A highly experienced General Counsel (GC) recently asked us to share our understanding of why some Legal and other professional functions can “plateau”. By this, they did not mean failure, but merely that things were “going off the boil”: contrary opinions were more forthcoming, advice was being increasingly debated rather than accepted, etc. In summary, nothing was going disastrously wrong, but there was a sense that the Legal function was not seen in the same way it perhaps once was.
In 2014, Harvard academics* sought to understand why some organisational functions ‘stumble’. In essence, they demonstrated there are four clear phases of functional change that occur with age. Using their analysis, our client could be described as being at the third (or ‘mature’) stage of the four phases. This portrayed them as having an established explicit and wide mandate, a large headcount, a management focus on quality and efficiency, relatively stable staff, and a clear formalised leadership structure.
This thought-provoking review was in our minds when formulating answers to our client. They, like most leaders, monitored the effectiveness of their function and found nothing of concern, as internal stakeholder surveys consistently showed good ratings. However, the GC recognised that ‘plateauing’ or ‘stumbling’ scenarios are more difficult to spot and only surface after the event. With this in mind, our client sought to anticipate problems and take proactive countermeasures. As might be expected, our advice combined addressing both internal and external functional perceptions.
The principles underpinning corralling internal stakeholders’ perceptions are little different from other types of functional reviews. Having contributed to feedback surveys elsewhere in the business, they were interested in taking a different approach. In response, we devised a 360 degree method to collate perceptions of the Legal function across the organisation. This took the form of both question-based and free text feedback formats. This enabled the GC’s self-perceptions to be compared directly with ratings from other stakeholders, thus providing a stark focus on how self and others’ perceptions can be misaligned. In this situation, we used conventional details such as sampling, statistical analysis, subsequent investigative interviewing, etc. to track variations in perceptions, underlying themes, causal factors, and pointers to possible solutions.
Externally, most would agree that functional perceptions play a key role in the organisation’s overall reputational risk profile. Our client had a more specific issue here, which was a very tangible manifestation of ‘plateauing’. They expressed a concern that attracting the right calibre of talent for roles in the Legal function was starting to become more difficult. There was also the nagging concern that anecdotal murmurings might be a precursor to an emerging retention problem. Most of us would agree with the statement that good reputations take years to build, and minutes to destroy. Being proactive was therefore uppermost in the GC’s mind. Our response was partly conventional (i.e. helping the client review exit interview data and anecdotal data collected during specific recruitment campaigns), but also included conducting a ‘Perception Analysis’ via our networks and people who may have recently left the business, as well as those in competitive firms. This gave the client an external perspective of the role within the business (and the business more generally). We also included a wider market analysis (again through our networks) to ascertain the broader view of the role of the GC and if the market reflected our client’s concerns.
If you would like to learn more about this case study and understand how we may be able to help you, please contact Andrew Smith via
andrew.smith@normanbroadbent.com for an initial confidential discussion.
* “Why Corporate Functions Stumble” Sven Kunisch, Günter Müller-Stewens and Andrew Campbell; Harvard Business Review, 2014