Dynamics in the Firm: from Game of Thrones to King Arthur´s Round Table
I have to admit it: I love stories about kings and queens, castles and battles, and wars and kingdoms. They always take extreme –and clear- positions about right and wrong, success and defeat. Among my favorites is Game of Thrones and, with my professional obsession for always trying to find similarities between life –real or fictional- and law firms, I cannot help to find some common features in this case as well.
It is true that you will not find dragons within law firms, and Dothrakis can hardly be compared with sophisticated lawyers –although Lannisters can fit quite well in some cases-. But there is a couple of elements that always bring memories about some firms in the region: (i) the choice to enter into disputes and political quarrels to attain power, rather than search for collaboration and places of common interest; and (ii) the enormous amount of energy dedicated to that end. In Game of Thrones this objective is essential, otherwise the series would become very boring, but is it the same case in law firms? Is it always better to try to discuss and disagree to the limit, before giving in and try to find good solutions for everyone? Lawyers reading this article are probably thinking “I am not like this …”, and some will probably add “… but some of my partners are!”.
My experience as a consultant travelling around the region is that disagreement and difficulty in finding common ground to collaborate are more usual than rare. When David Maister in his last book finally acknowledged that lawyers are different from other professionals and that law firms are structurally “low-trust environments”, he pinpointed to one of the central issues that make law firms potentially weak organizations, specially in light of the changes the legal industry is experiencing. One of the most typical situations I often find in the way partners relate to one another is what I call the “Right-and-Wrong Bias”. Lawyers are trained to uphold positions and defend their clients´ interest. The idea of justice –where something is right and something is wrong- is a deep element in lawyers´ professional training. The better they defend their positions, the better lawyers they become. So having a clear idea of the interest you are defending, and that of your opponent, is the basis for doing your job. When you do a good job, your client´s interest will be preserved. But that logic does not apply when you have to run a business with several partners, like a law firm. It is startling how some intelligent partners are willing to keep their stance in a discussion with other partners like they are defending their kingdom. When you think that you are defending the truth –your truth- against somebody who is essentially wrong, it is much more difficult to be flexible and try to collaborate.
But in the history and myths of kings and queens there was somebody who was willing to break that logic: King Arthur of England. He realized that the traditional long rectangular tables, where the King sat on one end and at a higher level from other members of court, and he could only talk to a few sitting nearby –typically his close allies- but left a lot far away to whom he cannot talk or listen to –typically those who conspired-, was a very inefficient and somehow dangerous way to run the kingdom. So –the story says- he changed the shape of the table and made it round, so everybody could see each other and talk, and the King will not be so different from the rest of the group.
David Perkins, professor at Harvard Graduate School of Education, wrote a very nice book called “King Arthur´s Round Table. How Collaborate Conversations create Smart Organizations”. He suggests that conversations are the virtual neurons of a collective mind, and that the quality of those conversations will define how healthy and productive is your organization. One of the interesting things of his study of organizations (which can be included in the larger topic of decision-making processes) is how little members of organizations realice the limitations they have to produce smart and effective conversations, but also how many tools and measures can be used and taken to improve that.
He identifies four general needs that require attention: (i) the need for appropiate information to take action and decisions, (ii) the need of multiple perspectives, (iii) the need to deal with complexity, and (iv) the need to deal with negative emotions that could blind us. He also suggests four general moves that could be applied more or less in order: (a) finding options beyond the obvious ones, (b) predicting short-term and long-term consequences of promising options, (c) evaluating positive and negative factors affecting those options, and (d) reaching a resolution that serves one´s priorities in a balanced and holistic way.
These are just a few ideas –and there are many others- but when I see the dynamics that many law firms use to analyze and reach decisions, this kind of thinking is normally out the table. Instead, the discussion about different positions –based many times on personal interests and short-term needs- turns into fruitless and stressful exercises, much like Game of Thrones.
But the White Walkers are coming –sorry, I meant harsh competition- and the cost of ineffective decision-making will pay a much higher cost. Partners should make an effort to find their limitations as a group and work on their dynamics. They might have structural or strategic issues also pending (like compensation, succession or governance), but they need to make sure that their virtual neurons are working fine at the time of discussing those issues. The image of King Arthur´s round table is a good one to work on when thinking about your partners and your conversations.
