Title Inflation: What's in a Name?

Moving from a Director to Chief title typically suggests a move; albeit subtle, from a tactical to more strategic approach to a function ' and almost always, with the title change comes increased responsibilities. In some circumstances, the title is irrelevant in terms of scope of duties. Either way, one can anticipate that expectations around your performance and contribution to notch up with the new title. With heightened scrutiny and responsibility, the newly minted CMO must have the courage to ask for access to information. That could entail gaining greater access to financials, attendance of executive/ management committee meetings, or being privy to confidential information, especially around merger or acquisition prospects. If such a right of entry is beyond the parameters on the role or firm's culture to allow, one must be courageous enough to challenge the prevailing thinking or be smart enough to walk away from the opportunity. Many COOs have challenged the conventional wisdom of their respective firms and, in so doing, succeeded in obtaining 'partner-equivalent' status. Marketing officers, perhaps more than other administrative leader, with the responsibility to assist top-line growth, should ask the same and welcome the opportunity to tie his or her compensation to the firm's overall performance. By doing so, they gain respect and trust. If they do not, they may fall victim to changes from the top with little explanation as to why.

Case in point: In recent months, four Philadelphia firms have seen the departure of their chief marketing officer according to The Legal Intelligencer. In a recent article in that newspaper (a sister publication of this newsletter), marketing consultant Stacy West Clark indicated, 'CMOs and other higher-level marketers are leaving or being asked to leave Philadelphia firms more often because it wasn't the right fit, and those firms aren't always looking to fill the vacant positions.' According to The American Lawyer, the average tenure of law firm CMOs is only three years.

Keep Perspective

While the CMO role may make good sense for most firms, remember, the proliferation of 'C'-level titles in the industry represents a new frontier. In law firms, where senior administrators were traditionally given title of Director for many years, the move to the executive level represents a quantum leap for the profession.

Moreover, while title proliferation continues on the administrative side, fall out from prematurely promoting attorneys to Partner or even worse, the oxymoronic 'Non-Equity Partner' is starting to have an adverse impact on firms. According to a study conducted by legal consultant Bruce MacEwen and published in the May 8, 2008 edition of the ABA Journal, 'the higher the proportion of non-equity partners, the lower the firm's revenue per lawyer and profits per partner. For law firms with no non-equity partners, the average revenue per lawyer was $1,127,500. For firms with more non-equity than equity partners, average revenue per lawyer was only $724,500.' Lower profits per partner can stifle recruiting and retention, critical lifebloods for any firm's future success.

With these shifts in structure and title, issues have sometimes followed. CMOs are wise to remember that they are part of a great experiment in redefining how law firms operate, one that is bound to be replete with trial and error.

Title Confusion

Further exasperating the situation, there are some newly created roles at the top that can cause confusion within law firms in terms of responsibilities. Indeed, some new roles can come in direct conflict with the CMO position. In addition to the Marketing Partner, the marketing committee, and COOs chiming in on marketing matters, now Chief Strategy Officers, Chief Business Development Officers, and Chiefs of Client Services are also tasked with contributing to a firm's 'go-to-market' strategy. These roles are either newly created or recently 'carved out' of the marketing group, causing organizational confusion. Arguably, this indicates all the more reason why marketers should be at the 'C' level.

Sizing Up the CMO Role

In the end, it is hard to argue against the merits of augmenting or keeping the marketing function at the 'C'-level. Given the competitive landscape and overall market dynamics of the legal industry, it is important for firms to have a CMO if their culture will support it. If not, it may be time to evolve the culture. Assuming the CMO title is here to stay, it is certainly a role that many will aspire to achieve. Choosing to assume the CMO role is a decision not to be entered into lightly as it is a position rife with challenges, some ultimately beyond one's control. With the title change, ensuring the role has the right level of authority and responsibilities will save you much heartache in down the road.

Like many organizations, title inflation has befallen law firms. Over the last decade, starting with the move of Executive Directors to Chief Operating Officer titles, most functional managers have seen their titles elevated to the 'C' level. While generally a sign of progress, some new positions can really make you scratch your head. Chief Receptionist Officer, Chief of Business Continuity, Chief of Client Excellence, and Chief Ambassador are but a few recently created titles that can be considered a bit peculiar. While well-intentioned, such titles can have a reverse effect on everyone as they cheapen the meaningfulness of the level. At a minimum, it means firms have to build bigger conference rooms as they try to make room for everyone 'at the table'.

Clearly, titles are important. Despite the temporary de-emphasis during the 'dot-com' era, titles are fundamental to any organizational design especially in a law firm setting where a more hierarchical model has always been valued. Used correctly, it can represent a way to reward, and in theory retain, talent. Positioning the marketing function at the 'C' level seems to make good sense, for the firm and certainly the executive. Despite this, before taking on the title ask yourself; am I getting a seat at the table or on the edge of a cliff?

Defining the Role

Moving from a Director to Chief title typically suggests a move; albeit subtle, from a tactical to more strategic approach to a function ' and almost always, with the title change comes increased responsibilities. In some circumstances, the title is irrelevant in terms of scope of duties. Either way, one can anticipate that expectations around your performance and contribution to notch up with the new title. With heightened scrutiny and responsibility, the newly minted CMO must have the courage to ask for access to information. That could entail gaining greater access to financials, attendance of executive/ management committee meetings, or being privy to confidential information, especially around merger or acquisition prospects. If such a right of entry is beyond the parameters on the role or firm's culture to allow, one must be courageous enough to challenge the prevailing thinking or be smart enough to walk away from the opportunity. Many COOs have challenged the conventional wisdom of their respective firms and, in so doing, succeeded in obtaining 'partner-equivalent' status. Marketing officers, perhaps more than other administrative leader, with the responsibility to assist top-line growth, should ask the same and welcome the opportunity to tie his or her compensation to the firm's overall performance. By doing so, they gain respect and trust. If they do not, they may fall victim to changes from the top with little explanation as to why.

Case in point: In recent months, four Philadelphia firms have seen the departure of their chief marketing officer according to The Legal Intelligencer. In a recent article in that newspaper (a sister publication of this newsletter), marketing consultant Stacy West Clark indicated, 'CMOs and other higher-level marketers are leaving or being asked to leave Philadelphia firms more often because it wasn't the right fit, and those firms aren't always looking to fill the vacant positions.' According to The American Lawyer, the average tenure of law firm CMOs is only three years.

Keep Perspective

While the CMO role may make good sense for most firms, remember, the proliferation of 'C'-level titles in the industry represents a new frontier. In law firms, where senior administrators were traditionally given title of Director for many years, the move to the executive level represents a quantum leap for the profession.

Moreover, while title proliferation continues on the administrative side, fall out from prematurely promoting attorneys to Partner or even worse, the oxymoronic 'Non-Equity Partner' is starting to have an adverse impact on firms. According to a study conducted by legal consultant Bruce MacEwen and published in the May 8, 2008 edition of the ABA Journal, 'the higher the proportion of non-equity partners, the lower the firm's revenue per lawyer and profits per partner. For law firms with no non-equity partners, the average revenue per lawyer was $1,127,500. For firms with more non-equity than equity partners, average revenue per lawyer was only $724,500.' Lower profits per partner can stifle recruiting and retention, critical lifebloods for any firm's future success.

With these shifts in structure and title, issues have sometimes followed. CMOs are wise to remember that they are part of a great experiment in redefining how law firms operate, one that is bound to be replete with trial and error.

Title Confusion

Further exasperating the situation, there are some newly created roles at the top that can cause confusion within law firms in terms of responsibilities. Indeed, some new roles can come in direct conflict with the CMO position. In addition to the Marketing Partner, the marketing committee, and COOs chiming in on marketing matters, now Chief Strategy Officers, Chief Business Development Officers, and Chiefs of Client Services are also tasked with contributing to a firm's 'go-to-market' strategy. These roles are either newly created or recently 'carved out' of the marketing group, causing organizational confusion. Arguably, this indicates all the more reason why marketers should be at the 'C' level.

Sizing Up the CMO Role

In the end, it is hard to argue against the merits of augmenting or keeping the marketing function at the 'C'-level. Given the competitive landscape and overall market dynamics of the legal industry, it is important for firms to have a CMO if their culture will support it. If not, it may be time to evolve the culture. Assuming the CMO title is here to stay, it is certainly a role that many will aspire to achieve. Choosing to assume the CMO role is a decision not to be entered into lightly as it is a position rife with challenges, some ultimately beyond one's control. With the title change, ensuring the role has the right level of authority and responsibilities will save you much heartache in down the road.