The power of personality

As circumstances force knowledge sharing to become more sophisticated, knowledge management professionals must become more astute in identifying and adapting to cultural issues. However, many spend too little time learning about the professionals they work with, focusing rather on KM itself.

By Helene Russell, Bevan Brittan LLP.

I came into knowledge management (KM) from fee earning, as a clinical negligence litigator. I work in a mid-sized regional firm in the Medical Law and Personal Injury Department, supporting litigators who defend clinical negligence and personal injury claims. This article is the result of my efforts to discover more about what makes fee earners tick and how I have tried to use this information to maximise knowledge sharing.

The Law is a knowledge business and law firms have been ‘doing knowledge’ since lawyers first joined forces, long before KM existed as a business concept. With increasing client sophistication and specialisation, formal KM has come to the fore as an essential business tool to maximise profits. As business needs force knowledge sharing to become more sophisticated, those working in KM must become more astute in identifying and adapting to cultural issues. There is always a lot of discussion in KM circles about ‘culture’ but many knowledge specialists spend too little time learning about the professionals they work with, focusing rather on KM itself. Lawyers are different to the general population and they work in a different way to most other businesses. Time spent understanding this will maximise efficiency in KM.

Lawyers are different
Lawyers may not realise it, but there is a distinctive element of a lawyer’s personality, which distinguishes them from the general population.

Susan Daicoff, Professor of Law at Capital University in the US, has researched lawyers’ personalities, professionalism and the legal profession extensively. She concludes[1] that lawyers are different in a number of ways, many of which are not necessarily developed through legal training but are apparent from childhood. These include a Myers & Briggs Foundation IITJ [introversion, intuition, thinking and judging] type personality, and generally being cold, argumentative, competitive and materialistic.

Initially, this personality may not sound like a recipe for eager knowledge sharing or even a cheery workplace, especially to non-lawyers, who usually have Myers Briggs ESFJ [extroversion, sensing, feeling and judging) personalities, but it enables lawyers to do their work with a minimum of emotional conflict or angst and provides clear-headed, emotionally detached representation to a variety of clients. It enables them to be adaptive to the practice of law and may even facilitate equal access to justice. The advantages of such characteristics to both the lawyer and law firm are significant – KM professionals need to understand and work with these characteristics, rather than expect or force change. Understanding what drives lawyers and taking this into account when interacting with them eases conflict and maximises results.

Lawyers’ personalities
According to their Myers Briggs’ personality type, lawyers tend to take a ‘thinking’ rather than ‘feeling’ approach to decision making. Thinkers value justice, rationality, truth and objectivity. Their decisions don’t reflect their personal values and they are good at problem solving. In contrast, ‘feelers’ value harmony, interpersonal relationships, praise and mercy; seeking to do what is right by their own personal values, while sensitive to the effect of decisions on others. Lawyers are highly critical; wanting to test propositions to assess their logic, identify alternatives and detail what is wrong rather than what is right. They take a conventional, law-and-order approach to moral decision making.

These personality characteristics have significant benefits for knowledge sharing, as any submissions are likely to be rational, balanced, objective and of a reasonable standard. However, KM professionals need to be aware that where feedback or discussion is necessary, a lawyer will not value harmony above objectivity and may not readily compromise.

Lawyers tend to enjoy quiet concentration, reflecting, reading and writing, which is thought to be a life-long preference, present from childhood. Lawyers, as ‘judgers’, prefer structure, schedules, closure on decisions, planning and a cut-to-the-chase approach, while ‘perceivers’ go with the flow and see what develops. They would also rather think about the bigger picture, abstract ideas, global themes and complex problem solving, which is again thought to be a life-long preference present from childhood. This has benefits for KM professionals who, if they can interest a fee earner in a project or submission, can benefit from their wide analytical skills, supported by their quiet diligence.

Even in childhood, lawyers show leadership and an emphasis on self-discipline, rather than submission to authority, and a high need for achievement based on external or internal standard of excellence, with only a moderate need for power. Their competitive nature and masculine traits exhibit as argumentativeness, competitiveness, aggression and a need for dominance. Lawyers also tend to have a low interest in people, emotional concerns and interpersonal matters.

This can make working with them challenging and can make senior lawyers intimidating to juniors.

Knowledge sharing and collaboration tend to require sensitivity and keen interpersonal skills, so KM professionals will often need to work as a bridge, facilitating and encouraging contributions from all levels. Despite the above, lawyers tend to be sociable and liberal in political beliefs.

Litigators’ personalities
A number of studies have investigated litigators and have concluded that they are different again to the majority of lawyers in three key areas: analytical reasoning, need for power and testosterone levels.

A Canadian study[2] has found that law students generally prefer an analytical ‘left side of the brain’ style of reasoning when compared to management students, and those interested in litigation were even more analytical than those focusing on corporate or commercial law.

Although lawyers as a group have moderate needs for power, one study[3] found that criminal lawyers and judges are more motivated by a need for power than achievement; and the more time a lawyer spent in court, the more important power became to being happy doing the work.

KM professionals should bear these two factors in mind when considering fee earners’ motivation and contributions to KM projects. Those who spend time in court are more likely to assist with projects where they have control or which have good prospects for improving their power base within the firm.

Three US studies highlighted by Dabbs, Alford and Fielden[4] have shown that US trial lawyers, as a group, have testosterone levels similar to blue-collar workers. Testosterone is associated with energy, interpersonal dominance, persistence, competitiveness, combativeness, lower verbal abilities and focused attention. Although testosterone is the principle male sex hormone, both sexes have it. While lawyers as a group were not especially high in testosterone, trial lawyers (both male and female) were significantly (30 per cent) higher than non-trial lawyers. This research studied only those who had been trial lawyers in the US for years and so could not explain causation, ie. whether those with high testosterone levels were attracted to court work, or whether the court work caused testosterone fluctuations.

The Canadian, US and UK litigation systems are very different, as are the types of advocacy undertaken, so this research must be treated cautiously. Most UK civil litigators without higher rights of audience primarily undertake advocacy in front of specialist judges, arguing about legal technicalities or case management, with barristers undertaking the trial advocacy, which again is in front of specialist judges rather than juries. This research cannot therefore be applied directly to UK civil litigators, but should be borne in mind, as many do take a particularly analytical approach and exhibit high levels of energy, dominance, persistence and combativeness. Many non-litigators, including other lawyers, feel cross-examined, even when discussing the weather with a litigator, and know-how lawyers would do well to remember that these are general personality characteristics, especially where conflict is anticipated.

Lawyers work in a different way
Over recent years, many law firms have tried to modernise their structures and have taken on a more ‘corporate’ management structure, with a chief executive and management board – some headed by a non-lawyer. But even in these firms, the legacy of the traditional law-firm structure lives on within the cultures and attitudes of the lawyers and creates challenges for the KM professional.

The billable hours issue
This is often the greatest problem a know-how professional has to grapple with. Lawyers work and value themselves according to their billable hours. Fee-earning lawyers are usually compensated for meeting their fearsome billable hours target, so they prioritise their non-billable time carefully. KM can find itself low on the list of non-chargeable priorities and often, while a firm may say that non-chargeable work such as know-how contributions and client care is valued, billing is the key to advancement. Remember when you experience difficulties that this is a common problem. Very few firms find it easy to get all fee earners to contribute all their knowledge.

Lawyers are naturally materialistic and firms are profit driven, so will only invest time and money in worthwhile causes. Knowledge development and sharing, which solves a legal or business problem and meets workers needs, plus KM solutions that minimise non-billable time, minimise write-off and increase cost-effectiveness, improve leverage and minimise reinvention of the wheel (which clients will refuse to pay for), are usually welcomed. KM projects which improve access to quality information in fixed-fee work in particular will be invaluable. Those which support the wider business strategy in a very concrete manner (ie. a KM project concentrating on client information sharing to support a departmental objective to improve engagement at strategic/board level) will be more well received than general projects to improve communication and facilitate knowledge sharing.

Fee earners are used to being measured in a very concrete way (by their billings), so can find it difficult to support KM projects which have vague or immeasurable benefits. Measurement may be a solution to this problem; however, it is a tricky issue. Many methodologies have been tried, but most professionals working with law firms are beginning to realise that most of these are not appropriate and often have unexpected negative effects. While measurement can be difficult, KM initiatives that improve write-off levels, minimise non-billable hours and improve leverage (with its attendant positive effect on profit per equity partner) will usually be supported and can be a key way to improve your standing and support within the firm.

Silos, specialists and respect for support lawyers
Lawyers respect lawyers. They are a self-regulating profession and expect to work by codes of behaviour determined by their peers. They do not extend professional respect automatically. They each have specialised knowledge and often regard their judgment in other domains, rightly or wrongly, as elite. Some KM professionals who began their careers as fee earners can have an advantage, although there are sometimes suggestions that those who move into KM have done so because they couldn’t cope with the legal technicalities or the long hours. Respect in a KM role has to be earned. KM initiatives which demonstrate an understanding of firm strategy and aim to improve profitability build trust and respect. Last, a small point, but lawyers often deride technical management-speak and KM-speak, so it is best avoided. Use storytelling and study communities of practice, but avoid labelling them as such.

Lawyers may respect their peers but, depending upon the culture of the firm, they may view specialist knowledge as power and be reluctant to share. KM projects which show a demonstrable benefit to these particular fee earners (reducing write-off, minimising non-billable hours, for example) can build trust.

Problem solving, decision making and delay
Lawyers analyse their clients’ problems, review a number of solutions, advise about the risks and benefits of the potential solutions and then act on the clients’ decisions.

As a result they often probe KM ideas and spend time considering alternatives. Usually they do this to understand the ideas better, rather than to destroy the concept. They also need to understand the alternatives or limits and why one particular solution is the most advantageous one. Build credibility by demonstrating the research and authorities upon which your views are based and explain what alternative solutions have been rejected and why. Be prepared and don’t be defensive.

Because lawyers are used to presenting clients with options, albeit supported by considered advice, they tend not to be used to making the final decision, which can delay many projects. Set aside a reasonable period when options can be identified and explored, but emphasise when a decision has to be made by a group.

Lawyers work in partnerships and highly politicised hierarchies
Partners own their own businesses and expect to be consulted. Rainmakers can wield significant power and some firms operate an ‘eat what you kill’ remuneration policy, so are highly political. Firms tend to be hierarchical and junior lawyers can be reluctant to expose their lack of experience to others.

If undertaking a consultation, speak to every partner individually and make sure that detailed notes are made and a report prepared including direct quotes. Ensure that partners are treated differently to other fee earners and acknowledge the value of the contributions received from them. In general, research the political nature of your firm and make special efforts with the rainmakers and those they respect. Emphasise how the work you are doing will make things easier for them, their practice and their clients. When dealing with more junior lawyers, consider approaching them away from their peers or supervisors to maximise contributions and buy-in.

Lawyers love language
Last, language is the lawyer’s trade and they are obsessive about it. They view precision in language as evidence of precision in their technical work.

A project plan with grammar or spelling mistakes may well be proof-read and returned marked with corrections. If lawyers see a lack of precision in the language of a plan, they will perceive a lack of attention to detail in the plan itself and once that impression is formed, it can be very difficult to impress later on. Proof-read everything; actively listen to the language used by lawyers within the firm and try to reflect common phrases. Use consistent language and be rigorous in your precision.

Key tips to consider
Lawyers are different and special. While their distinct personalities may make knowledge sharing challenging, remember that these personalities permit them to undertake work which is technically and ethically demanding. Time spent in understanding lawyers’ personalities and business needs is time well spent, to ensure a focus on projects that will be valued, to maximise buy-in, minimise delays and avoid negativity.

Using my experience and research as a basis, my five key tips are:

Build high-level credibility with initiatives aimed at improving the profitability of your firm’s rainmakers;
Build grass-roots support with initiatives aimed at minimising write-off and non-chargeable time;
Learn to love language and precision;
Investigate the personalities of your firm’s lawyers. Many traits are useful and can provide ideas for motivation;
Lastly, if you experience difficult exchanges with aggressive and questioning fee earners, remember not to take anything personally.

Hélène Russell is professional support lawyer in the Medical Law and Personal Injury Department at Bevan Brittan LLP. She can be contacted at helene.russell@bevanbrittan.com.

References

[1] Susan Daicoff, Lawyer Know Thyself – a Psychological Analysis of Personality Strengths and Weaknesses, published by American Psychological Association 2004;

[2] Pauline A Doucette & William E Kelleher, Cognitive Style and Law Students in Eastern Canada: Preliminary Findings, College Student J 206 (1998);

[3] Leonard H Chusmir, Law and Jurisprudence Occupations: A Look at Motivational Need Patterns, Com LJ May 1984 at 231-35;

[4] James M Dabbs, Elizabeth Carriere Alford and Julie A Fielden, Trial Lawyers and Testosterone: Blue Collar Talent in a White Collar World, 28 J Applied Social Psychol. 84 87-88 (1998)