Professional Development: The New Operating Prowess Required of Today's Marketing Leaders

Without question, legal marketing executives have shown their versatility over the years by continuously evolving their skills to meet the changing demands within law firms and to address the dynamics of the legal market. As pioneers in this evolving functional discipline, the creativity of these executives has allowed them to make easy adaptations to meet ever-changing mandates. This is, after all, a “left-side-of-the-brain” type of group, who use artistic flair to create form from a blank sheet of paper. Yet, the creativity they used especially in the area of marketing communications ' while remaining an invaluable characteristic ' has been usurped by the demand for stronger operational prowess. Form now follows function. Science has once again merged with art.

Admittedly, operations have never been a strong suit of most marketing executives. Few are trained or well-versed in business functions outside their bailiwick ' functions such as HR, IT, and Finance. Nor do many possess the formulaic mindset that can help create effective operating work streams, project management and process methodologies. A brief review of today's position descriptions of marketing roles in law firms, however, reveals where the jobs' demands are growing most rapidly. They are indeed in the area of setting up operating systems that support an effective business process for sustainable and scalable business development. Let's take a look at just a few samples of some of the new responsibility line items in marketing job descriptions.

Specification:

Develop and direct processes to execute effectively on client requests for proposals. Ensure Department maintains effective knowledge management and data retrieval practices for reuse.

Reason:

Law firms continue to experience a gradual increase in the number of requests for proposals or “RFPs” they receive. To process these leads, the marketing and business development organization(s) need to do several things, including;

• Determine which RFPs are worth pursuing.
• Respond in a timely manner.
• Differentiate their firm's capabilities from others.

In order to achieve success in response to such high demand, law firms must adopt and slightly adapt the manufacturing concept of mass customization; that is, produce customized output in mass volume to avoid building something from scratch each and every time while avoiding a routine commoditized response. More appropriately called “adaptive customization” in a services versus product setting, this involves input from clients and many other collaborators. Regardless of who contributes to the process, the need to create a production center able to generate mass proposals is a critical function to any law firm trying to stay competitive and in consideration for new matters.

Specification:

Create a sustainable and scalable business development methodology to include developing client chase teams, implementing milestones, and comparing team performance against stated MBOs. (Management By Objectives).

Reason:

So-called participative goal-setting requires an operational rigor few marketers or lawyers have a natural proclivity toward in the first place. Inherent in implementing this operational model is to hold individuals accountable for their portion of the business development deliverable.

Specification:

Help establish marketing performance metrics to track progress toward major objectives agreed upon with the Executive Committee; discuss progress on a regular basis with the Executive Committee and leaders of practices, regions/offices and client initiatives.

Reason:

This new mandate within the requirements of law firm marketing leaders is a direct result of the perceived lack of ROI most partners felt about the millions of dollars they spent paying marketing executives and funding marketing programs throughout most of the 2000s. As a result, when the credit crunch recession hit, many marketing leaders lost their jobs and marketing budgets were slashed. In the recovery, CMOs, CBDOs and their marketing teams continue to build their own internal reporting capabilities and use performance dashboards and metrics to demonstrate their ROI back to the partnership.

These new operating models ' largely implemented in business development processes ' will move into the more traditional marketing communications function as well. No longer will marketing leaders be able to capitalize the marketing budget through the use of historic presumptions such as assuming a budget will be somewhere between 2%-3% of annual revenue simply because that is the way it has always been calculated. Moving forward, zero-based budgeting will be required on all operational and capital spending.

While a case can be made that these operational responsibilities have always been a part of the legal marketing executive's mandate, the degree to which they were applied has never reached the level it is at today. It is probably what prompted one AMLAW 100 firm to name its CIO both CIO and CMO concurrently, as he had the ability to create business processes and merge them with software technology to support a variety of marketing directives.

The Role of Operating Managers

In response to these demands, some law firm marketing leaders have hired operating managers to oversee budgets and processes to address these demands. While that is certainly a reasonable approach to addressing the operational side of marketing and business development, it does not inoculate marketing leaders from needing to manage the function themselves. They need to own the process and certainly need to be prepared to speak to their approach to the administration of their department with both their current and prospective employers.

Case in point: a recent CMO placement of mine was recruited from the Pacific Rim region by an AMLAW 100 client due in part to his operating prowess. At his previous firm, he had developed a strong working knowledge of strategy, client relationships, strategic pricing, information systems and human resource management, as he had also served as his firm's regional COO. Few of his American counterparts have ever accreted such operational experience. They will be well-served to do so moving forward.

Admittedly, socializing these new six-sigma-like business concepts can be met with outright “organ rejection” within some firms as lawyers and colleagues may dismiss the language as so-called “corporate talk” or “consult speak.” Yet corporate clients increasingly demand that law firms implement these strong operational efforts in their approach to doing business with them. To make attorneys and other marketing executives approach their business in such a manner is a herculean task, to say the least. Does the overused term of “herding cats” come to mind?

Conclusion

Law firm management 2.0 is here to stay and there will continue to be winners and losers who embrace change or fail to adjust. While most disruptive forces have heretofore operated on the fringe of the legal market, they have begun to converge with great alacrity on conventional law firm settings. With publicly traded law firms dotting the landscape in Australia and the Legal Services Act in the United Kingdom allowing for the infusion of outside investments into law firms, expect outside shareholders to demand even greater ROI on their investments. And expect those requirements to bleed into the American legal market regardless of whether standards change to allow outside capital to flow into law firms or not. These corporate operating tenets will most certainly emerge and are, in fact, already here.

Michael DeCosta, a member of this newsletter's Board of Editors, is a Partner with the international executive search firm, Caldwell Partners. Michael is a member of the firm's professional services and legal practices. He can be reached at 203-348-9581 or via e-mail at [email protected].

Without question, legal marketing executives have shown their versatility over the years by continuously evolving their skills to meet the changing demands within law firms and to address the dynamics of the legal market. As pioneers in this evolving functional discipline, the creativity of these executives has allowed them to make easy adaptations to meet ever-changing mandates. This is, after all, a “left-side-of-the-brain” type of group, who use artistic flair to create form from a blank sheet of paper. Yet, the creativity they used especially in the area of marketing communications ' while remaining an invaluable characteristic ' has been usurped by the demand for stronger operational prowess. Form now follows function. Science has once again merged with art.

Admittedly, operations have never been a strong suit of most marketing executives. Few are trained or well-versed in business functions outside their bailiwick ' functions such as HR, IT, and Finance. Nor do many possess the formulaic mindset that can help create effective operating work streams, project management and process methodologies. A brief review of today's position descriptions of marketing roles in law firms, however, reveals where the jobs' demands are growing most rapidly. They are indeed in the area of setting up operating systems that support an effective business process for sustainable and scalable business development. Let's take a look at just a few samples of some of the new responsibility line items in marketing job descriptions.

Specification:

Develop and direct processes to execute effectively on client requests for proposals. Ensure Department maintains effective knowledge management and data retrieval practices for reuse.

Reason:

Law firms continue to experience a gradual increase in the number of requests for proposals or “RFPs” they receive. To process these leads, the marketing and business development organization(s) need to do several things, including;

• Determine which RFPs are worth pursuing.
• Respond in a timely manner.
• Differentiate their firm's capabilities from others.

In order to achieve success in response to such high demand, law firms must adopt and slightly adapt the manufacturing concept of mass customization; that is, produce customized output in mass volume to avoid building something from scratch each and every time while avoiding a routine commoditized response. More appropriately called “adaptive customization” in a services versus product setting, this involves input from clients and many other collaborators. Regardless of who contributes to the process, the need to create a production center able to generate mass proposals is a critical function to any law firm trying to stay competitive and in consideration for new matters.

Specification:

Create a sustainable and scalable business development methodology to include developing client chase teams, implementing milestones, and comparing team performance against stated MBOs. (Management By Objectives).

Reason:

So-called participative goal-setting requires an operational rigor few marketers or lawyers have a natural proclivity toward in the first place. Inherent in implementing this operational model is to hold individuals accountable for their portion of the business development deliverable.

Specification:

Help establish marketing performance metrics to track progress toward major objectives agreed upon with the Executive Committee; discuss progress on a regular basis with the Executive Committee and leaders of practices, regions/offices and client initiatives.

Reason:

This new mandate within the requirements of law firm marketing leaders is a direct result of the perceived lack of ROI most partners felt about the millions of dollars they spent paying marketing executives and funding marketing programs throughout most of the 2000s. As a result, when the credit crunch recession hit, many marketing leaders lost their jobs and marketing budgets were slashed. In the recovery, CMOs, CBDOs and their marketing teams continue to build their own internal reporting capabilities and use performance dashboards and metrics to demonstrate their ROI back to the partnership.

These new operating models ' largely implemented in business development processes ' will move into the more traditional marketing communications function as well. No longer will marketing leaders be able to capitalize the marketing budget through the use of historic presumptions such as assuming a budget will be somewhere between 2%-3% of annual revenue simply because that is the way it has always been calculated. Moving forward, zero-based budgeting will be required on all operational and capital spending.

While a case can be made that these operational responsibilities have always been a part of the legal marketing executive's mandate, the degree to which they were applied has never reached the level it is at today. It is probably what prompted one AMLAW 100 firm to name its CIO both CIO and CMO concurrently, as he had the ability to create business processes and merge them with software technology to support a variety of marketing directives.

The Role of Operating Managers

In response to these demands, some law firm marketing leaders have hired operating managers to oversee budgets and processes to address these demands. While that is certainly a reasonable approach to addressing the operational side of marketing and business development, it does not inoculate marketing leaders from needing to manage the function themselves. They need to own the process and certainly need to be prepared to speak to their approach to the administration of their department with both their current and prospective employers.

Case in point: a recent CMO placement of mine was recruited from the Pacific Rim region by an AMLAW 100 client due in part to his operating prowess. At his previous firm, he had developed a strong working knowledge of strategy, client relationships, strategic pricing, information systems and human resource management, as he had also served as his firm's regional COO. Few of his American counterparts have ever accreted such operational experience. They will be well-served to do so moving forward.

Admittedly, socializing these new six-sigma-like business concepts can be met with outright “organ rejection” within some firms as lawyers and colleagues may dismiss the language as so-called “corporate talk” or “consult speak.” Yet corporate clients increasingly demand that law firms implement these strong operational efforts in their approach to doing business with them. To make attorneys and other marketing executives approach their business in such a manner is a herculean task, to say the least. Does the overused term of “herding cats” come to mind?

Conclusion

Law firm management 2.0 is here to stay and there will continue to be winners and losers who embrace change or fail to adjust. While most disruptive forces have heretofore operated on the fringe of the legal market, they have begun to converge with great alacrity on conventional law firm settings. With publicly traded law firms dotting the landscape in Australia and the Legal Services Act in the United Kingdom allowing for the infusion of outside investments into law firms, expect outside shareholders to demand even greater ROI on their investments. And expect those requirements to bleed into the American legal market regardless of whether standards change to allow outside capital to flow into law firms or not. These corporate operating tenets will most certainly emerge and are, in fact, already here.

Michael DeCosta, a member of this newsletter's Board of Editors, is a Partner with the international executive search firm, Caldwell Partners. Michael is a member of the firm's professional services and legal practices. He can be reached at 203-348-9581 or via e-mail at [email protected].