The email from Stephanie West Allen at Idealawg pondered what exactly was meant by the linked post by self-proclaimed Leadership Expert Andrew Hughes. I had to first get past the leadership expert part.
The post that Stephanie referred to was another of the Slackoisie, the world is changing so you better change with it, bits of nonsense. The sort that seeks to justify selfishness and entitlement, the typical Slackoisie traits, as the new rage for lawyers in place of those nasty, old-time characteristics of hard work, responsibility and excellence in representation. Here’s what our grinning expert had to say:
Values have changed
As illustrated by the ‘problems’ firms are experiencing with X and Y geners, there has been a global values evolution. These generations are less willing to accept the same incursions on their family and social lives in return for rewards in the future. They are also less tolerant of organisations that fail to give them the opportunity to be part of a larger cause, one that exists outside of a profit motive or the meaningless client service guff that is often dished up.
Meaningless client service guff? I wonder what the clients think about that. I wonder whether the clients agree that they’re paying lawyers so that they can feel good about themselves, have their newly-changed values indulged, on the clients’ dime and at the expense of their representation. After all, isn’t lawyer happiness the primary concern of clients?
He’s certainly right that firms are experiencing “problems” with generations X and Y. (No, not you. You’re wonderful, just like mommy said. It’s the other ones I’m talking about.) That they believe that their professional responsibility is all about what makes them happy, and pays for the Beemer, is bad enough. We certainly wouldn’t want the young set to do anything that required effort or inconvenience. That would conflict with their values, and as our leadership expert informs us, we can’t have that.
But that this expert informs us that client service is “meaningless guff” is fundamentally absurd. The only reason lawyers are given their ticket is to serve clients. Without clients, we would be sweeping streets, provided anybody would hire us given the lack of sweeping skills. Clients are why lawyers exist. And yet our expert has it the other way around, that clients exist to provide a fun and profitable place for lawyers to go during the day so they don’t have to sit on the couch eating Cheetos and watching Oprah.
Given that lawyers are having such difficulty dealing with the Slackoisie, and for the most part cannot comprehend how new lawyers have so fundamentally misconstrued the reason why they are handed a very substantial paycheck every other week, people are searching for ways to make things work. The young set sees posts like this expert’s and believes that they are right to demand changes that make them happy and fulfilled. Older lawyers, who are discontent with the law fail to notice the absence of logical nexus between their discontent and the Slackoisie solution (though they will figure it out soon enough when the college tuition bill arrives) see acquiescing to the demands of the Slackoisie as the path of least resistance. And everyone looking for an excuse to indulge their weaknesses and self-interest at the expense of their clients will embrace this nonsense.
When lawyers forget that its all about clients, then it’s over. Our purpose is lost, together with all the good perks we get for being lawyers. Does this mean that leadership isn’t all about work/life balance and new values? I’m afraid it does. Sorry.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Ah now, Scott !
How do you *know* that he’s not an expert ?
And have you *really* never heard any “meaningless client service guff”?
I didn’t read our expert as characterising all client-service stuff as meaningless guff.
Unfortunately, I haven’t written any words of wisdom in this regard, so I won’t refer your readers to a post of mine making everything clear. But I hope they’ll have a look anyway, if you’ll let them 🙂
While the self-description, the photo, and the grammar do not inspire confidence (even in Australian, the use of “their” as a singular possessive pronoun by a professional or wannabe raises a red flag), it is possible that Mr. Hughes is saying that firms often dish up meaningless client service guff (an excellent word, by the way, and underused) — a proposition with which you, Dan Hull, or I might readily agree.
So where exactly does one go to become an Aussie “leadership expert?” Is there an Aussie Leadership Expert Academy that I’m unaware of? Does one get certified by the Leadership Experts of Australia? You could be right, but if he’s got some sort of degree in leadership expertise, one would expect to find some initials after his name, or a pretty badge at least.
As for fishing for readers, you’re on your own.
Given the content of our expert’s post, it seems exceedingly unlikely that he’s using “meaningless” to distinguish between the really good client service guff and the not so good guff.
But what’s your problem with the photo? I think he’s quite youthful looking for an expert.
Gee, I’m *so* disappointed that you won’t let me fish for readers – I thought that you’d know that’s the main point of commenting 🙂
I didn’t say I wouldn’t let you. I just said I couldn’t help. I mean, yer Irish, fer crying out loud.
You’re so kind. I would send you some of that lime key pie you crave, but no-one around here has heard of it !
It’s key lime pie. Key Lime. Ask Tannebaum about it. He knows.
I looked at Hughes’s site and the post yesterday after either you or SWA sent it to me, and again today. What he writes after the phrase “global values evolution” is really disappointing. The apparent put-down of client service regimes (“meaningless client service guff”)? Well, it really doesn’t bother me that much and he could mean a lot of things. Not a good writer or word-smith. That happens. Bad and/or trite writers in the new Mr. Rogers school of “be sweet to new employees who add no value because it’s all about them” are all over the internet.
But bad ideas are a different thing. What bothered me, and should bother anyone with values and balls, was this: “… there has been a global values evolution. These generations are less willing to accept the same incursions on their family and social lives in return for rewards in the future. They are also less tolerant of organisations that fail to give them the opportunity to be part of a larger cause, one that exists outside of a profit motive…” Whoa. Translation: (1) “It’s all about the law firm workers in a services profession or services industry”; and (2) “Clients are merely the equipment in our game. They can be compromised. Don’t sweat it. It’s really all about protecting the new low standards of the young. We can screw clients over by mailing it in–or maybe in between trips to the washroom to shoot up or complain about management making us work for the money”.
Really bad judgment to publish this even if he actually means it. And sad.
BTW, we can be thankful that he appears use his real name as we should all make sure he gets nowhere near any good lawyers or their clients. Unless what he has written is intended to be satire, I suggest we ignore him as a jobless panderer, whack-job or (more likely) a young guy who had too many shots of Red Bull and Old Hobart Malt one day before typing it up.
A bummer for me. For over a decade I’ve known and worked with quite a few Aussie lawyers, client reps and business people on lengthy projects and cases. I am very impressed. Lots of Moxie, much drive and a “get-it-right” ethos. Not Hughes. Most Australian white collars and professionals–even when they are too drunk to speak, and reduced to making these funny “raccoon” noises as they slur their words–have high standards for themselves, have self-respect, and deeply care about customers and clients. Hughes, however, sounds like he’s just pitching hard to white trash: those who have a burning desire in life to (a) get home, (b) eat Twinkies and (c) watch wrestling on TV. No sane publicly-traded client wants him working for it or for its outside law firms. Put him on “ignore”.
That’s your problem, Mary. You’re just too forgiving.
You’re right. I’m turning into a goddamn poof. Got to get back to firing more people on Fridays. I was happier. Birds sang. A spring in my step. Met more girls named Opal or Nadine in airports.
Am getting rid of those lavender shirts, too. But I’ll save one for when you and I hit the art galleries in the Midwest this Spring, meet some girls, and “act all sensitive.” Really does work.
And he differs from we pontificators how?
First, we don’t proclaim ourselves to be experts. We do proclaim ourselves to be lawyers, which may or may not mean we have any credibility at all. Whether anyone cares to read us or heed us is entirely up to them.
Second, we don’t do so in the process of selling snake oil. Whether one pontificates for its own sake or to market one’s wares, we are lawyers and work within a regulated profession with defined parameters. We have a piece of paper that says we are authorized to speak to the law, having done the barest minimum to earn that ticket. While this may not mean a whole lot, it beats the crap out of someone calling themselves an expert in a non-existent field.
Thank you for asking.
Such a crabby old man these days. We’re all out there speaking our minds. It’s a free market in services for stuff of this sort. Not sure what’s so offensive about this pitch
Hey, don’t call me crabby. If it doesn’t bother you that an industry has sprung up of scammers selling snake oil to lawyers, that’s fine. But this one is particularly pernicious, not merely a pseudo-expert, but one selling the new global moral evolution at the expense of client service in the name of catering to the Slackoisie. Maybe that’s okay with you, but not with me.
I’m still old school when it comes to lawyers existing to serve clients, rather than clients existing to provide work/life balance, and pseudo-experts being shown the door with prejudice. So if he calls me, I’ll let him know you’re interested in his services, but it doesn’t mean I have to let him slide.
OK. I still love you. Just don’t get the animosity to the Slackoisie. I read your blog pretty faithfully, but this whole dispute is beyond my ken. If the dude calls I will let you know.
The Slackoisie, on the whole, aren’t my biggest fans. But one by one, they’re learning. I hear from converts that they realize that they might actually have to work hard, put someone else’s interest before their own, and might actually have something to learn before they can be the ruler of the world. It’s slow, but it’s coming.
Woah – that seems to have hit some buttons. Who would have thought that my article, written in the context of the Australian legal industry, would hit such a hot spot? That’s interesting, don’t you think? Does that mean that you have found a better way to get your employees loving their job, knocking on your door with ideas about how they can add more value to your business and your clients, passionate about their work and your business, or does it mean you have given up on that as a possibility?
If it’s the former, hats off to you and I would love to hear more about your approach. If the latter, when would be a good time for you to start considering that possibility?
Now, let’s discuss the content, starting with ‘client service guff’. I agree with all of you on this point. The legal profession is a service industry — from one perspective, it’s all about clients. Lawyers who lose track of the importance of clients will (or ought) be quickly out of business.
But the interesting question is, does being a client focused industry mean that it’s not possible for lawyers to align what they do with their values and/or their larger contribution or purpose, whatever that might be? And if the impact of that alignment is an increase in employee engagement (which has a real and significant positive impact on profit), why not consider the possibility of achieving both? Of course, this is almost ‘old hat’ in the rest of the corporate world — the legal industry has been slower to take up the challenge.
I know of small and large firms on this journey who are reaping rewards. They recognise the supreme importance of client service, but they also understand that it is a means to an end, not the end in itself. My challenge to you is to ask yourself some of these bigger questions and then engage your staff in a similar conversation. If you get nothing out of it, you can say ‘I told you so’. If not…
As for a values shift, I make that assessment on the basis Dr Clare Graves’ work and its evolution, such as Spiral Dynamics. The point is, historic practices are not working in engaging current generations. As Einstein said, “the significant problems we have cannot be solved at the same level of thinking with which we created them.”
Finally, am I an expert? For the record, I did 2 years with KPMG in the late 80s, followed by 15 years in the legal industry, mostly as a litigator. Toward the end of those years I moved into formal leadership roles, firstly as practice manager of a litigation practice of 70 and then as the leader of the marketing and client service division in a firm of 750. I was very successful in those leadership roles, both in terms of results and staff engagement. I made plenty of mistakes and learnt from them. Since then I have focused on leadership, delivering workshops, training and presentations on the topic, including as a business partner of Franklin Covey.
Thank you for your thoughtful and passionate responses.
Aside from the fact that your sentence makes no sense, as something “supreme” can’t, by definition, be a means to an end, you’re fundamentally wrong. Client service is the end. Lawyer happiness is not the end. The legal profession exists to serve our clients, not to make us rich, work as little as possible, and make our limited time at work fun. When the goal of lawyers is to make themselves happy at the expense of their clients, our reason to exist ceases. End of story.
Really?? I could use one or two converts for a Springtime Midwest Gen-Y panel I’m putting together.
Two names? How about Zana and Morelli? Morelli’s not as old as he looks. He just didn’t age well.
SHG,
Regarding expertise in “leadership” my alma mater (UofR–$50K tuition!)has a school of leadership and associated major (which is so groundbreaking and important that you cannot have it unless you complete another major concurrently). Perhaps the best indicator of it’s correlation to achievement is that I have not ascended to management and earned only a history degree while rejecting any opportunity to Burns it up and go Leadership.
Perhaps Mr. Hughes would like to visit Virginia’s capital city and refresh those leadership skills.
Or he may have to stick with reality that structural changes don’t imply changes in incentives nor find you more creative, enthusiastic, capable and intelligent employees.