Law Firm CMOs

Where does a CMO/CBDO belong on the law firm organizational chart? I ask this question frequently. Simply stated, my initial answer is, “It depends.” Organizational charts, in my opinion, should remain fluid, at least those used in professional services firms. Much of the staff alignment in an organizational chart is predicated on the particular styles, strengths, and weaknesses of its leadership, not on some universally accepted top-down box managerial arrangement. Despite this, I feel increasingly compelled in most cases to endorse alignment of the CMO/CBDO with the COO, not the Managing Partner.

Clearly, when the CMO function was in its nascent stage at law firms, perhaps 15 years ago, the question of reporting structure was asked because the role had never truly existed in many firms. Often, it seemed logical to tuck the position into the direct reporting line of an Executive Director/COO. After all, every other major central function including Finance, Information Technology, and Human Resources typically reported in a similar manner. Yet, as the role increased in size and scope, some CMOs insisted on reporting directly to the Managing Partner of the firm to ensure they had a seat at the already overpopulated “table,” whatever that is! I think that sentiment is a little short-sighted in today's big law firms, however. And here's why.

The Dwindling Case for Reporting to the Managing Partner

Rotational Assignments

Managing Partners, by design, come and go. If they are highly effective and not subject to term limits, they may extend their tenure over a decade or more. If CMOs align with a long-serving Managing Partner, on the surface, that may appear to be advantageous for their own career longevity. They become the aide-de-camp to the general and hard to challenge. Yet by aligning in such a manner, the CMO can end up irrevocably joining him/herself at the hip with that Managing Partner. That's bad for business on a number of fronts. First, it potentially creates a rift among peers. It also pushes decision-making into an oligarchy that in some instances may be good, but long-term can build bifurcated cultures. Finally, it does not allow for baton the passing to the next CMO quite as readily as if marketing was more institutionalized across the firm. All of this is simply unhealthy for the firm. Of course, if a Managing Partner steps down after serving just one term, that too can be unhealthy, maybe not for the firm, but certainly for the tightly aligned CMO.

Mindshare

Managing Partners are pulled in a number of different directions, which dilutes their ability to focus on any given subject for an extended period of time. While not all Managing Partners take the position out of a desire for power, once they have that power, it behooves them to keep it. As such, their mandate is as political as it is professional. Skilled Managing Partners find a way to reconcile both the professional and political requirements of their job so that the two go hand-in-hand, but the constant pressure of both creates a push and pull in terms of driving an agenda. Decision-making therefore can be inconsistent based on choices not entirely made with the bottom line and business results in mind. Yet the role of the CMO is tied to the bottom line; thus, a conflict of agendas can increasingly strain the relationship. Serving at the singular pleasure of one executive is dangerous. First and foremost, you live or die based on your ability to make that relationship work. That is not a good career strategy.

False Positives

Managing Partners are constantly taking the temperature of the partnership and, in so doing, can be subject to the prevailing wisdom of the day. As such, the Managing Partner could give the CMO an edict that has not been fully vetted and thought-out. That could turn into a very wasteful exercise in which the CMO pursues a directive that wanes over time. The amount of “busy” yet unproductive work that can be expended addressing these fleeting requests can be huge impediments to meeting the agreed upon goals and objectives of the department.

Lawyers Do Not Always Make the Best Marketers

Without question, there are many lawyers who are among the best marketers and business developers in the industry, but there is a reason why big law firms have invested heavily in hiring professionals and building these departments. Many are simply not the creative types that these roles require ' both by their nature and by their training. Law school teaches them to adhere to precedent, not to create the next new thing. Moreover, lawyers are paid to mitigate risk for their clients, so they too become risk-averse. Law firm marketing and business development executives need to be change agents to be effective in their jobs. Lawyers do not. Lawyers may say, “Change is good,” but in small print they'll also suggest, “You go first.” The DNA of lawyers and marketers are often inherently different.

Death of the Marketing Committee

For years, many law firms maintained anemic, albeit well-intentioned, marketing committees usually made up of the biggest rainmakers who were tasked with magically replicating their personal success across the enterprise. Often, their efforts were in vain as the committee members gave neither the time nor the training needed to teach their skills to others, further frustrating the “haves” and “have-nots” into a deeper cultural divide. Additionally, these committees, filled with a lot of opinionated lawyers, inadvertently became an obstruction to carrying out new program development as they created the proverbial “analysis paralysis” that only a group of lawyer put in the same room can achieve. With many of these committees dissolving, lawyers have further abdicated the marketing and business development functions into the hands of their administrative leaders.

Why Should CMOs Report To the COO?

The Business of Law

As the business of law is increasingly taking equal footing with the practice of law, COOs and Executive Directors have seen their span of control and authority expanded over the last decade. Through their leadership, they apply better operational discipline, financial rigor, and business principles to maintain and enhance the central functions of the firm; Finance, Information Technology, Human Resources, Recruiting, Administration, and especially, Marketing. And it's only getting stronger.

Advocacy

Today's best law firm COOs (even the ones who grew up through the finance function) understand marketing to be the emerging driver of their firm's new business. Therefore, they approach marketing with a keen business sense, helping to create budgets and operating models and implementing performance metrics to measure their efficacy and recommend adjustments year over year. They are better positioned to be the true advocates for the function since they know that ' if done correctly ' marketing can move the revenue needle. The more that COOs can show impact on revenue, the more their own perceived value in the firm grows. Lawyers, on the other hand, may be more focused on their individual performance more so than that of the entire firm's.

Inverted Pyramid Management

The best COOs in the legal industry manage their direct reports through an inverted pyramid, that is to say, enabling their fellow C-level executives to establish their own relationships, devise their own strategic plans, and succeed (or possibly fail) on their own merits. Very few micromanage the function and even fewer are obstructionists trying to hinder the access the CMO/CBDOs get to the decision-makers. Effective COOs want each of their direct reports to be the “face” of their respective functions. Moreover, they want to hire smart people who are as smart or are even smarter than they are. They want to hire their proxy, not necessarily their heir apparent per se, but someone who can step into their shoes at any given moment to address firm concerns. That is just smart management.

Investment in the Appropriate Tools

Contemporary legal marketing departments require automated processes that are scalable, malleable, and replicable to the needs of their growing firms. Information systems, which provide better insight into predictive analytics, competitive intelligence, pricing data, and customer relationship management tracking, are critical. COOs will help guide these large capital purchases and take shared responsibilities for their success. Too often, when lawyers guide these business decisions, they have unreasonable expectations on how the technology can help and expect it to be a magical elixir and bring immediate ROI.

Conclusion

I have heard the concerns expressed by some marketing executives who having unfettered access to the Managing Partner and their entire leadership team is vital to their ability to do their jobs. I agree and would argue that good COOs are in agreement as well. They simply don't stand in the way of the relationship between CMOs/CBDOs and the partner leadership team. But they do serve as co-champions of the marketing agenda and importantly, know how to manage expectations, temper visceral reactions, and protect lawyers from their own na'vet' around what marketing strategies work and don't work.

From a personal career planning standpoint, moreover, CMOs/CBDOs should be able to demonstrate to prospective employers, most of whom have their CMO/CBDO position reporting to the COO/Executive Director, a track record of working successfully with those leaders to have their candidacies strongly considered. Ultimately, maintaining ongoing and productive relationships with the entire leadership suite ' not just with the administrative or legal leadership teams ' is critical to success.

Michael DeCosta is a Partner with the international executive search firm, Caldwell Partners. He can be reached at 203-348-9581 or via e-mail at [email protected].

Where does a CMO/CBDO belong on the law firm organizational chart? I ask this question frequently. Simply stated, my initial answer is, “It depends.” Organizational charts, in my opinion, should remain fluid, at least those used in professional services firms. Much of the staff alignment in an organizational chart is predicated on the particular styles, strengths, and weaknesses of its leadership, not on some universally accepted top-down box managerial arrangement. Despite this, I feel increasingly compelled in most cases to endorse alignment of the CMO/CBDO with the COO, not the Managing Partner.

Clearly, when the CMO function was in its nascent stage at law firms, perhaps 15 years ago, the question of reporting structure was asked because the role had never truly existed in many firms. Often, it seemed logical to tuck the position into the direct reporting line of an Executive Director/COO. After all, every other major central function including Finance, Information Technology, and Human Resources typically reported in a similar manner. Yet, as the role increased in size and scope, some CMOs insisted on reporting directly to the Managing Partner of the firm to ensure they had a seat at the already overpopulated “table,” whatever that is! I think that sentiment is a little short-sighted in today's big law firms, however. And here's why.

The Dwindling Case for Reporting to the Managing Partner

Rotational Assignments

Managing Partners, by design, come and go. If they are highly effective and not subject to term limits, they may extend their tenure over a decade or more. If CMOs align with a long-serving Managing Partner, on the surface, that may appear to be advantageous for their own career longevity. They become the aide-de-camp to the general and hard to challenge. Yet by aligning in such a manner, the CMO can end up irrevocably joining him/herself at the hip with that Managing Partner. That's bad for business on a number of fronts. First, it potentially creates a rift among peers. It also pushes decision-making into an oligarchy that in some instances may be good, but long-term can build bifurcated cultures. Finally, it does not allow for baton the passing to the next CMO quite as readily as if marketing was more institutionalized across the firm. All of this is simply unhealthy for the firm. Of course, if a Managing Partner steps down after serving just one term, that too can be unhealthy, maybe not for the firm, but certainly for the tightly aligned CMO.

Mindshare

Managing Partners are pulled in a number of different directions, which dilutes their ability to focus on any given subject for an extended period of time. While not all Managing Partners take the position out of a desire for power, once they have that power, it behooves them to keep it. As such, their mandate is as political as it is professional. Skilled Managing Partners find a way to reconcile both the professional and political requirements of their job so that the two go hand-in-hand, but the constant pressure of both creates a push and pull in terms of driving an agenda. Decision-making therefore can be inconsistent based on choices not entirely made with the bottom line and business results in mind. Yet the role of the CMO is tied to the bottom line; thus, a conflict of agendas can increasingly strain the relationship. Serving at the singular pleasure of one executive is dangerous. First and foremost, you live or die based on your ability to make that relationship work. That is not a good career strategy.

False Positives

Managing Partners are constantly taking the temperature of the partnership and, in so doing, can be subject to the prevailing wisdom of the day. As such, the Managing Partner could give the CMO an edict that has not been fully vetted and thought-out. That could turn into a very wasteful exercise in which the CMO pursues a directive that wanes over time. The amount of “busy” yet unproductive work that can be expended addressing these fleeting requests can be huge impediments to meeting the agreed upon goals and objectives of the department.

Lawyers Do Not Always Make the Best Marketers

Without question, there are many lawyers who are among the best marketers and business developers in the industry, but there is a reason why big law firms have invested heavily in hiring professionals and building these departments. Many are simply not the creative types that these roles require ' both by their nature and by their training. Law school teaches them to adhere to precedent, not to create the next new thing. Moreover, lawyers are paid to mitigate risk for their clients, so they too become risk-averse. Law firm marketing and business development executives need to be change agents to be effective in their jobs. Lawyers do not. Lawyers may say, “Change is good,” but in small print they'll also suggest, “You go first.” The DNA of lawyers and marketers are often inherently different.

Death of the Marketing Committee

For years, many law firms maintained anemic, albeit well-intentioned, marketing committees usually made up of the biggest rainmakers who were tasked with magically replicating their personal success across the enterprise. Often, their efforts were in vain as the committee members gave neither the time nor the training needed to teach their skills to others, further frustrating the “haves” and “have-nots” into a deeper cultural divide. Additionally, these committees, filled with a lot of opinionated lawyers, inadvertently became an obstruction to carrying out new program development as they created the proverbial “analysis paralysis” that only a group of lawyer put in the same room can achieve. With many of these committees dissolving, lawyers have further abdicated the marketing and business development functions into the hands of their administrative leaders.

Why Should CMOs Report To the COO?

The Business of Law

As the business of law is increasingly taking equal footing with the practice of law, COOs and Executive Directors have seen their span of control and authority expanded over the last decade. Through their leadership, they apply better operational discipline, financial rigor, and business principles to maintain and enhance the central functions of the firm; Finance, Information Technology, Human Resources, Recruiting, Administration, and especially, Marketing. And it's only getting stronger.

Advocacy

Today's best law firm COOs (even the ones who grew up through the finance function) understand marketing to be the emerging driver of their firm's new business. Therefore, they approach marketing with a keen business sense, helping to create budgets and operating models and implementing performance metrics to measure their efficacy and recommend adjustments year over year. They are better positioned to be the true advocates for the function since they know that ' if done correctly ' marketing can move the revenue needle. The more that COOs can show impact on revenue, the more their own perceived value in the firm grows. Lawyers, on the other hand, may be more focused on their individual performance more so than that of the entire firm's.

Inverted Pyramid Management

The best COOs in the legal industry manage their direct reports through an inverted pyramid, that is to say, enabling their fellow C-level executives to establish their own relationships, devise their own strategic plans, and succeed (or possibly fail) on their own merits. Very few micromanage the function and even fewer are obstructionists trying to hinder the access the CMO/CBDOs get to the decision-makers. Effective COOs want each of their direct reports to be the “face” of their respective functions. Moreover, they want to hire smart people who are as smart or are even smarter than they are. They want to hire their proxy, not necessarily their heir apparent per se, but someone who can step into their shoes at any given moment to address firm concerns. That is just smart management.

Investment in the Appropriate Tools

Contemporary legal marketing departments require automated processes that are scalable, malleable, and replicable to the needs of their growing firms. Information systems, which provide better insight into predictive analytics, competitive intelligence, pricing data, and customer relationship management tracking, are critical. COOs will help guide these large capital purchases and take shared responsibilities for their success. Too often, when lawyers guide these business decisions, they have unreasonable expectations on how the technology can help and expect it to be a magical elixir and bring immediate ROI.

Conclusion

I have heard the concerns expressed by some marketing executives who having unfettered access to the Managing Partner and their entire leadership team is vital to their ability to do their jobs. I agree and would argue that good COOs are in agreement as well. They simply don't stand in the way of the relationship between CMOs/CBDOs and the partner leadership team. But they do serve as co-champions of the marketing agenda and importantly, know how to manage expectations, temper visceral reactions, and protect lawyers from their own na'vet' around what marketing strategies work and don't work.

From a personal career planning standpoint, moreover, CMOs/CBDOs should be able to demonstrate to prospective employers, most of whom have their CMO/CBDO position reporting to the COO/Executive Director, a track record of working successfully with those leaders to have their candidacies strongly considered. Ultimately, maintaining ongoing and productive relationships with the entire leadership suite ' not just with the administrative or legal leadership teams ' is critical to success.

Michael DeCosta is a Partner with the international executive search firm, Caldwell Partners. He can be reached at 203-348-9581 or via e-mail at [email protected].