A wheelbarrow of frogs

The recent stories of senior City partners and their expenses are not very instructive, although perhaps we should not be so surprised – either at their behaviour or the reaction of their fellow partners. Lawyers are imperfect at the best of times.

What is far more interesting is what this says about managing partner risk in professional service firms, and in particular in law firms (we don’t share quite the same world view as accountants, architects and others).

The crux of the problem is the tension between a firm’s need to manage its partners and the fact that they are “highly educated individuals who require a large degree of autonomy and discretion to be able deliver very personal and highly tailored services to clients” – the quotation is from Too Many Chiefs, a study on decision making in professional service firms by Tim Morris, Professor of Management Studies at Oxford’s Säid Business School.

The problem with autonomy and discretion is not just the sense of ownership entitlement that so often accompanies them, but the risk of partners pushing boundaries when they can (and when they actually see them!). And to compound the problem, this type of behaviour is often culturally acceptable to fellow partners.

And going back to the expenses stories, don’t miss the on-line comments: I particularly liked this from Anonymous on the report in The Lawyer on Hogan Lovell and the allegedly errant Christopher Grierson,

The way that this has been dealt with, and the fact that the police have still not been involved, has simply confirmed my view of City firms as moral vacuums dominated by sociopaths.

I am not sure about the moral vacuum bit, but that anonymous commentator must surely have been reading a 2009 post by Venkatesh Rao (Venkat) in ribbonfarm.com, The Gervais Principle, Or The Office According to “The Office”, in which he identifies the “sociopath” layer as comprising ‘the Darwinian/Protestant Ethic will-to-power types who drive an organization to function despite itself’ and then states the Gervais Principle,

The Gervais Principle is this: Sociopaths, in their own best interests, knowingly promote over-performing losers into middle-management, groom under-performing losers into sociopaths, and leave the average bare-minimum-effort losers to fend for themselves.

So now you know.

And why a wheelbarrow of frogs? I once heard Nigel Knowles describe managing his partners as akin to pushing a wheelbarrow of frogs uphill in the rain.

The boys are back (again)

We reached Yarner Wood not long past 10.00: our first visit this year and a wonderful sense of anticipation.

Although quite grey down at the car park, it was warm in the hide (nothing much to see – just a pair of Blue Tits exploring one of the nesting boxes ) and as we climbed the path, sun burning off the cloud and the sky turned blue. The woodland is still bare -branched, so it is easy to spot what there is, or isn’t, but it is filled with bird song: all the usual suspects (Robin, Wren, Blackbird, Blue Tit) and also Chiffchaff,  Nuthatches, a Goldcrest, the drumming of one Woodpecker across the valley and another up the hill behind us, and a Raven seeing off a Buzzard.

Add to this Bumblebees on the bilberry, the occasional Peacock butterfly, and Wood ants warmed by the sun and busy.

It was a perfect Sunday morning – and then not one but two male Pied Flycatchers: the first by Box 46, and the second a little further on, engaging in some territorial argy-bargy with a Nuthatch. Last year Pied Flycatchers were  first seen in Yarner on 7 April, and we didn’t see them until 21 April (when I posted The boys are back). They are early this year.

It may only be March, but for us Pied Flycatchers are one of the first signs that summer is really on its way.

 

Whisky Tango Foxtrot

Quite what Andy McNab would have made of the fiasco in eastern Libya is anyone’s guess, and, given the reluctance of our Special Forces to disclose any information at all, we are unlikely to hear very much more.

What is astonishing is how very 19th century it all seems.

A Chinook (if it was a Chinook – it may just be that that is the stock image the BBC uses when a large helicopter is involved) is not a gun boat, but the idea of sending an armed diplomatic party to parlay with the natives (without telling them first) is so very Empire.

And a “serious misunderstanding” (William Hague in the House of Commons) a perfect example of diplomatic language.

A legal education

Loved this from a somewhat snide article in the guardian.co.uk, Making the would-be barristers of tomorrow face harsh realities of today

Undergraduate students to a large extent have unformed minds,” hit back Cambridge University professor Christopher Forsyth. “There is a danger of teaching them to advise before they have a mastery of conceptual thought.”

Same goes for quite a lot of lawyers.

And as for the jaw-dropping comment from City Law School associate dean Susan Blake,

The law is an attractive profession. And a success rate of one in 10 is a hell of a lot better than you get with the lottery

she clearly missed out on being taught by Professor Forsyth.

Blair Take 2 (Friday)

Richard Norton-Taylor excellent in guardian.co.uk this evening on new evidence from Lord Goldsmith: Chilcot inquiry: Blair shut me out says former legal chief, Lord Goldsmith

I was particularly struck by,

The document contains a handwritten note by [Sir David] Manning [Blair’s foreign policy adviser], warning: “Clear advice from attorney on need for further resolution.” Blair scrawled in the margin: “I just don’t understand this.”

Didn’t get it then, doesn’t get it now, probably never will.

And as for Lord Goldsmith, read the late Tom Bingham’s analysis in The Rule of Law, pages 120 – 129.