Category: Emotional intelligence

Client developmentClient relationshipsClinical legal educationCross-cultural communicationEmotional intelligence

Loving your lawyer (part 1)

Last week once again America—or at least American lawyers—celebrated “Love Your Lawyer Day.” See also #loveyourlawyerday on Twitter. Beyond the marketing hype, there’s a good question:

What makes people love their lawyers?

The first answer is competence. A 2002 study of how the public perceives lawyers found the majority of consumer clients to be satisfied with their lawyers:

Consumers tell stories of lawyers who apply significant expertise and knowledge to their cases, identify practical solutions, and work hard on behalf of their clients.

The survey also delved into various aspect of lawyers’ performance with clients. 72 percent of clients were very satisfied with their lawyer’s knowledge of the law. The study did go into some factors beyond hard-skill competence. For example, 68 percent were very satisfied with how the lawyer handled the initial conversation.

This study did not ask participants to rank which criteria were most important, or most strongly correlated with satisfaction. It did not ask them whether they found it more important that the lawyer knew the law, as compared to handling the initial conversation effectively.

Analyzing a study of big-firm clients in the U.S. and similar studies in Australia, Professor Clark Cunningham’s paper “What Do Clients Want” delved deeper into the causes of client satisfaction and dissatisfaction. In these studies, the comparative importance of competence appears to be more complicated (emphasis added here):

Many lawyers equate client satisfaction with the outcome achieved; however, studies over the past three decades in three different countries has produced impressive evidence that clients evaluate their lawyers’ competence more in terms of the process experienced by them in the representation than the outcome.

It seems clients see competence as necessary but not sufficient for client satisfaction. Competence is the baseline, and something else is what makes the difference in client satisfaction or dissatisfaction. What is that something else?

Although there was widespread client satisfaction with the specialists’ legal knowledge and skills [in the Australian study of clients], the evaluators also found “consistent evidence of client dissatisfaction with the provision of services, and the quality of the service-delivery process.” According to this study (emphasis added):

Practitioners are concentrating on developing their knowledge and skills to deliver better outcomes; but their clients, expecting both technical competence and results, are being disappointed by the process of getting there. Clients complained about the quality of their lawyers’ services in terms of inaccessibility, lack of communication, lack of empathy and understanding, and lack of respect . . . .

The original idea for this post was to write about the “emotional labor” lawyers perform for their clients and others. Emotional labor means, basically, showing up and being constructive even when it’s difficult: “the effort it takes to keep your professional game face on when what you’re doing is not concordant with how you feel.”  Does a lawyer’s performance of emotional labor make the client “love” the lawyer more?

That question led to the more basic question of what motivates client satisfaction, which led to this overview of the studies above. (There must be more information; please direct my attention to additional good data on client satisfaction.) And the overview here suggests it will be worthwhile to explore emotional labor in more depth in a future post. Emotional labor does seem connected to accessibility, open communication, empathy, and respect.

Feedback would be welcome on clients “loving” their lawyers, client satisfaction generally, and the idea of lawyers performing emotional labor for clients, colleagues, and others. Please share thoughts in the comments or on social media.

CollaborationEmotional intelligenceLaw firm marketingLegal writingPeople skills

From “The Education of a Lawyer”

With bar results coming in from many states this week, it’s an opportune moment to recommend resources for newly minted lawyers. One good resource is Gary Muldoon’s book The Education of a Lawyer: Essential Skills and Uncommon Advice for Building a Successful Career. It has many good passages; here’s an anecdote on being receptive to feedback. Muldoon recounts how he was working on an article and sought out a prominent co-author:

The impact of the article would be greater if another person in the community was also on the byline, so I sought him out. He was receptive to the idea I was trumpeting and liked the article. Except for one sentence. He hated that sentence and would not allow his name to appear unless it was removed. The trouble was, it was easily the best sentence, in my mind, bringing the whole article together.

He could not be dissuaded, so I finally agreed, and the article appeared with both our names, minus that one sentence. No one was aware of the sentence that I so much enjoyed, so its absence was not noticed. The article had the effect I had hoped for.

Much of what we do in a law office is a team effort. In writing a brief or arguing a point at trial, I regularly solicit input from others in the office. If it’s my case, I’m responsible for the end product and have the final say, but is including their ideas important to make them feel like they have contributed? Should one care how they feel? Well, if I’m going to be asking for their ideas in the future, I better care. And yes, their comments, ideas, and changes are essential. You can do a good job on your own, but you need others to help bring out the best in your client’s case.

 

Cross-cultural communicationEmotional intelligenceLegal communicationPeople skills

Inclusive Listening: Pushing Through Bias and Assumptions

kellyGuest post by Katherine Silver Kelly, Associate Clinical Professor of Law and Director of Academic Support at the Moritz College of Law, Ohio State University

Lawyers like to think we are excellent listeners. We do it all the time; it’s at the core of our profession. As with any skill, good listening requires ongoing practice and development. But before you say you’re a good listener, determining this is not up to you, it’s up to the recipient of your listening.

I’ll illustrate this with an example: At a professional event not too long ago I was having a conversation with a group of attorneys. The talk turned to college sports and I mentioned I’m from Kentucky. One of the attorneys said to me,

“Huh, you don’t sound like you’re from Kentucky. Where in Kentucky are you from?”

I answered the question and politely moved on with the conversation. What I wanted to say was:

“Really?! How do you know what someone from Kentucky sounds like? How is that relevant to what I’m saying? ”

Yes, it was a casual conversation and maybe the attorney would not have said it to me had we been in a courtroom or meeting but she would have thought it. And it definitely affected how she listened to me going forward. It also distracted me as I couldn’t help but wonder what assumptions she was making about me because I’m from Kentucky and whether her perception of my competency had diminished. All it all, it diminished the authenticity of our communication.

 

2285036990_03676ef8e7_o

Courtesy Flickr/Sciencesque/CC BY-SA-NC 2.0

 

 All of my life, I have been judged based on where I am from. You cannot see my ethnicity on my skin, but you can hear it. I carry it on my tongue, and I can no more get rid of it than anyone can change their skin color. 

The only way a person can open their mind and their heart is by opening their eyes and seeing that these differences make us stronger and that we are not as different as we might imagine. Only by serving others do we serve ourselves. Only by realizing the beauty of those different from ourselves are we able to realize our own beauty.

-Author Silas House, speech at Berea College (2013)

Truth be told, I’m not “from Kentucky” because I was born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. My family moved to rural, southeastern Kentucky when I was 14 and it’s my home.

I never thought I had a Kentucky (or other) accent until a few years ago when I moved to Ohio. People would cut me off mid-sentence to remark on it and how cute it was that I said, “y’all.”

Regardless of whether people are actually biased listeners, pointing out that someone has an accent basically says that the speaker is different and this difference matters. It certainly made me self-conscious of how I spoke and what I said. People have a natural affinity for others like themselves, and pointing out a difference reflects an implicit bias.

Like it or not, we all have subconscious stereotypes that affect our unconscious beliefs and perceptions. Denying this only perpetuates the bias. Instead, by acknowledging that we make assumptions, we can challenge and start to change them. This is especially important for lawyers as effective communication is a basic tenet of our profession. While the type of communication may vary, one overarching fundamental legal skill is the ability to effectively assess and respond to the perspective of the recipient of the communication. This requires inclusive listening.

Inclusive listening makes other people feel valued and understood. When listening to others most of us tend to assume we understand and we reach conclusions based on our point of view and our implicit biases. Inclusive listening doesn’t make assumptions. It requires one to actively engage in critical thinking: notice and question our assumptions, and recognize that assumptions are not truths.

This is not easy to do. I know because writing this post made me quite aware of my habits as a listener. This past week I’ve made it a point to recognize that I have unconscious biases and started to challenge my assumptions (ex: don’t negatively categorize everyone under the age of 30 as a “millennial.”). I’ve made sure my non-verbal cues show respect for the speaker and I’ve worked on better engaging as a listener by affirming the speaker’s contributions and asking clarifying questions.

Consciously engaging in inclusive listening has helped me realize that I’ve expected (maybe even demanded) it from others but wasn’t doing such a great job myself. For so long I’ve been on the other side and this helped me switch my point of view. If I want to be listened to, I’ve got to be an inclusive listener. On a broader level, for lawyers to be truly effective communicators, they must fully understand all aspects of a situation. The only way to gain this understanding is through inclusive and engaged listening.

 

Client relationshipsCollaborationEmotional intelligenceLaw firm marketingLegal communication

A Day of Listening      

Thursday, September 15, 2016, will mark the International Day of Listening, an event envisioned and promoted by the International Listening Association. This Day of Listening has its own website with some excellent listening resources and ideas.

screen-shot-2016-09-08-at-11-49-20-am

For lawyers, law students, law professors, and legal professionals, I will highlight a few ideas for what to do on the International Day of Listening. Or any day, really. The big idea is that listening is helpful on any given day.

Invite someone to a conversation.

The website provides a template form for inviting someone to a conversation. The template looks a little bit like a subpoena or affidavit, so lawyers wishing to make a personal connection with someone may want to avoid or modify the actual form and focus on the concept. The form envisions providing a topic for the conversation; this isn’t randomly generated small talk but a purposeful conversation. Even more important, the person initiating the conversation makes a commitment: “I promise to give my undivided attention and to do the best job of listening I can.” This is a one-way promise offering something valuable without expecting or demanding something in return.

Invite a group to a conversation.

The website also provides a template form for initiating a group conversation also centered on a stated topic. Here the group makes a pledge to one another: “We will all pledge to give our best efforts to listen well to one another.”

The phrase “best efforts” stuck out at me as an interesting term for lawyers. Ken Adams has analyzed the history and meaning of this phrase in contracts. Interpreting “best efforts,” various courts have imposed a good faith standard, something more than a good faith standard, a reasonableness standard, and a diligence standard. Because the idea of “best efforts” can be vague in a legal sense, it helps to compare efforts against a benchmark, Adams points out. Benchmarks can include explicit promises made during negotiations, industry standards, the same party’s practices in similar situations, and how the parties would act toward one another if they were united in the same enterprise.

Fortuitously, the website for the International Day of Listening does offer a nice benchmark-type resource. They don’t call it a benchmark or a bookmark but actually a “ListenMark.” It’s available both here and here in the Professional Activities section of the website. I think the intent is for people to use the “ListenMark” as a bookmark or other tangible reminder. Although the name is kind of corny, the content is excellent. From putting electronic devices away and giving undivided attention to giving nonverbal signals and being familiar with others’ expectations about how to show respect, it’s a solid overview of good listening practices. It could be a good review to glance over just before key meetings.

The Professional Activities section of the website is structured around lideas for professional activities to try on September 15:

·          Tech-Free Meetings
·          What Happens When You Tune Out
·          Free Listening
·          Listening to Opposing Viewpoints
·          Listening to a Life Story
·          Listening Café
·          Discussing Issues
·          Listening to TED
·          “When am I listening or being listened to”
·          Successful Listening Strategies
·          First Hit the Pause Button

One of my favorites on this list is “Listening to a Life Story.” Carole Grau submitted this idea, and it’s a good way to learn more about a longtime coworker—perhaps someone you see every day but don’t know that much about. The core of the activity is this:

Have the listener identify a significant company employee or a long­time employee/member that they (the interviewer) can interview about that person’s (the interviewee’s) life story and their experience within the organization. What have been significant events in the company/organization or in the person’s life while they have been employed or a member?

Bar associations encourage activities such as “take opposing counsel to lunch.” What about dedicating some listening time to a longtime contributor within your own firm or organization? The longtime courthouse runner at my old law firm recently passed away; he was a consummate legal professional with so many great litigation stories. He would have been an incredible interview along the lines Grau suggests.

The outline for listening to a life story gives more details on conducting such a conversation and listening effectively. It recommends resources such as an app offered by  StoryCorps, which itself promotes a National Day of Listening the day after Thanksgiving every year. (In a world of so much talking past one another, we really can’t have enough listening days.)

These are just a few of the ideas and resources available on the website supporting the International Day of Listening. The purpose of this post is to encourage lawyers, law students, law professors, and all legal professionals to recognize and practice listening on September 15, 2016, and other days too.

CollaborationEmotional intelligenceInterviewsLaw practicePeople skills

It’s interview season

For law students working on fall campus-interviewing opportunities, here is a roundup of posts on listening during interviews:

And a few additional posts of interest to candidates facing interviews:

 

CollaborationEmotional intelligenceLegal communicationPeople skills

Listening flow

Watching the NBA finals—and seeing Stephen Curry score 38 points in Game 4—makes this a good time to talk about “flow.” Flow is “the mental state of operation in which a person performing an activity is fully immersed in a feeling of energized focus, full involvement, and enjoyment in the process of the activity.” Curry echoed these words in analyzing game 4: “I think we just got back to enjoying the process . . . .”

Flow comes up in an older basketball story from Bill Russell, recounted by business author Jeff Walker:

He described a playoff game where, for five minutes, the court “opened up” to him: somehow he knew where every player was (including those who were behind his back) and exactly what moves he needed to make. Even more mysterious, all of Russell’s teammates felt exactly the same. They scored more points during those five minutes than ever before. Leaving the court in victory, they turned to one another and said, “We have to figure out how to do that again!”

Psychology professor Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi has been writing about flow since the 1970s and founded the field of “flow research.” (Here’s his TED Talk.) In a chapter on “The Concept of Flow” co-written with Jeanne Nakamura, he itemized the characteristics of being in flow:

  • Intense and focused concentration on what one is doing in the present moment
  • Merging of action and awareness
  • Loss of reflective self-consciousness (i.e., loss of awareness of oneself as a social actor)
  • A sense that one can control one’s actions; that is, a sense that one can in principle deal with the situation because one knows how to respond to whatever happens next
  • Distortion of temporal experience (typically, a sense that time has passed faster than normal)
  • Experience of the activity as intrinsically rewarding, such that often the end goal is just an excuse for the process

The conditions for achieving this state include having a clear goal, immediate feedback, and a good match between the person’s skill level and the difficulty of the task. Flow is most associated with creative activities and sports (thus the connection to basketball). Flow is not so much associated with passive activities. As the studies point out, watching TV is not the same thing as achieving flow.

What about practicing law? Much has been written about lawyers’ achieving flow as part of career satisfaction, such as here and here and here. And in particular, what about lawyering and listening? Listening is a “receptive” communication channel along with reading, unlike the productive channels of writing and talking. (I take it as a given we all know lawyers who enter some kind of personal “zone” when they are talking.)

The most direct approach to listening and flow is to look at listening as part of a larger project with a goal. For example, taking a deposition. A deposition is an intense listening experience aimed at producing something very specific, namely a useful written record to use in the litigation. While working toward that goal during the deposition experience, lawyers may find it comes pretty naturally to focus and enter a flow state on what the witness is saying and what questions to ask. The adrenaline certainly helps. And if a real-time digital transcript is available, that’s instant feedback as well. On the other hand, achieving flow supposedly means getting past worry and fear of failure. I’m not sure most lawyers taking depositions would say they completely let go of fear and worry in the experience.

Also the idea of flow is that you lose the awareness of yourself as a social actor. But contentious depositions mean maintaining several layers of social awareness—not just the question being asked, but also the potential leverage for various motions and other interventions if the lawyers and witnesses do not cooperate. So it does seem possible for a lawyer taking a deposition to experience aspects of flow such as intense focus and distorted perception of time, I’m not sure many would claim they truly felt flow in a situation like this. Thoughts and feedback are certainly welcome in the comments here as well as on social media (Twitter: @ListenLikeaLwyr).

What about listening when there is not necessarily a clear external goal such as making the record? The best conversationalists seem to be motivated by the goal of just focusing on the other person—having a conversation because the other person is just so interesting. One of the scholarly models of listening has a final step of “staying connected and motivated.” (This is the Worthington/Fitch-Hauser model.) Great conversationalists seem to be intensely focusing on the conversation, easily able to contribute without effort, and intrinsically rewarded by the experience of having it. And whether or not they are actually experiencing flow, they create the perception of flow for the other person in the conversation.

Beyond listening for a project (such as making a record) and listening one-on-one, collaborating with others in a group has at least the possibility of some sort of flow. Csikszentmihalyi and Nakamura refer to “shared flow.” Business author Jeff Walker (who recounted the Bill Russell story above) calls it a “collective flow state.” Not a lot has been written about this idea of shared or collective flow; Csikszentmihalyi and Nakamura suggest it needs more academic study.

Some articles on lawyering and legal education do raise the possibility of creating flow within collaborative groups of lawyers and law students. Csikszentmihalyi’s flow concept is cited in this article on the experience of team lawyering doing clinical work for Haitian refugees with HIV-positive status, by Albany Law School’s Raymond Brescia:

The team nature of the effort, and the affirming trust members of the team gave one another, meant that as we developed different strengths and skills, we were able to achieve benchmark milestones, receiving constant feedback along the way which gave us information that allowed us to develop our expertise.

Likewise Stephen Krieger and Serge Martinez describe the experience of flow in their article A Tale of Election Day 2008: Teaching Storytelling through Repeated Experiences, 16 Legal Writing 116 (2010). These professors led a team of students in advocating for individuals seeking to vote on November 4, 2008, and they noticed a marked and somewhat unexpected improvement in these students’ storytelling skills through the course of that single day. They concluded that flow conditions were a partial cause:

Apparently—and without any conscious intent on our part— the surroundings on that date contributed to the experience of flow. There was easy access to information; Steve, an Election Law expert, was present. There was stimulation from other students and attorneys handling similar cases. And there was an overall sense of community of purpose. As Dan implied, it felt like a neighborhood law office, not like a classroom.

These articles may actually be suggesting individual flow experienced by the students and professors in a group setting, rather than shared flow within a group performing together (such as an NBA team). When the team functions as a unit with interdependent parts—when each team member knows when to speak and when to sit back, when the lead lawyer looks down the table to ask a question only to receive the answer on a post-it already en route—that’s shared flow.

Please share your thoughts on individual and shared flow, and the experience of listening as part of flow.

In a later post, I will explore some counter-points to flow such as this post from Cal Newport suggesting that seeking flow is not the same as engaging in deliberate practice. I’ve often thought that for legal writers, seeking a feeling of flow may not produce high-quality work, especially for very new legal writers. The article about the Election Day clinic appeared to be describing an upper-level clinic where students had a base of knowledge to deploy that day. I want to think more about how this point could apply to communication and listening.

In the meantime, here’s a link to an ABA Journal article on flow for lawyers, by Steven Keeva, a prolific and kind ABA writer who was gone too soon:

https://books.google.com/books?id=UbXRppru0BYC&lpg=PT159&ots=AH6z2v7lsn&dq=lawyers%20and%20flow%20state&pg=PT159&output=embed

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Client relationshipsCross-cultural communicationEmotional intelligenceLegal communication

The outro

Still thinking about Prince . . .

Like so many, I downloaded some Prince and revisited the music of my youth. Purple Rain, of course. And in listening to it, I did something that I may never have done in the 80s: listening to all of Purple Rain, all 8:42 of it. That includes the final atmospheric two minutes of the song. There’s no more chorus, no big guitar, no more purple rain. There’s some trilling piano, a few of Prince’s vocalizations, and some echoing violins.  A friend who’s a musical expert told me that section has a name. It’s an “outro.”

16249452_2885c862ba_o

Flickr/bnilsen/Purple Rain 3/CC by SA-2.0

“Outro” is a music term for “the end of the road for your song.” It can be an instrumental solo, repeated chorus, or something else like that. There’s no real formula, but I think the most accurate description of Purple Rain’s outro is a meditation in strings (i.e. violins).

As a young person I honestly thought the end of the song was boring. It seemed like fluff after the huge vocals and massive guitars. The average song length has been on the rise since the 70s, leveling off in the 1990s at about 4 minutes. In fact the radio version of Purple Rain was shortened to 4:05, but I always listened to the album (on tape). Maybe my teenage attention span maxed out at 4 minutes. I would rewind the tape back to the beginning, craving the organ chord and unforgettable opening of the album:

“Dearly beloved, we are gathered here today to get through this thing called life . . .”

That did not feel like fluff.

Sadly now, every moment of Prince’s work seems more precious. Spending that extra two minutes finishing out the outro is a way to honor him. It’s a way of appreciating what the artist—in this case, The Artist—was doing. The whole song, including the outro, is what he was really trying to say.

Beyond that, this outro reminded me of a broader theme with communication. Conciseness is highly valued, both in writing and speaking. On this blog I sometimes pull data and anecdotes from a book called Brief: Make a Bigger Impact by Saying Less. One of its arguments for brevity is the thought-speech gap: listeners can process information at a rate of 600 more words per minute than speakers can actually speak. This gap creates “spare mental bandwidth” that can lead to distraction, boredom, and judgment. Conversely, speaking in a concise, message-heavy way maximizes efficiency and attentiveness.

Brevity is a virtue in pop music as well. A tight 3- or 4-minute pop song reduces the likelihood the listener will flip or click or tap to another song. But Prince (a) was too good to be limited to a formula and (b) probably didn’t care anyway. Those who are attentive enough to hang in through the whole 8:42 get a gift—the gift of a gentle orchestral landing to this booming ballad. Everyone else misses it.

Likewise with conversations, the informal, meandering end of a conversation—when the official conversation itself is over—can be extremely valuable. The “outro” of a meeting is a place for checking in and observing nonverbal communication to understand the real reaction. People may be creating their own outro. Are they still repeating the same chorus over and over? Are they calming down and echoing what was said? Using friendly, open body language can encourage people to tell you things they were thinking about the whole time but just not comfortable saying. Checking one’s phone at the earliest reasonably polite opportunity misses the chance to learn more from the conversational “outro.”

Connections between music and conversation are pretty fascinating; see this post on communications theorists who transcribe conversations with music notation. But ultimately my point here is a simple one about music appreciation. Purple Rain is a great song, and I recommend listening to it again. All of it.

Emotional intelligenceLegal communicationPeople skillsProfessional developmentProfessional responsibility

Talking means making mistakes (and that’s okay)

Sherry Turkle’s Reclaiming Conversation: The Power of Talk in a Digital Age has been on my reading list for a while now. I’m in the process of reading it and was stopped cold by something on page 54. Turkle is talking about “the flight from conversation.” The flight from conversation basically means kids these days—and yes, their parents too—don’t want to talk and will take active steps to avoid conversation.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/barry_b/143928531/in/photolist-dHEWp-fwfo9x-8eJS1L-cnr4r5-8eJV6J-8eFzux-aUbvWF-aUbviF-6BVufY-8eJZfS-8eFzdR-8eJUHQ-8eJUnQ-8eJYU9-8eJWc1-6Q3UVm-8eFyDk-aKPi8T-8eJXRU-8eFDq6-pR8z8t-8eJYcq-8eJTmN-8eJVHw-8eFCjV-8eFAEr-8eJU4y-8f54q4-8quZL3-8KdXtG-d5nAa3-geUjn4-DdJibk-4z1Yux-8YEJTM-bsC179-eYbj32-4PpL7E-6ebNVp-nCDLcE-dYT8p3-62dKpd-58hFYL-bUZK3m-9Zjt3J-nKVQU7-hfoTV3-dLnekA-9PAWD7-bNQjUp

I’m in the process of reading it and was stopped cold by something on page 54, a reference to a law student in the making.

This is a pretty big book, and in the first section  (which includes page 54) she goes to lengths to lay out her basic premise about “the flight from conversation.” This flight affects every facet of life and goes down very deep in the psyche. The most worrisome suggestion is that an intense digital life (at the expense of a social life) doesn’t just make people inefficient or unempathetic at that moment, but it actually stunts emotional growth.Turkle describes the work of Stanford psychologist Clifford Nass showing that spending too much time with social media and its “thumbs-up” emotional culture deprives frequent users of the ability to process more complex negative emotions. These people then become even less able to respond appropriately and quickly in real-life situations involving negative emotions. This diminishing skill set creates a downward cycle driving people to avoid difficult face-to-face situations and to seek out comfortable digital forms of communications.

Page 54 is part of this background. It caught my eye because it featured an aspiring law student. Turkle frames this anecdote as “[t]he desire for the edited life”:

A college senior doesn’t go to his professors’ office hours. He will correspond with his teachers only through email. The student explains that if he sees his professors in person, he could get something “wrong.” Ever since ninth grade, when his preparations to go to an Ivy League college began in earnest, he and his parents have worked on his getting everything “right.” .  . . Now he is three years through that Ivy education and hoping for law school. He is still trying to get things right. “When you talk in person,” he says, “you are likely to make a slip.”

He thinks his no-office-hours policy is a reasonable strategy. He tells me that our culture has “zero tolerance” for making mistakes. If politicians make “slips,” it haunts them throughout their careers. And usually they make these mistakes while they are talking. He says, “I feel as though everyone in my generation wants to write things out—I certainly do—because then I can check it over and make sure it is okay. I don’t want to say a wrong thing.”

I really wish I could reach out to this student. If he’s in law school now and if his first-year professors have used the Socratic method in any way, shape, or form, he has probably had a pretty rough transition. And whether he’s in law school or not, somehow he’s going to have to face a terrible realization: conflict and imperfection and mistakes and regret are

And whether he’s in law school or not, somehow and sometime he’s going to have to face a terrible realization: conflict and imperfection and mistakes and regret are all a reality, for all of us. You can run but you can’t hide. So he might as well build some strength now, ideally with a matching dose of empathy and humility, to deal with them as best he can.

I would also introduce him to the concept of a “growth mindset” as popularized by Carol Dweck of Stanford. A growth mindset is consistent with effort, mistakes, learning, and forward progress. What you are at the beginning of college/law school/a new job/anything is not your destiny.

The opposite is a fixed mindset, which is the concept your skills can be uncovered and revealed by testing but not truly built up or changed. The fixed mindset has a lot of disadvantages. One of them is a possible correlation with unethical conduct. A person’s desire to conceal a mistake might make that person dangerous. Being terrified about making a “slip” can lead to covering up mistakes, not seeking help, and in general turning potentially small problems into much worse.

This is just one reflection on the wealth of points in Turkle’s book. I’m still reading it! Throughout the summer I will be blogging about passages of interest, and perhaps even trying a Twitter chat at some point.

Read Jonathan Franzen’s New York Times review of Reclaiming Conversation here.

 

 

 

CollaborationEmotional intelligenceLaw firm managementLeadershipPeople skills

Is teamwork the same as collaboration?

 

Earlier this week Listen Like a Lawyer discussed Google’s teamwork study investigating the qualities of effective teams. In the post I mentioned that teamwork is so important in part because many cases are too complex for one person to manage. One bit of feedback on the post agreed that teamwork is “vital now for successful legal practices.”

Shortly thereafter I ran across this post from Lisa Needham at the Lawyerist, “Too Much Teamwork is Terrible.” The post ends with a plea:

Ban teamwork. Or at least reduce it drastically.

Both the Google article in praise of effective teams and the Lawyerist post against teams cite the same Harvard Business Review study concluding “the time spent by managers and employees on collaborative activities has ballooned by 50% or more.”

So if teamwork is so good, why is it so bad?

I think the real issue is the difference between formal teams and informal collaboration throughout an organization.

The Google study profiled in the New York Times seemed to focus on formal work groups—groups formed by assignment to address some specific task or role over time. These work groups seem analogous to a group of lawyers assigned to a client service team or a specific deal, trial, or other project.

The Harvard Business Review article on collaboration appears to be addressing a much broader phenomenon. It’s not just about the dynamics inside individual work groups assigned to discrete projects, but also about collaboration throughout an organization. Collaboration may take the form of sharing information, sharing social resources, or sharing one’s own time and energy—which, unlike the first two categories of collaboration, is a finite and exhaustible resource. These can happen within a formal team or in broader, more diffuse ways throughout an organization. A person who is willing to collaborate with others may be subject to “escalating citizenship” in which workers who want to help become so over-burdened that they become a burned-out bottleneck. To quote the article, the “virtuous cycle” of collaboration turns “vicious.”

I’m no Adam Grant, but if this distinction is correct, then the Google study and the Lawyerist post are also both correct. Complex long-term problems and strategic goals cannot be solved by lone-wolf lawyers. Therefore, lawyers working in formal teams can benefit from studying their group norms and seeking to collaborate most effectively. These types of teams should not be disbanded or reduced in scope.

On the other hand, managers should monitor the collaborative burdens across their organization to avoid inefficient, inequitable demands on “extra milers” (quoting the HBR article) being asked to collaborate beyond the scope of their roles.

Of course there is a challenging question in the middle of this: work groups formed not for direct legal service but for internal firm/agency management. In other words, firm committees. These groups can certainly benefit from studying dynamics in the spirit of the Google study. But the HBR study and Lisa Needham’s critique raise the question: what is the reward structure of the firm or organization, and is collaborative committee work compromising individuals’ capacity to participate in that reward structure?

For insight into this question, I would first recommend Helen Wan’s great novel The Partner Track.

On a more quantitative note, the HBR study suggests collecting and assessing data about who is doing what. It also suggests employee surveys and 360 feedback. To take a 50,000-foot view of these suggestions, it seems that one way to begin to address this question is by listening.

 

 

Clinical legal educationEmotional intelligenceLaw firm managementLaw practiceLegal communication

Teamwork for lawyers

The thing I’ve most wanted to share here in recent months has been “What Google Learned from Its Quest to Build the Perfect Team,” published in the New York Times Magazine’s recent Work Issue. Building perfect teams—or at least more effective ones—is pretty important for the legal profession. For law firms, the complexity of many legal matters demands collaborative work. Yet client teams—and other types of teams such as deal teams and trial teams—are more likely to fail without a good understanding of team dynamics. And “law students baulk at the idea of group work.”

 

To understand why some of its teams performed better than others, Google launched a large study. At first no patterns emerged. Eventually, the key issue was something a bit more abstract than any specific metric. The issue was “group norms”:

Norms are the traditions, behavioral standards and unwritten rules that govern how we function when we gather: One team may come to a consensus that avoiding disagreement is more valuable than debate; another team might develop a culture that encourages vigorous arguments and spurns groupthink. Norms can be unspoken or openly acknowledged, but their influence is often profound.

The impact of group norms on team performance was critical. It could make a team of individually “average” performers out-perform other groups. And it could make a team of individual rock stars perform poorly.

So if effective teams could be built upon consensus of any type—either to argue all the time or to build consensus all the time—then is there really any content to the idea of effective group norms? Actually, yes. The Google study found two common traits of good teams. This is where listening comes in:

Actually, yes. The Google study found two common traits of good teams. This is where listening comes in:

First, on the good teams, members spoke in roughly the same proportion, a phenomenon the researchers referred to as ‘‘equality in distribution of conversational turn-taking.’’ On some teams, everyone spoke during each task; on others, leadership shifted among teammates from assignment to assignment. But in each case, by the end of the day, everyone had spoken roughly the same amount. ‘‘As long as everyone got a chance to talk, the team did well,’’ Woolley said. ‘‘But if only one person or a small group spoke all the time, the collective intelligence declined.’’
Second, the good teams all had high ‘‘average social sensitivity’’ — a fancy way of saying they were skilled at intuiting how others felt based on their tone of voice, their expressions and other nonverbal cues. One of the easiest ways to gauge social sensitivity is to show someone photos of people’s eyes and ask him or her to describe what the people are thinking or feeling — an exam known as the Reading the Mind in the Eyes test. People on the more successful teams in Woolley’s experiment scored above average on the Reading the Mind in the Eyes test.

The broader impact of these two traits is that team members felt “psychological safety.” The New York Times article cited a study by Harvard professor Amy Edmondson describing psychological safety as “a sense of confidence that the team will not embarrass, reject or punish someone for speaking up.”

This article and the concepts it describes should, in my view, be required reading for any law school activity based on teams. It seems like a pretty good idea for law-firm managers as well. The lead researcher on Google’s Project Aristotle study became interested in the topic while attending graduate business school. She had one team that didn’t click, didn’t exactly fail but also didn’t prosper, and didn’t stick together for future projects. And she had another team that clicked and succeeded in competitive environments even though the group dynamics didn’t feel internally competitive.

Law students who’ve done any sort of group work and lawyers working collaboratively have similar stories. This article helps to explain why these teams end up the way they do. And it begins to address even more difficult questions about taking steps to create effective team dynamics from the outset and to make existing teams more effective.