Training departments in law firms spend a great deal of time and effort getting their training "right". We gather feedback from delegates, and constantly revisit the programme to get it as near perfect as possible.
Yet perhaps we shouldn't bother.
Over the past dozen years or so I've seen, delivered, read-the-course-notes-from and taken part in a huge quantity of training. Most of it was well designed and delivered, with a few exceptions. The subsequent impact, however, did not seem to be linked to the design or delivery of the training. Success depends on the willingness of the delegates to become participants.
In former days, when we had days rather than hours for training, a large part of the initial phase was spent "digging for pain" - drawing-out from the delegates the necessity for the training, their own personal journey, and how they would apply it. This phase prepared the ground for the seeds to be planted. Nowadays we move swiftly into the planting phase, throwing the seed out hoping that some will bed in.
This is not necessarily a bad strategy. The Darwinian process of the tough surviving means that those who are motivated and willing to really listen will succeed, and those who are just chair-fodder will fail. Capitalism at its finest. Yet we should not, in these circumstances, take the feedback from the non-participants too seriously. If delegates don't want to participate, modifying the training in line with their thoughts may be a big mistake.
Most partners are not good at giving feedback. If they were, this
is what an upfront partner would tell you that he or she is looking for in a junior lawyer:
- Honesty.
If you've screwed up, I need to be the first to know. If you say
something is true, it must be true. We all make mistakes - I did when I
was your age and I am not immune today. The problem is not making a
mistake, it is failing to acknowledge and learn from it.
- Time recording.
It's not your job to decide if someone should pay for what you've spent
your time on. I need to know how long things take, or else I can't work
out profitability.
- Curiosity. If you don't ask,
you won't know. So ask me how the work assigned fits into the wider
client brief. Ask me why things are structured the way they are. And
keep current with world and business affairs so you can ask good
questions, not just legal ones.
- Attitude. I need you
to learn how to do new things. You need to be pro-active. What area do
you need to develop in most? Find work that stretches you in these
areas, and get feedback on your efforts. I may also ask you do boring
mundane stuff - that's life when you're junior (and even when you're
not so junior). Do it cheerfully. Then the next time some interesting
work comes through, you will be top of the list.
- Attention to detail.
You can get a First Class Honours with 70% right. I expect 100%. It's
what you're supposed to be good at, so if it's not your natural
preference, you need to spend more time on it.
- Ability to listen to instructions.
When I give you a piece of work, and tell you what to do, I expect it
to be done the way I said. Ask if you don't understand something. But
make sure you are asking the right questions. Take the time to think it
through for yourself as far as you can, then ask about the bits you
really don't get.
- Tenacity. When I'm busy I can appear
distracted, off-hand or even rude. Sorry. But that's life. Get over it,
smile, and get back to work.
By the way, apart from
time recording, these are the same qualities that the client looks for
in a partner. So it's worth developing them now.
A great deal has been written about the Boomers, Generation X and Generation Y.
The FT entered the fray on Thursday with a well-crafted piece looking at ways some companies are linking the retiring generation (Boomers) with Generation Y to give the feedback and meaning that characterises the Generation Y.
I don't know of any law firm that is this pro-active. Advantages could include:
- Linking the "grey hairs" heading for retirement with NQ's might well bridge the feedback gap that hard-worked partners are often accused of neglecting.
- Linking could also give those retiring a sense of legacy, and a chance to share the accumulated wisdom which is rarely captured on a formalised basis.
- Linking could be a natural part of the wind-down process, formalising the latter stages of a highly successful career. Note the Cisco example given by the FT.
In my experience mentoring programmes usually stumble because of the mentors preoccupation with his/her career&clients, or the unwillingness to give frank feedback.
Perhaps Boomers heading for retirement would be the answer.