Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Embracing Culture As A Path to Survival
A strong, powerful and constructive culture has a significant impact on a business's ability to differentiate, to offer top-shelf client service, to attract and retain talent at all levels and to reach new levels of profitability. Regardless of how technology continues to help the legal industry reinvent itself from a mature industry to a young and thriving industry, culture and people will remain a key driver of any firm's long-term success. As a strategic imperative, creating a constructive culture of success takes much more than words on a strategic plan or words with no actions. The very fabric of firms' cultures is being frayed through the disruptive and changing climate. The leaders who effectively manage change and underscore those values and beliefs that drive culture will find their firms still standing long after many others have failed.
William (Bill) Lee, immediate past co-managing partner at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr comments: “Thomas Edison said, 'Vision without execution is hallucination.'” Bill added: “Execution without a strong, coherent and well communicated and understood culture is impossible. The values and culture of an institution are what allows people to meet challenges, innovate and create and execute.”
There is so much to say about culture and its impact on the organization, it is difficult to know where to begin. Since the days of Maslow and his introduction of his hierarchy of needs (motivational theory), many experts have studied human needs and the impact individual people may have on an organization's cultural effectiveness. (Motivation theory suggests five interdependent levels of basic human needs (motivators) that must be satisfied in a strict sequence starting with the lowest level. Physiological needs for survival (to stay alive and reproduce) and security (to feel safe) are the most fundamental and most pressing needs. They are followed by social needs (for love and belonging) and self-esteem needs (to feel worthy, respected, and have status). The final and highest level needs are self-actualization needs (self-fulfillment and achievement). More information is available at http://bit.ly/1VPYfV2.)
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?