The Work from Home Calculus: Productivity + Inequality - Collaboration + Quality of Life - Cost

Yahoo's newish CEO, Marissa Mayer, recently reversed the company policy that allowed, even encouraged, employees to work from home.  This action has generated a lot of news copy, both for and against, and as is now the norm the masses are weighing in via social media.  Most views I've read tend to be stridently for or against working from home, with little middle ground:  one camp assumes such a policy encourages lazy people to watch Ellen all day while the hard workers toil; the other camp assumes such a policy extracts more output from workers who no longer know when the workday ends.  There are endless variations on the theme.  I first worked remotely in 1991 while living outside Boston for a Denver-based company, and since then I've seen every permutation and combination of work-from-home policy and I've seen both experienced and novice executives fumble with managing in such an environment.  My view is that such a policy is a simple study in microeconomics:  if you're clear what outcome you're solving for, the correct policy is easier to choose.  Wearing my former CEO hat, here are the issues I think about when deciding whether an employee may work from home. Photo credit: LexisNexis.comInequality - Let's tackle this right up front. Few businesses can operate 100% virtually. This means that, sooner or later, some people will have to be centrally located and won't have the option to work remotely. Get over it. Your H.R. professionals will quake at the notion of treating employees inequitably, but that's just one of many reasons H.R. professionals rarely end up as CEO. The fact is, treating everyone the same is a stupid idea. Hersey and Blanchard in their Situational Leadership theory posit that people have to be managed differently based on their individual skill set and the task at hand. One person might need to be micro-managed for a task that another person can handle unsupervised.   As I've discussed previously, too often managers make decisions out of a misguided sense of fairness, whether it's cutting all budgets proportionally during down times without regard to profit contribution, or, in this case, refusing to allow a work-from-home policy because if we can't offer it everyone, then we can't offer it at all. Simply put, good leaders focus on what's right for the business and what's right for the individual, and when you have to break ranks and treat someone differently in order to achieve a better outcome, and you can do so without imposing undue hardships on the business, you act.

Productivity - Studies have shown that people are generally more productive when outside distractions are minimized.  I'd provide a few references here, but it doesn't take a double blind study to agree that limiting the interruptions of phone calls, sneezing co-workers, lengthy commutes, endless status meetings, emails, periodic fire alarm drills and long lunch breaks can lead to increased focus and output. In fact, as many companies have learned, those who work from home often fail to adhere to regular work schedules and often work far more than if they were sitting in an office or cubicle for 7.5 hours each day. But the key is to recognize which tasks can benefit from prolonged and isolated focus, and which tasks are unsuitable. I can't answer that for you, but I have enjoyed success asking my various teams to conduct a self-assessment and recommend which of their jobs could be performed remotely, and I've been pleasantly surprised at the candor and objectivity. And at the risk of beating a dead horse, I have rarely been impressed with my H.R. staff's assessments, primarily because so few of them understand the business, let alone individual job designs or tasks. Will some of your employees occasionally watch television, or duck out for a dentist appointment? Of course. But no workplace, even those with an open floor plan, prohibitions against personal phone calls and restricted access to social media, is fully productive at all times.  Also, if you or your managers are unable to hire responsible adults, then I question your own competence.

Collaboration - Technology exists that fosters virtual collaboration, whether it's the awe-inspiring Cisco Telepresence video-conference system, the document management systems allowing simultaneous annotation by multiple parties or business-oriented social media like Chatter or Yammer (although let's not get carried away with our virtual tools!)  Trouble is, many organizations invest in technology as if its presence alone will somehow change behaviors. The fact is, where there is a culture of collaboration, people will find ways, even inelegant non-technology ways, to interact; where there is no culture of collaboration, no technology will solve the problem (One example, law firm CRM, a technology asked to solve a problem lawyers refuse to acknowledge; here's another).  Some who work remotely will suffer from the lack of creativity and innovation sparked by interaction with others -- often spontaneous and unscripted and unrelated to the given task.  Salespeople who primarily operate independently and in the field, but who periodically need more brochures or contracts reviewed, can typically do so without ever setting foot in an office. Programmers who are constantly sharing code or who regularly need input from other teams writing code sets immediately upstream or downstream tend to perform worse when they delay collaboration until pre-set meeting times rather than simply getting up and walking two rows over to compare notes. Again, you'll have to assess the importance of collaboration in your own organizations, but don't underestimate its importance, even in jobs that don't ostensibly appear to benefit from it.

Cost - A former colleague of mine substantially raised his profile and career prospects by spearheading a controversial initiative to close all regional offices and send employees home to work, saving millions of dollars in office leases, equipment and presumed lost productivity from employee commute times.  Like many organizations, we talked of long-term strategy in our annual reports but spent most of the year focused on short-term performance, and make no mistake we saved a lot of money and boosted earnings for a few years through this initiative.  But be sure to focus on the net savings, once the transition costs are calculated. For example, in our case we had to purchase desktop computers or laptops for scores of employees, reimburse in full or in part for an extra phone line (this was before ubiquitous high speed internet access), and reimburse for hotel meeting rooms and countless Starbucks for confabs of small groups who needed to interact regularly. Our savings were still substantial, but your mileage may vary.  An economist might also point out that one man's cost savings is another man's cost shifting. For example, those who regularly visited customers were now required by IRS guidelines to treat their first and last appointments of the day as a commute, which is not typically a reimbursable business expense. The company saved a few bucks in the short run, but the employees devised ingenious solutions to limit their personal outlay by re-arranging their days (and impairing their productivity) in ways that we didn't anticipate. (For more on the cost savings vs. cost shifting debate, see this health care example.)

Quality of Life - An employee who was facing some troubling family health issues and who needed to be home approached me and asked if he could work from home.  The nature of the work he performed for me was pricing analysis, forecasting and modeling, and he could access all systems from home and join meetings by phone or, with sufficient time to plan, in person.  He was far too valuable to lose, and his remote working arrangement posed no burden to the company (other than feelings of inequity from other cubicle-bound colleagues), so I agreed.  For quite some time he was able to attend to his family issues and deliver a quality work product.  When his situation changed, he returned to the office, grateful to his forward-thinking employers for the opportunity.  Without question, the loss of income would have burdened him as would the loss of his specialized expertise have burdened us. It was an optimal arrangement.  For me, even when I was a HQ-based executive, I periodically worked from home in order to avoid the stress of my harrowing hour-plus commute on the highways of New Jersey.  Simple common sense suggests that, all else being equal, a happier employee is a more productive, stable employee.

Your own calculus may differ.  To me this is a fairly straight-forward linear programming equation.  Factor in the things that matter to you - cost, quality of life, productivity, collaboration, equality, etc. - weight the factors accordingly, determine specifically what you're solving for, and do the math.  If cost savings is what matters most, you may choose a different path than someone focused on employee retention or someone focused on a short-term max productivity to push a product out the door.  And don't invite the contribution of the silly protectors of the status quo, the H.R. staff, unless they can add demonstrable value.  Whatever you choose, make it a rational choice based on a variety of factors.  And if you choose to conduct this analysis at home on your comfy recliner while watching funny daytime TV, you have my blessing.

 

Timothy B. Corcoran delivers keynote presentations and conducts workshops to help lawyers, in-house counsel and legal service providers profit in a time of great change.  To inquire about his services, click here or contact him at +1.609.557.7311 or at tim@corcoranconsultinggroup.com.

 

Embracing the New Normal - The College of Law Practice Management's Futures Conference

Calling all lawyers, law firm managers, consultants and vendors! The College of Law Practice Management and Georgetown Law invite you to the 2012 Futures Conference, October 26-27, at the Georgetown Law Center, Washington, DC. Where better to examine leading-edge law practice management issues than to tap our Fellows and guests who are making the future happen now? We’ll discuss:

  • The New Model of Law Firms
  • “Value” From the Eyes of Different Beholders
  • Managing Partners of the Future
  • The Myriad Challenges of Diversity
  • The Consumer Law Revolution (and What It Means for Biglaw)
  • 2012 InnovAction Awards Presentation (hosted by yours truly, the awards chair)
  • New Normal from the GC Perspective
  • Also, for first time, the Legal Academy Practice Research Report —where academics cast a cold eye on your most vexing issues.

The roster of speakers and presenters is unprecedented and includes Jim Sandman, Susan Hackett, Eric Margolin, Amar Sarwal, John Michalik, Thomas Grella, Fredrick Lautz, Charles Vigil, Ward Bower, Aric Press, Toby Brown, Mark Chandler, Tanina Rostain, Stephanie Kimbro, Michael Mills, Marc Lauritsen, Mitt Regan, Juliet Aiken, Heather Bock, Lisa Rohrer, Verna Myers, Ron Friedmann, Mark Cohen, Ben Lieber, Andy Daws, Patrick Lamb and Steve Nelson.  For more details on each speaker, visit the conference website.  If you don't know most, or even many, of these speakers, then you can't possibly be serious about adapting to the new normal.

Learn more about the sessions from conference co-chair, Ron Friedmann, here.

Download the complete Futures Conference brochure here.

Expect a lively and engaging event. Panel presentations with active audience input will combine with breakout sessions to help you understand the forces jolting the legal market today.

Registration is Open 

Register online here for the Futures Conference. Be sure to watch the Futures Conference 2012 meetings page for more information on the program schedule, speakers and special events.

Special thanks to event sponsors (Platinum) Greenfield Belser, Attorney at Work and Practical Law Company, (Gold) American Bar Association's Law Practice Management section, the Canadian Bar Association, International Legal Technology Association, Ricoh Legal and Thomson Reuters and (Silver) Alexander Open Systems, Altman Weil, Inc., Association of Legal Administrators and the Legal Marketing Association.

Which comes first in a law firm, the chicken or the technology?

I spend much of my time conducting workshop for lawyers on Legal Project Management. At the core of the curriculum are basic concepts of communication, predictability, client involvement, process improvement and change management. When these principles become embedded into an organization’s DNA, integral to the way everyone operates, then the organization is ready to take the next step and automate some of these concepts  through the use of technology. In much the same way that young students are required to learn long division the manual way before employing a calculator to do it for them, organizations are best able to incorporate technology solutions when the technology improves upon an existing approach -- even one conducted manually or inefficiently. As I explained my "business concepts come first" approach to Legal Project Management to a global law firm executive committee recently, a partner rejected the premise. “I understand the need to grasp the concepts first,” he said, “but in the end we have to do this with technology so I’d rather start out knowing what technology we’ve selected and design the workshop around it.”

This is an age-old question: Does innovative technology lead to creativity in business processes, or do expanding business processes stretch existing systems and create the need for new technology?  It might be easier to answer another age-old question: Which came first, the chicken or the egg?  Actually, that question appears to finally have a definitive answer!

There’s a familiar arc to the adoption of any new innovation, including new technology.  Sociologist Everett Rogers demonstrated over fifty years ago that social systems embrace new ideas in a predictable fashion, with a small minority of early adopters paving the way for the many late adopters.  In the typically risk-averse culture of a law firm, cutting edge innovation is even more challenging to introduce, as "the race to be second" prevails. Anyone who has heard a lawyer object to a new idea by posing, "How many other law firms have used this idea to address this problem?" knows of what I speak.  Law firms pose additional hurdles.  For example, with heavy reliance on hourly billing the introduction of technology that increases efficiency and therefore reduces billed hours is typically avoided unless or until clients demand it.  So wouldn't a partner's quest for a technology solution, a gesture of willingness to try new things, be a desirable outcome?  Well, sort of.  Let's pat the partner on the back for thinking outside the box.  But ideally, we should seek a better way of doing things, not seek a new tool to do it for us.  And therein lies the challenge.

There are only a few technologies common to all law firms, large and small.  One is, of course, some sort of time and billing system.  Another is an email system.  Many firms don't even have a common document management system.  But most firms have, at least in rudimentary form, some type of client contacts database, also know as a Client Relationship Management or CRM.  But characterizing a law firm's approach to managing client information as a technology issue has forever doomed CRM systems from becoming the game-changer that vendors promise it to be. (Full disclosure: as a corporate executive, I have been associated with two organizations selling CRM tools to law firms.)  For example, many lawyers refuse to share clients with their partners.  Therefore they fail to capture and store robust information about their clients, the client contacts, their business challenges and legal needs, in such a way that encourages others in the firm to help devise solutions to address these needs. Cross-selling fails and we blame the CRM system for not magically inducing new behaviors in partners whose compensation plans reward isolationist activity. CRM should be an approach to managing clients, using collaborative tools to identify clients and business challenges that the law firm is well-suited to address.  But if CRM is perceived to be a mailing list used primarily during the holiday season, of course no one will get on board. (For some tidy discussions of these issues, see here and here.)

This is why I resist the technology question in early discussions of Legal Project Management.  Our objective is to find new ways to incorporate client input into our matter, so that we have common expectations about scope, timeline and budget; we want to establish a common understanding of the elements which may quickly grow out of scope so we can keep an eye on them; we want to know what constitutes a "win" for the client, and how they calculate this win; we want to communicate change quickly to minimize surprise, and so on.  All of this is a mindset, not a technology.  Whether we buy a fancy LPM toolkit (and there are some good ones out there), hire some certified Legal Lean Sigma project managers, or create a project plan in Excel and a Gannt chart made of note cards pinned to the wall, we can achieve the same outcome.  Of course, once we've become accustomed to this mindset to managing projects, it makes perfect sense to automate certain activities, using technology to smooth the way.  But if we approach LPM like CRM, and try to find a technology answer  to "do it for us because we're busy practicing law" then we will fail.

I acknowledge that sometimes a "product demo" of a tool used in certain disciplines can be helpful to get the creative juices flowing.  With LPM, such a demo can help illustrate how budgets are prepared and communicated with clients, or it can highlight the high proportion of tasks that are repeatable in what partners perceive to be bespoke matters, proving that even unique matters have some element of predictability.  But for me, the worse possible outcome is a product demo that induces the lawyers to invest in a new tool and then go back to the way they've always done things.  The tool by its mere presence won't drive change.  This is evidenced by the number of law firms who build or buy sophisticated new tools that no one ends up using, so they end up calling me to help get the partners on board by backing up and explaining the business rationale behind the new tools.

In the law firm chicken and egg question, business process comes first and technology comes second. Otherwise, we run the risk of ending up with egg on our faces.

 

Timothy B. Corcoran delivers keynote presentations and conducts workshops to help lawyers, in-house counsel and legal service providers profit in a time of great change.  To inquire about his services, contact him at +1.609.557.7311 or at tim@corcoranconsultinggroup.com.

Superior Service is not for Virgins

I am quite fond of pointing out poor service posture in this space and on my Twitter feed.  As an adviser to service businesses such as law firms and legal vendors, I've come to learn first-hand that a client-friendly service posture can help overcome objections to features and price.  A lawyer who has a systematic approach to matter budgets and who communicates quickly when a matter is trending out of scope will engender loyalty from clients who care about predictability (Hint: ALL clients do).  A vendor with a premium-priced offering that lacks needed features can still move units when its sales, implementation and support teams present a united front in putting client needs first.  There are many business books that discuss customer service or client relations, but many of them fail to explain why this is good business.  The connection is simple:  customer loyalty generates repeat business, and repeat business lowers the cost of sales.  Loyal customers generate leads through free referrals.  Happy clients demand fewer discounts and write-downs. But even the most customer-focused organizations will stumble and make mistakes.  It happens.  A good service posture doesn't mean perfection, but it does mean the organization has a well-oiled process for addressing and correcting the situation.  And loyal customers will forgive organizations when the mistakes are directly acknowledged and immediately addressed.  Occasionally, however, organizations turn poor service posture into an art form, seemingly going out of their way to offend happy clients.  Virgin Airlines is renowned for its excellent service posture, friendly staff, lavish perks and cheerful demeanor.  As the following anecdote demonstrates, even the best organizations falter.  By examining the missed opportunities, perhaps you can identify where your organization can improve its approach to client service.

I scheduled a flight from Newark to London in business class, which Virgin Airlines labels Upper Class.  Ooh la la.  The airfare was, shall we say, about one quarter of my daughter's annual college tuition!  But the need to hit the ground running on a Monday morning in London, going from plane to shower to business meetings within a couple hours, was critical and worth the expense.  The week prior to the flight I was in North Carolina with my daughter at a soccer tournament and her team kept winning, and winning, and winning.  As it turns out, we had to delay our flights home by a few days because her team made it into (and won!) the final match.  I had planned for this contingency and had a very large suitcase containing a week's worth of soccer Dad clothes and a week's worth of business attire but alas the bag was far too large to fit into any overhead compartment.  Upon arrival at the airport in North Carolina, I had to arrange for my checked bag to be switched at Newark from my return flight home on Continental to my London-bound flight on Virgin Atlantic.  There was not enough time for me to retrieve the bag in Newark and then re-check in at Security but this connection, even though it consisted of two different reservations on two different airlines, is not atypical.  Besides, Virgin and Continental had at the time a code-share relationship and they regularly move baggage between their respective flights.  After 30 minutes, the Continental agent in North Carolina claimed to have achieved the proper routing and we were on our way.

I made the connection in Newark later that evening to my London-bound flight and enjoyed the many fine amenities offered in the Virgin Upper Class cabin.  Upon arrival, I was the third passenger to exit the plane and as I'm quite familiar with London's Heathrow airport I was able to make my way to and through Customs quickly to be the first passenger to arrive at the baggage carousel.  I waited and waited as the bags were delivered.  One by one every bag was retrieved until none remained, so I walked to the Virgin baggage service desk which was about 100 feet away.  First, let's acknowledge the obvious fact that even in the best conditions sometimes bags get lost, or re-routed to Timbuktu.  It happens if you travel enough, as I do.  I complicated matters by asking an agent at a small airport to route my checked bag from one airline to another on two different reservations, and from a domestic flight to an international flight, and the window for making the connection was tight.  So I wasn't exactly surprised when my bag didn't arrive, but I certainly expected an informed discussion.

When greeting an unhappy customer, it's not helpful to start by insisting how wrong he is.  I greeted the baggage agent warmly, advised that my bag didn't arrive and asked to open a claim.  When I gave my name, she immediately claimed to have paged me at the baggage carousel and I had wasted time by not reporting earlier.  I was a little taken aback and replied that I had arrived at the carousel at least 5 minutes before any other passengers and had waited there patiently the entire time and had not heard any announcement regarding any Virgin passenger, let alone a page for me.  She insisted she paged me and that I must be mistaken.  Now anything is possible, of course, and my hearing isn't what it used to be.  But remember, I half expected my bag to be delayed in transit so I was tuned in and ready for such an announcement, and I pointed out that I waited at the carousel for 45 minutes and surely I couldn't have missed hearing my name multiple times.  She insisted I was wrong and then stopped addressing me completely, turning to gaze at her screen instead.

When you know there's a problem, advise the customer right away and begin to manage expectations.  In less than a minute this surly agent transformed me from a calm and understanding passenger into an unhappy customer with an attitude.  I asked the agent when they first became aware of the baggage mishap.  She told me my bag never made it onto my flight from Newark.  I was dumbfounded.  I suggested that this fact could have been relayed to me when I boarded the Virgin flight in Newark.  This fact could also have been relayed to me upon arrival in London.  This fact could have been relayed to me by paging me a few times at Baggage Claim.  And since the paging obviously didn't produce a result for 45 minutes, perhaps someone could have walked the 100 feet from the baggage desk to the baggage carousel to look for me.  I shared my dissatisfaction in a much louder voice, for now I had lost 45 precious minutes which could have been used to trace my bag.  I then asked if a claim had already been created, since obviously the airline had known 8 hours previously that my bag was not going to make it, and this particular agent had known for nearly an hour.  Of course not.  As the agent rightly reported, "I can't explain why no one else did their job.  My job is to open a claim ticket."  We then laboriously went through all the steps of providing my name and contact information, all of which was already readily available on my reservation, and we wasted another 10 minutes on data entry.

It's helpful to put forth some effort in devising a solution.  Or at least fake it.  Once we completed the claim, I asked if anyone knew where my bag was and when it would arrive.  It seemed silly that I should have to actually ask such a question, as it seems like the most obvious piece of information the agent should be prepared to proactively offer.  Without looking at her screen she said "Since your flight arrived this morning, your bag will arrive tomorrow at the same time on tomorrow's corresponding flight."  I was dumbfounded.  I insisted that surely Virgin had to have at least one other aircraft traveling from the New York City area to London in the next 24 hours, but the agent insisted that that was the best they could do.  This was the first of many times that this phrase would be used to dismiss my concerns.  By now, the several other baggage agents were avoiding my gaze as all other passengers had departed.  I refused to depart until a better solution was devised.  A supervisor finally strolled over, looked at the agent's screen and said "Your bag is already en route to England on a different flight.  It has to transfer from Manchester to London but it should be here later today."  I stared a hole in the original agent's forehead, because she wouldn't look up at me, and I was even more furious.  "Do you mean to tell me that this information has been on your screen this whole time but you were too lazy or incompetent to look at it, instead telling me in effect to go away and come back tomorrow?  There's not even a line of passengers behind me waiting. What's your rush to get me out of here?"

"It's now someone else's problem" doesn't count as doing your job.  I left the airport and headed to London to buy some clothes so I could attend a business lunch.  Less than 24 hours before I was on the sidelines of a soccer match in 98 degree weather (for my UK readers, that's a football match in 37 degree weather!) so I was still wearing shorts and a t-shirt and baseball cap... not typically how I travel but there was no time to change.  Needless to say, it's hard to find suitable business attire on short notice so I spent the day uncomfortably under-dressed.  Meanwhile, I dutifully called the airline's baggage status line regularly to learn when my bag would be ready for pickup.  I've had bags lost before and in my experience it always takes less time for the bag to travel across the globe to the local airport and far more time for the bag to make it from the airport back to me.  So I was prepared to expedite matters by going to pick it up on arrival.  However, despite regular inquires from my London assistant and me, on both the phone line and the website, there was no updated status for the remainder of the day.  On the rare occasion someone would actually speak to one of us, they would always claim that the bag is in transit and offer nothing further than "This is the best that we can do."

Proactive outreach to unhappy customers will always go farther than ignoring them.  I continued calling all day and into the evening, always asking two questions (a) when will my bag arrive at Heathrow, and (b) should I purchase more clothing for tomorrow?  Absolutely no one would take ownership and by late in the evening I was resigned to the fact that I would not see my bag in time to dress for a day of business meetings.  I escalated to supervisors on three different shifts and asked why no one would take responsibility for calling me every few hours, if only to avoid the hassle of my constant calls which tie up agents repeating the same issues over and over.  One supervisor who was very friendly and actually sounded embarrassed by the actions of his colleagues said that it's simply not Virgin's policy to call anyone, even Upper Class passengers, and that all they can do is to respond to inbound inquiries.  Each shift blamed the earlier shift for not providing more information and then described a nirvana in which the next shift would happily resolve the issue and return my bag to me.  But no one could or would be more specific, repeating the mantra "We're doing the best that we can." At this rate, I could have taken a train to Manchester to retrieve my bag.

Recognize when the system is broken and human intervention is needed.  I called through the night and spoke several times to the Virgin Airlines baggage claim call center in India.  I have no problem with this critical service function being outsourced overseas, except it presents a logistical problem in that no one at the call center can literally see the baggage like an agent at the airport can.  So any caller quickly becomes aware that the agents are merely reading statuses from a screen and repeating scripted responses rather than actually going about finding a lost bag.  I worked through two shifts of the Indian call center and each time they said they had sent a Telex to Heathrow to check on the whereabouts of the bag.  At this point, the online system -- theirs and what I could see on the website -- gave no information.  It was as if the bag had disappeared into thin air and no one knew where it had been since its last known location en route to Manchester.  It pained me to point out that sending a Telex -- a Telex! -- to London is less efficient and effective than simply calling the Virgin agents at Heathrow.  I offered to do this myself but there are no published phone numbers to reach an agent at Heathrow and no phone agent would reveal the secret numbers, even though several claimed to have called the airport while I was on hold.  It was clear that there was no accountability in the system and no one could or would put forth the effort to go outside the rules and actually resolve the situation.  It was always someone else's job to find the bag and update the status screen and all the rest of us could do was wait.

There should always be an escalation path when resolving a problem takes too long.  As the sun dawned on London and I was on the phone yet again with the Virgin call center in India, I suggested they call Heathrow to speak to a live person.  The standard response was that because of time zones no one would be on site at Heathrow to take the call.  After I pointed out that my flight had arrived at this time the day prior, and that the airport is a beehive of activity at this hour, one supervisor finally worked up the courage to call Heathrow.  He then reported that one of the baggage agents would personally go search for my bag.  I would bet a lot of money that it was my original friendly agent because nothing happened, literally nothing changed, for the remainder of the business day.  There was no status update online, there was no call from any supervisor, even though at least one supervisor on each shift in multiple call centers had promised to personally monitor the situation.  I was now resigned to the fact that I had to purchase all new business attire so I visited a shop early in the morning and acquired enough to see me through.  I remain puzzled to this day why there was no process in place to highlight for Virgin line management that a baggage status had not been updated for over 24 hours.  I remain puzzled why not once, not a single time, did I receive a phone call from anyone at Virgin about my lost bag.  The only communication came when I called incessantly and harangued various agents to look further than their computer screen.  Both the systems and the personnel failed, even though at every step along the way everyone could have reasonably claimed that they did everything their job description required them to do.  Yet... no bag.

Learning organizations embrace feedback loops.  I arrived back in my hotel after a late business dinner on my second day in London and my bag was in my hotel room.  There was no update from Virgin Airlines, no status update on the online system, no phone call, no email, no call to the hotel from the delivery service indicating a drop off time.  The bag simply and mysteriously appeared with no explanation for where it had been or what it took to get it to me.  For kicks, I checked the online status for a few more days and my bag was never listed as delivered and the ticket was never closed.  I'm stunned to think that an organization priding itself on superior service didn't have alarm bells and urgent emails automatically generated from a lost bag claim that was multiple days old with no status update.  The cynic in me imagines that there was a separate comment screen available only to Virgin personnel that said "This customer is a jerk and beyond help. Find and deliver the bag so we don't have to pay him, but otherwise don't engage."  The business adviser in me wants to believe that management truly cares about abhorrent service, but the "system" lacks a feedback loop so there was no way to escalate the issue to the proper level, there was no way for any agent or supervisor to break protocol and take initiative and there was no automatic escalation for an open ticket that had aged beyond a certain time frame.  Even more unsettling is that my status as Upper Class passenger was not a factor at all in Virgin's service posture, presumably because their service promise is limited to the on-aircraft product.  Of course every customer should receive good service, but what sort of company doesn't go out of its way to address basic concerns for its highest paying customers?

There are numerous lessons here for service organizations everywhere.  I have no particular grudge against Virgin Airlines, although it might be instructive to point out that after a dozen Virgin flights in recent years I rejected Virgin, even as a lower cost choice, on a half dozen overseas trips last year (2013 update: I continue to refuse to fly Virgin) .  A well-designed, well-executed service posture, with escalation paths and opportunities for human intervention, is essential in any business where customer loyalty is critical.  Virgin Airline's cavalcade of errors and arrogance can serve as a learning opportunity.

Mistakes happen. Some customers will overreact but many will remain calm until or unless you provoke them into an angry reaction.  The more proactive your approach, the more likely the unhappy customer will remain calm and feel as if someone is taking ownership of the problem.  And take ownership.  The service posture might dictate that someone else is responsible for ultimately fulfilling the request, but picking up a phone to verify that this is underway, or following up with a phone call later to check progress will go a long way in demonstrating empathy.  And don't confuse empathy with sympathy.  At multiple points in the Virgin debacle the agents were evidently trained not to accept blame, which they translated as pushing the problem onto someone else.  An unhappy customer has a right to his or her unhappiness and empathy can be as simple as saying "If I were in your shoes I'd be upset too, so let's see what I can do to help."  Hearing that someone else is to blame doesn't help rectify the situation and probably makes it worse, because it suggests it's a known issue that the company doesn't care to correct.

Managing expectations and proactive communication are inextricably linked.  If you fail to set any expectation for the customer, he or she will most likely set their own expectation.  If the problem will take two days to resolve, say it will take two days and then try to improve upon that time.  Saying that a solution is "imminent" suggests minutes or hours, not days, and sets false expectations that are impossible to unwind.  Tell customers what they need to hear so they can make proper arrangements, don't just default to telling them what you think they want to hear.  And lose the "We're doing the best that we can" mantra unless you literally are putting forth the maximum effort conceivable.  Since stating that "We're doing all that we think your problem deserves given our many other deadlines and priorities" isn't a customer-friendly stance, even if it's true, find some language a little less off-putting that reflects your concern.

I shared much of this feedback with Virgin Airlines some weeks after this incident, after someone monitoring the corporate Twitter account stumbled upon my many updates painting Virgin in an unfavorable light. Or perhaps it's because I directed tweets to Virgin founder Richard Branson.  In any case, the agent promised to look into it and get back to me with an explanation, possibly even to reimburse me for my clothing purchases.  I'm still waiting...

 

Timothy B. Corcoran delivers keynote presentations and conducts workshops to help lawyers, in-house counsel and legal service providers profit in a time of great change.  To inquire about his services, contact him at +1.609.557.7311 or at tim@corcoranconsultinggroup.com.

Social Media: the Ultimate Business Development Tool or Huge Waste of Time?

I had the pleasure of speaking on a panel at the recent Futures Conference hosted by the College of Law Practice Management, of which I'm proud to be an elected Fellow, and American University Washington College of Law.  I was joined by Steve Matthews, founder and principal of Canadian-based web marketing company Stem Legal, and our session was moderated by Dan Pinnington, Director at PracticePro, the Canadian-based Lawyers' Professional Indemnity Company and editor-in-chief of the ABA's Law Practice Management magazine.  Presumably I was invited to participate because I grew up on the shores of Lake Ontario, just south of Ontario, so I'm an honorary Canadian! We were challenged to provide practical feedback on the use of social media in a law practice.  What are lawyers doing well?  What can they do better?  Is the whole Facebook/LinkedIn/Twitter/blogging game a huge waste of valuable time, or can it actually aid in the development of new business?  We covered quite a bit of ground, but I'll provide just a couple insights here from my remarks.

Is Social Media overhyped? Of course it is.  Many pundits speak of social media as the panacea, the solution to generating new business when all other efforts have failed, or in lieu of any other efforts.  It should come as no surprise that those touting social media as the best answer to all problems are those who tend to profit from social media.  Consultants and vendors who offer services in this space tend to over-promote.  Needless to say, as a former legal management consultant and now a vendor whose organization offers social media tools, I have some standing to make this claim.

But let's not throw the baby out with the bath water, as it were.  One reason why social media is so compelling to so many is that is indeed effective in many ways.  Can social media be both overhyped and under-utilized?  Sadly, yes.  At its core, social media are merely tactics, tools to be used to further one's strategy.  Any business, law practice or other, should have a clear and rational view of which clients to target, which services to offer and how to reach these potential clients.  Much of professional services marketing involves creating awareness of your offering and demonstrating expertise in the subject matter, and social media can be a multiplier in these efforts.  A good analysis of social media will measure whether tools such as Twitter, blogging, Facebook fan pages, a robust LinkedIn profile and the like will have the potential to reach more of the target audience.  And if so, will it provide a conduit for the lawyer to demonstrate credibility.  If we can establish which social media tools can be helpful in this regard, then it's a question of cost -- can these tools generate a greater return as compared to alternative investments, say, sponsoring and speaking at client industry conferences, or authoring articles in traditional media, and so on.

So many lawyers haven't embraced social media because they're dazzled by the technology, or jaded by the noise -- silly games on Facebook or celebrity bloviating on Twitter, for example -- so they fail to properly assess whether these tools can be helpful.

Should a lawyer keep his or her business and personal social networking separate? Without question, lawyers should recognize that their political rants among like-minded friends on Facebook, if made public, may turn off potential clients with different political views.  Similarly, potential clients or employers may find the Spring Break pics from five years ago an exercise in poor judgment.  Unfair?  Of course.  The plain truth is that there's a blurring of the lines between our professional and personal personas.  When I opened a Facebook account it was intended for close friends and family only.  But like you I have a number of close friends in my professional life and they were natural additions to my community.  As time goes on, acquaintances slip in until suddenly one's network is full of distant acquaintances or, in many cases, particularly with the younger crowd, complete unknowns.  Today's youth tend to make connections as flippantly as my generation used to trade phone numbers.  You may call, you may not, but there's no harm in passing out your number.  All of which is to say, you can try really hard to separate your business and personal personas but through your own actions or through the actions of your connections who have less rigor, you will very likely expose more of your personal life than you probably intend.

So be sensible.  Mom's rule about keeping mum if you have nothing good to say applies here.  That doesn't mean you can't engage in harmless tomfoolery, bantering with pals or posting pictures of your kids, but treat such actions as you would a business trip at a sunny location where you stayed a few extra days and brought the family, knowing that some clients would be doing the same.  Act is if a client or potential client is watching, even inadvertently.

But don't overlook the simple truth that buyers buy from people they know, like and trust.  Buyers, like potential friends, size you up pretty quickly and make decisions on whether they'll like you based on a number of factors, only some of which are your subject matter expertise and accomplishments.  This is a tough lesson for lawyers trained in logic:  I went to the right schools, I've earned numerous professional honors, I have domain expertise in the legal issues you're facing, so naturally you should hire me... and so what if I contribute to a political party that rejects all of your political beliefs.  On the other hand, all other professional credentials being equal, a buyer might hire the lawyer who seems family-oriented, is clearly proud of his hobbies and who has an opinion or two about whether his team should have gone for it on fourth down or kicked it away.

For more insights on my social media involvement, see my discussion of what social networks and resources I find valuable.  Also, one of my favorite legal peeps, Ron Friedman, is also a Fellow of COLPM and live blogged our panel discussion, so check out his thoughtful insights here.

Also, for an excellent practical guide to incorporating social media into a law practice, run, don't walk, to buy Jayne Navarre's social.lawyers: Transforming Business Development (West Publishing, 2010).  Jayne is a veteran legal marketer, former Board member of the Legal Marketing Association and a consultant I've turned to for advice time and again.