Book Review: "A Lawyer's Guide to Getting a Corporate Legal Position In-House"

When David Parnell - co-founder of NY-based legal recruiting firm Edward, Anthony & Steele - asked me to review his new book, "A Lawyer's Guide to Getting a Corporate Legal Position In-House," I was intrigued.  I guessed it wouldn't endorse the method I used as a third-year lawyer to get my first in-house position back in 1996 - answering a "help wanted" ad in the legal newspaper - but I was curious to see if it would address some of the missteps I've seen wannabe in-house attorneys make since.

And it does.  Parnell's book is an excellent resource for attorneys with 2-7 years of experience looking to move in-house.  Here are some of the areas that stand out:

• A Candid Assessment of In-House Work.  Parnell's focus in on larger organizations, which is the likely landing spot in-house for more junior attorneys. And he doesn't sugar-coat the reality of the work:  There's no guarantee that the hours will be softer, and there's a strong likelihood that the entry-level work in a large legal department will be less interesting (and repetitive) than the varied deal flow at a law firm.  Parnell also takes pains to point out just how competitive it is to get in-house positions.
• A Tactical Approach.  When hiring for in-house counsel, I can't tell you how many poorly-thought-out, scattershot approaches I've seen by candidates. Parnell lays out a super-methodical approach to seeking in-house work, with a focus on identifying positions that haven't been posted yet.  He takes it down to a detailed, campaign level, complete with creating a "funnel" of 100 targets, sending tailored correspondence and scheduling emails and phone calls.  That kind of tactical focus and plain grunt work is necessary if you want to maximize your chances of landing an in-house job.  It's a ton of effort, but it's very, very effective - largely because so few candidates do it.
• A Detailed Interview Strategy.  Parnell recommends a lot of interview prep, to the point of writing answers to likely questions out.  This is sound advice, and too often observed in the breach.  Parnell also recommends doing background research on the potential employer.  This is a point that needs greater emphasis; I would expect anyone interviewing for a legal position to have an in-depth view of my business and its competitive space, and be able to ask intelligent questions about it.  Again, an area that is too often shined on by candidates.  The book also includes an excellent and highly-detailed section on negotiating compensation.

There are also a couple of areas that I would caution readers about:

• It's Not for All Attorneys.  Parnell's book is, as mentioned, focused on attorneys with about 2-7 years experience seeking jobs in large organizations.  This makes sense, as that's the deepest pool for junior attorneys to fish in.  However, if you have more experience, or are applying for jobs in smaller organizations, your approach will need to change a bit.  Those in such a position could still benefit greatly from Parnell's detailed "campaign" approach to contacting potential employers.  But it's important to go much deeper - to research each company you are approaching and send correspondence that directly addresses its needs and how you can help.  To do this properly, you probably need to go after a smaller pool than the 100 employers Parnell recommends for starting a campaign. And it's a lot of work.  But I guarantee you it's far, far more effective than mass-mailing a bunch of generic cover letters and resumes. 
• Interviewing Psychology.  Parnell is into linguistics and psychology, and he spends a fair bit of time in the book exploring the psychology of interviewing: first impressions, matching and mirroring, conforming, etc.  This is all important stuff to know, but I would go further than Parnell does in cautioning candidates about the dangers of artificially changing their personalities in interviews.  The people who need the most help in these areas are also the likeliest to screw up by actively trying to "not be themselves" in an interview.  I've seen this happen a number of times, and it's always a train wreck.  In-house employers tend to have very finely-tuned bullshit detectors.  Be prepared - be uber prepared.  But be yourself (or, at most, a somewhat-friendlier version of yourself).  Attempting a psychological makeover in an interview is far likelier to backfire than yield any real benefits.

And yes, the book is published by the ABA, so it's not much to look at.  And it costs $100 ($75 for ABA members).  But this is your career we're talking about here. There is a gold mine of information in the book for any biglaw associate with serious dreams of moving in-house.  It provides a tactical roadmap to maximize the chances of finding a position, and contains enough truth-telling about the corporate world that some readers will decide that staying in a firm is just fine.  And even those looking at smaller companies or specialized positions would benefit from Parnell's advice about running a job-acquisition campaign and how to prep for interviews and comp discussions.   

    

Passing of a Non-Corporate Tool

Farewell to Kurt Vonnegut, dead at 84 despite a lifetime of chainsmoking, general despiser of corporate toil and its costs (personal, environmental, spiritual, etc.) and author of many a fine, darkly satirical novel. My favorite is still his first: Player Piano, which envisions a near-future world where virtually all work is done by machines. Resistance? Futile, as you can well imagine.

A Classic Rediscovered

I recently read Sloan Wilson's The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit. The book has often been described simply as a critique of corporate conformity, but that's far from apt. While it is in ways a period piece, its themes of balancing corporate ambition and family responsibilities should resonate with any of us corporate tools.

Our hero, Tom Rath, has even more than that to contend with: As the book opens, poor Tom strives to answer the following inane question on a job application: "The most significant fact about me is . . ."

It's a shock, then, when he considers the following response:

"It was the unreal sounding, probably irrelevant but quite accurate fact that he had killed seventeen men."

So Tom's got to climb the corporate ladder, find time for family and come to terms with his wartime experiences. Five years ago that would have seemed difficult to relate to; not so much now as our Iraq veterans return to the workplace

Wodehouse on Mergers

On vacation in sunny Central Oregon last week, I read a classic from one of my favorite writers, P.G. Wodehouse - Jeeves in the Morning. Few others can brighten one's mood like Wodehouse, particularly any of his stories involving Bertie Wooster and Jeeves. The Britishisms practically beg to be read aloud for maximum comic effect.

Jeeves in the Morning, written late in Wodehouse's life, is classic Wooster, bumbling his way into one increasingly dire situation after another - insulting his rich uncle, inadvertently getting engaged, burning his rented cottage, etc. It also features an M&A angle: The principal situation from which all of the ancillary troubles spin is Bertie's attempt (on Jeeve's suggestion, of course) to set up a clandestine meeting for merger discussions between his uncle's Pink Funnel steamship line and its American competitor, the Clam Line. Great stuff.

New Favorite Office Book

I just picked up The Dictionary of Corporate Bullshit, which is hilarious and absolutely on point. Taking a cue from Ambrose Bierce's classic The Devil's Dictionary, it offers witty and point-on definitions of corporate buzzwords and standards (e.g., "'Merger:' Source of major freakout mode amongst employees.").

Of course, I read through the more noxious entries with some distress, thinking of how often I have sputtered out hackneyed phrases like "paradigm shift" or "putting a stake in the ground." I am proud to say I have not used "productize", which does not merit entry in the dictionary but should have a special place in corporate-speak hell.

Speaking of which, I was in a meeting this morning discussing exchanges of confidential information where the phrase "drop our shorts" was used. I have to say I like that better than "open the kimono," but all the same I'd rather just talk about "skeletons in the closet."

Trying "No" for an Answer

One theme of my last post is a problem endemic to many large corporations – the tendency of employees to fear offering different points of view, and the negative impact this has on decision-making. This subject, covered in a chapter in James Surowiecki’s excellent book, The Wisdom of Crowds, now has a full book devoted to it – Michael Roberto’s Why Great Leaders Don't Take Yes for an Answer: Managing for Conflict and Consensus (see my new "Recommended Reading" sidebar for thumbnail cover photos and links).

Let’s face it – the very existence of hierarchy stifles dissenting voices. Absent any other factors, most employees will – at a minimum – be cautious in expressing differing opinions, new ideas and bad news to the person with control over their paycheck. Add a little managerial ego and that caution will turn into reticence to do anything but nod along with the powers that be.

What about senior managers? Aren't hard-charging, Type-A folks above such caution? Not in my experience. I've worked in companies that welcome debate and conflicting views (including Clearwire) and several very large companies that did not. In the conflict-adverse companies, the greater willingness of senior folks to speak their mind was usually offset by the greater ego and unwillingness to hear dissent possessed by their C-level bosses.

There’s no question that properly-channeled conflict and debate will yield the best decisions, but most organizations have a hard time encouraging this kind of healthy debate. Instead, conflict is often repressed until it explodes into personal attacks, happens too late to change a decision, is conducted passive-aggressively, or all of the above. Leaders in an organization need to be hyper-aware of the things they do to stifle input, and come up with ways to encourage openness and not “punish” those who contribute different or unpopular opinions.

Note that this does not mean giving slack to whiners – not all input is equally valuable, and habitual naysayers are no better than yes-men. Most importantly, the whole team has to get behind the decision once it is made. Giving employees license to be candid should never be confused with giving them license to contribute less than their all once the course is set.

So what can leaders do to encourage openness? Roberto suggests actively seeking dissent by soliciting it directly, having staff role-play adversaries, or even appointing someone as devil’s advocate on a proposal. While the success of such formal steps will depend on the situation, every manager should be looking for opportunities to overcome the inherent bias amongst their employees toward clamming up.

Reading

Several folks have asked about books on negotiating and corporate development. There’s not a lot out there directly for corporate development, but McKinsey & Cos. Valuation is the bible for the analytical aspect of the work you do in corporate development. With my background, I also found it useful to read a book on financial statements for non-accountants. I can’t remember the exact title, but there’s probably something in the “Dummies” line by now.

There’s a lot of stuff out there on negotiating – books, seminars, even flash cards. It’s a mixed bag. I still like Getting to Yes, which is a classic (and has several sequels), but it still contains a lot of very useful general negotiating advice: Always know your BATNA (best alternative to a negotiated solution) and that of the other side. Focus on interests, not positions. Create solutions. I hope to follow up on these in future posts on negotiations, but Getting to Yes is a great overview on negotiating.

I also greatly enjoyed James Surowiecki’s The Wisdom of Crowds. It’s more about decision making, and arriving at the right or optimal outcome, even when faced with incomplete facts (Surowiecki also writes an excellent semi-monthly economics column in The New Yorker). The book is fascinating, offering all sorts of counter-intuitive examples of how crowds or markets can reach far better decisions than an individual is likely to do (one example: the average of all entries at a country fair “guess-how-much-the-ox-weighs” contest coming within one pound of the correct answer).

Of course, anyone who has sat through a board meeting, strategy session or attempt to make a decision via group consensus will scoff loudly at that assertion as applied to the corporate world. After all, it’s simply too familiar to see decisions made in advance of analysis (which is thereafter prepared to show that the decision is the right one), or decisions made by the senior person and then agreed to by the rest of the group without meaningful discussion or consideration of alternatives. Surowiecki points out that in order to get the benefit of “crowd” decision making in these contexts, the group must be diverse and independent. Not necessarily diverse in the EEOC sense, nor independent in the James Dean sense – just that the group possesses enough diversity of experience and enough independence that its members are willing to speak their minds.

Making the right decision and ensuring it happens can be two different things. Surowiecki also notes that when a decision is made the members must be able to put their passionate arguments aside and fully support the implementation of the decision. Sadly, we’ve all seen the passive-aggressive type who outwardly supports the decision and then does everything possible to subvert it.