Lawyers vary greatly in how each best likes to be a member of a team, and how each best can contribute to a team. When reading an article today about lawyer teams, I was reminded of this heterogeneity.
The article was one written by Janet Raasch: "Divide To Conquer: Law Firms Use Strategic Teams To Master The Marketplace." [Now here.] In the article, Raasch does her usual fine job of reporting on and summarizing the presentations given at the monthly meetings of the Rocky Mountain Chapter of the Legal Marketing Association. In this article, she was writing about a presentation given last month by Linda Hazelton, chief marketing officer of Jones, Walker, Waechter, Poitevent, Carrere & Denegre. I did not attend the presentation but, from reading the article, it sounds like it was very informative and helpful. I comment on only one small part.
Raasch writes . . .
Teams can be a hard sell. “Many lawyers are solitary thinkers who prefer to work alone rather than as a member of a team,” said Hazelton
“Among studies of college-educated individuals, lawyers tend to score on the extreme high end for characteristics like autonomy, skepticism and urgency (feeling pressed for time),” said Hazelton. “They tend to score on the low end for traits like sociability.” (Hazelton credited these results to the research of Dr. Larry Richard of Hildebrandt, who tested thousands of lawyers in order to reach these conclusions.)
As a personality type, lawyers are comforted by structure. “Providing reports and meetings in the ‘right’ amount – not too little, not too much – can help your team initiative succeed,” said Hazelton. “They are also impressed by successful precedent. If you can use a team to accomplish an important goal, showcase your success.”
I have recently posted my thoughts about these categorical statements about lawyers. Many lawyers are not as described above. In the case of lawyer teams, we have some good information from the Highlands Ability Battery about how lawyers are different from each other.
Highlands is based on the assessment designed and refined by the Johnson O'Connor Research Foundation which was founded in 1922. The Foundation has been testing individuals in about 11 cities around the country for many decades.
Both of these assessments have shown that about 75% of the population are specialists (subjectives in Johnson O'Connor terminology) and 25% are generalists (Johnson O'Connor calls these people objectives). Here is a very brief, general overview of each.
High specialists are very autonomous and want to control their own work and activities. They like to be seen as experts and typically choose one or a few areas of expertise and learn them deeply. Even with in-depth learning, they often feel like they do not know enough about their areas of expertise. They are typically intense about their work.
High generalists like to work with and through others. They fit comfortably into teams and easily move from one project to another if doing so is in the interest of the team's efforts. They may know many things but not in great depth. A specialist's expertise is a foot wide and a mile deep, whereas a generalist's is a mile wide and a foot deep.
The tool used to assess whether a person is a specialist or a generalist is not self-report; the person has no idea for what they are being tested. The validity and reliability of the test has been proven many times in the Johnson O'Connor labs.
Now let's add a second factor before we look at how lawyers vary as team members. The test for this next factor is self-report and is ipsative so not as stable or precise but results can give good clues and will help illustrate the differences. This second factor is extroversion and introversion. Here is a real quick and dirty comparison of the two.
High extroverts typically get energy from being around other people. They like lots of interaction and they don't need a purpose to be with others; unstructured interaction is fine. They may become frustrated when they have to work alone for long periods of time. They like variety and get bored easily with repetitive work.
High introverts typically recharge while alone. A group interaction can exhaust them. They like more structured work and structured interactions. Just hanging out to hang out is not something they appreciate. Their thoughts usually will be fully formed before spoken.
With these four positions we can look at four types of lawyers and how they respond to teams. I use the terminology and descriptions of Highlands.
People Influencer (high extrovert, high generalist)
- Prefers working as part of a team
- Likes wide variety of tasks
- Gets energy from people
- Enjoys lots of people interactions
Performer (high extrovert, high specialist)
- Prefers individual contributor role
- Likes to work in a concentrated area
- Prefers in-depth information
- Gets energy from people
As you can see the performers are in a push me—pull you situation with their preference for people interaction and their need for autonomy. They are often happy to learn something well and then teach it to others.
Renaissance Person (high introversion, high generalist)
- Prefers working as part of a team
- Gets energy from being alone
- Likes to work behind the scenes
The Renaissance Person also experiences a tension between the preference for working in teams and the need to be alone. They often explore lots of areas on their own but may not tell others what they know unless asked. They may be the hidden treasures in a team or organization.
Professional Researcher (high introversion, high specialist)
- Prefers individual contributor role
- Likes to work in concentrated areas
- Prefers in-depth information
- Gets energy from being alone
Those are only four of the styles. Many more exist just when considering specialist/generalist and extroversion/introversion. For example, some people score more in the middle of one or both and may play the role of bridge between those who are more different from each other.
Lawyers are not the same as the general population; the percentage of specialists is greater. Nevertheless not all lawyers are high specialists. Many make good team members in the traditional notion of team. Most make good team members if you know how each best works with others.
Highlands and Johnson O'Connor measure almost 20 innate aptitudes. Scores on many, if not most, of them will have an effect on the type of team in which a person will be most effective and satisfied. These scores will shift, shade, and supplement what I have written above — as will skills, values, interests, et cetera. (Take a look at this article by Lazar Emanual, CEO of Highlands, on lawyer leadership.) With the exception of extroversion/introversion (not used by Johnson O'Connor), none of the work samples that make up the assessment are self-report. That's why, when I was looking for an assessment to use with clients, Highlands was my choice.
Do I think that self-report assessments have no value? No, not at all. In the future, I will post about the situations in which I think they can be useful and beneficial.
Comments