Rees Morrison reports that clients get unhappy when their lawyers have internal meetings. According to some of the general counsel he works with, these meetings are seen as unnecessary additions to the bill. Meanwhile, their outside counsel know that these meetings have been a traditional means of sharing important matter information and, thereby, promoting efficiency. For the general counsel who are concerned about this issue, Rees goes on to provide some strategies they might employ to reduce the financial impact of internal meetings.
I would respectfully suggest that there may be a better, less contentious approach. If we can agree that general counsel and their outside lawyers understand that there is great value in knowledge sharing and that we are all invested in promoting this sharing, then we should work to find a more efficient and cost-effective means of knowledge sharing rather than making the sharing financially difficult for the outside lawyers. Instead of old-fashioned meetings, could we perhaps try … Enterprise 2.0?
The promise of Enterprise 2.0 is that it offers low-cost, light-weight ways of creating information streams so that participants can share their knowledge as and when needed. This has the added benefit of eliminating some unnecessary meetings and emails – especially those regarding status updates. Of course, there is no substitute for face-to-face meetings and sometimes meeting in person is the best and most efficient thing to do. But for those other times, we should consider taking advantage of current technology to maximize knowledge sharing while minimizing the financial impact on clients and firms alike.
[Photo Credit: ryancr]
Be honest. Are you cautious because you really are trying to reach the right decision OR because you’re trying to avoid responsibility?
After my last post, True Productivity, Rees Morrison and I got into an interesting offline chat about whether the “Just do it” camp was wise to throw caution to the wind in order to get something (anything!) done. We agreed that the hard part of this action/caution equation was achieving a balance between the two. To do this right, you need to develop sufficient judgment so that you can act wisely AND efficiently.
Achieving a balance between action and caution isn’t something everyone does equally well. For most folks, it takes years of experience, good perspective and lots of common sense. Unfortunately, these are not taught in every school. To compound the problem, law schools, law departments and law firms have become so sensitized to the downside of most actions that actually taking a stance or making a decision can feel foolhardy at times.
At moments like these consider the case of Toyota’s lawyers, as recounted by Jay Shepherd in his post, How lawyers save the world…with disclaimers. While this example of lawyerly caution may strike you as ridiculous, have there been times when you’ve come close? When did you last say “out of an abundance of caution” or “for the avoidance of doubt” or “to be perfectly clear”? Chances are, it was at a point when you decided to carry out some redundant effort at the cost of productivity.
The next time you reach for a “belt-and-suspenders” solution, ask yourself if your caution is justified or whether it’s preventing productivity. If it’s the right thing to do, go ahead. If not, take (a tiny) walk on the wild side and tip the balance towards action.
[Photo Credit: Xiaming]
How productive are you? Really???
A recent post by Rees Morrison on the subject of productivity caught my eye. In it he described the “five-or-10-minute rule,” which recommends that you wait five or 10 minutes between the time you write an e-mail message and the time you send it. The theory is that this brief waiting time will give you an opportunity to think about the consequences of your message before you click send.
I suspect advice like this has saved many of us from acute embarrassment over the years. To my surprise, however, Rees Morrison characterized this advice in the following way:
Good advice, very lawyerly, impossible to criticize, but it will obviously hobble productivity. To advise in-house counsel to ponder the legal consequences of what they do with email – indeed, with everything they do – is to be on the side of the angels, but let productivity go to the devil.
His conclusion made me wonder about his definition of productivity. If your definition of productivity is to get as much done as possible, a delay of even five minutes on each e-mail message could cost you valuable time for action. However, what if that rushed e-mail proves to be wrong. Then taking a few minutes to avert disaster suddenly seems like the most efficient course of action.
I’d suggest that the right definition of productivity is not “get as much done as possible” or even “get as much of the right things done as possible.” Rather, a better definition of true productivity is: Get as many of the right things done in the right way. Under this definition of productivity, the “five-or-10-minute rule” makes perfect sense.
[Photo Credit: f_mafra]