging and more risky, but if anything even more necessary. I’ve written that information abhors a vacuum, and the unprecedented availability of channels for near-instantaneous distribution of rumors or innuendo increases, not decreases, the burden on you to tell the firm’s story. If you’re clear, consistent, candid, and direct, Above The Law won’t be able to lay a glove on you. (If you disagree, permit me to ask you whether your time-frame is that of months and years, appropriate to managing a firm, or that of Above The Law itself, which is hours or minutes.)
Second, Behavioral Incentives: Reward (read: pay for) the behavior you want.
As an economist, I can’t help but reflect the reality that I’m ingrained with the power of incentives. This brings us back to Citigroup:
To some, the misery at Citigroup is no surprise. Lynn Turner, a former chief accountant with the Securities and Exchange Commission, said the bank’s balkanized culture and pell-mell management made problems inevitable.
“If you’re an entity of this size,” he said, “if you don’t have controls, if you don’t have the right culture and you don’t have people accountable for the risks that they are taking, you’re Citigroup.”
A more serious problem was whether the bank, assembled from a potpourri of financial services firms by Sandy Weill, ever came together as one coherent entity:
Even as Citigroup’s C.D.O. stake was expanding, its top executives wanted more profits from that business. Yet they were not running a bank that was up to all the challenges it faced, including properly overseeing billions of dollars’ worth of exotic products, according to Citigroup insiders and regulators who later criticized the bank.
When Mr. Prince was put in charge in 2003, he presided over a mess of warring business units and operational holes, particularly in critical areas like risk-management and controls.
“He inherited a gobbledygook of companies that were never integrated, and it was never a priority of the company to invest,” said Meredith A. Whitney, a banking analyst who was one of the company’s early critics. “The businesses didn’t communicate with each other. There were dozens of technology systems and dozens of financial ledgers.”
As an example of how "Citi" never integrated, it’s been reported that in China the mortgage unit and the credit card unit couldn’t even agree on a common consumer-fronting language: One used Mandarin and the other Cantonese.
This brings us back to law firms.
Are your firm’s incentives aligned to encourage people to collaborate, or to give them reason to hoard business? Do you keep track of partners who "give away" business they’ve originated to other partners/offices/practice areas to handle? Do you reward them for doing so? Or, contrariwise, to you have perpetual origination credits, rewarding partners or heirs of partners in perpetuity for entrepreneurial achievements now lost in the sands of time?
I suggest now is not the time to indulge in such hereditary droits du seigneur. If the unfolding lesson of Citi is anything, it’s that unclear and blinkered management, perverse incentives, and a failure to enforce and communicate a firm-wide vision can catch up with you in sour times.
Care to guess how fast the sour times are going to end?
