After months of review and processing (this company is much larger than the largest law firms, so don’t panic), they identified eight actual behaviors the best managers engaged in. All center around motivation, communication, and support:
- Coaches
- Empowers their reports and don’t micromanage
- Shows personal interest and concern
- Oriented towards productivity and results
- Listens and shares information
- Helps with career development
- Articulates a clear vision for the team, and
- Possesses technical skills that earn respect.
The company coupled these identifiable behaviors with classes, panels, one-on-one’s, and other tools to help managers scoring low on any one to improve.
You’re wondering whether all this effort didn’t lead to a dead end, since we’ve already stipulated that the high-performing engineers at this firm are instinctively allergic to management and crave autonomy. Well, yes and no. As it turns out, their autonomy-seeking behavior is focused on doing engineering, not on their own career paths and roles at this company. As one nicely put it:
“Engineershate being micromanaged on the technical side,” he observes, “but they love being closely managed on
the career side.”
I agree with this fellow’s remark, and also have an explanation for it: Engineers are surpassingly confident they can come up with the most fitting technical solution, so “back off!,” but are deeply insecure in their heart of hearts that they know how to manage their careers, careers being, you know, kind of squishy and random-seeming things—they might use the word “stochastic,” at least to themselves.
Another dimension to this: Given that all your peers are Type A’s, how painful is it to score poorly as a manager? Consider this fellow’s experience:
In an environment of top achievers, people takelow scores seriously. Consider [a] vice president, who came to [the firm] in 2011 from a senior sales role at Oracle. During his first six months, he focused on meeting his sales numbers (and did so successfully) while managing
a global team of 150 people. Then he received his first UFS scores, which came as a shock. “I asked myself, ‘Am I right for this company? Should I go back to Oracle?’ There seemed to be a disconnect; my UFS [upward feedback] scoreswere terrible.” Then, with help from a people ops colleague, he took a step back and thought about what changes he could make. He recalls, “We went through all the comments and came up with a plan. I fixed how I communicated with my team and provided more visibility on our long-term strategy. Within two survey cycles, I raised my favorability ratings from 46% to 86%.
How important is it to raise a manager’s score? Suffice to say that very few people quit firms; they usually quit managers.
In Law Land, you can translate this as follows: (a) those who leave BigLaw because it’s not to their taste are going to leave regardless of the firm or the manager; this is the first set of people; (b) the second set of people consists of those who sincerely want to make a go of BigLaw and love their firm but can’t stand their boss. These are the people that cost you the most to lose, not just because they’re the most promising prospects in your pipeline but because they hope to be in this game for the long haul and they’ll do it at a competitor if their boss drives them out of your firm.
The third, residual, and we submit tiny set is (c) those who leave no matter how delightful and inspiring their boss is because they are at odds with your firm. There’s nothing you can do about them, and the sooner they and you are separated the better all around.
So now, many of you who are with me this far may have guessed our anonymized high tech company is, indeed, Google. The HBR article is here.
But recall the message going in: This was a high-stakes, real-world demonstration that you can persuade autonomy-seeking professionals that management matters.
How much of a difference might that make to your firm?
This article has been all about data.
You are free to think of Google and data in two ways:
- “Google and data” are joined at the hip! How would you expect them to address their internal management challenges other than by using data?! This means nothing to me. I’m home free to do what I’ve always done. In short, “Nothing to see here folks; you can all just move along.” Or:
- Well, now, Google seems to be a rather impressively successful organization. (From a $50-billion market cap upon its IPO ten years ago to $600-billion today; has your firm done the equivalent?) Perhaps there’s something to be learned here.
Those of you in Camp A are excused. Everyone is entitled to their comfort zones. But your right to your comfort zone ends where the strength of your firm’s long-term talent pool ends.
Those of you in Camp B? Hire a few graduate student quants and start a few experiments. It will cost you virtually nothing and God forbid you learn something. And if you’re afraid people might actually be expected to change, remember that you have Type A’s fear and loathing of low scores on your side as your secret weapon.
One flaw in your analysis is the assumption that the HBR article is actually reflective of reality. I have no doubt Google says these things, but just because Google says them doesn’t make it true, and I say that as someone with dozens of friends at Google. The company is successful because of ads, powered by search. It’s not successful because it has 30,000 software engineers hired by “data driving metrics” who fix bits of code between ping pong games, naps, and massages. It doesn’t need the best and the brightest for most of what it does, and the best and brightest wouldn’t be happy in most of the jobs at Google. Lots of drudgery in the lower ranks.
As for law firms, well, they aren’t set up for lawyers to be managers. The amount of time I spend managing only cuts into my productivity and billables, because my job is to be a lawyer, not a manager. So it’s nice to look at the management literature (although, as stated, this Google article is not the best example), but ultimately firms should focus on hiring associates with “grit” who want to learn and don’t need significant management.
Lauren:
Thanks for your observations; much appreciated.
As to whether Google actually does what the HBR article says it does, it may be naive on my part to assume that reporting in publications like that is responsible and duly vetted, but that’s my operating assumption (for what it’s worth, the article was an outgrowth of an HBR case study: http://hbr.org/product/google-s-project-oxygen-do-managers-matter/an/313110-PDF-ENG). I realize none of this can pretend to actually resolve the truth or fabrication issue, but as a wise mentor of mine once said, “There’s no use debating facts.”
More fascinating by far, I would imagine, for our readers is your observation about managing, as a lawyer, being quite peripheral to what you understand your job to be andwhat the firm rewards you for (“productivity and billables,” I infer). I have no doubt the vast majority of people in your position share the same feelings.
But the most striking part of your thoughts to me was the two sides of the same coin observations that “law firms aren’t set up for lawyers to be managers” and that the best associates “don’t need significant management.” Again, I’m sure a tremendous number of people like you believe those to be true and are happy they are. Yet when I look across the landscape of organizations that are thriving and growing in today’s quite challenging environment, the one characteristic they all seem to share, regardless of industry, market sector, or home base, is solid management.
This makes me worry about the long run prospects of firms where lawyers don’t manage–and lord knows “non-lawyers” aren’t permitted to manage!–and Millennial associates are left to sink or swim.
Thanks again for such rich observations.
Bruce
I’m sure you
Lauren makes a good point, which is that capable associates and high-achieving partners shouldn’t need to be managed — but they do. Good managers find capable associates, help partners achieve, establish performance standards, and deal with the associates and partners that aren’t performing up to standards. The law firm problem is that lawyers don’t want to be managers, but they don’t want to be managed either.