Case study: Learning to be proactive

Training solutions for law firms need to be flexible enough to respond to the changing needs of the business. They may be designed by an in-house team or imported from external providers, but a proactive approach is paramount.

By Carolann Edwards, deputy head of training and devevlopment, Norton Rose

These days there is a veritable feast of training solutions from which law firm learning and development practitioners can choose – action learning, courses, coaching, secondment, e-learning and competencies.

Yet if these solutions are to amount to anything other than sticking plaster they need to be moulded into a framework that provides focus, coherence and momentum to allow the firm to meet its strategic objectives. The right framework for delivering training is the one that works for your firm. The problem lies in deciding what that will be.

Linking learning to strategy

The decision first requires firms to view learning and development as a key component of strategy – one that can help them to gain or maintain competitive advantage. Hence, the purpose of a firm’s investment in training is to ensure that performance improves by whichever yardstick the firm feels is appropriate – whether that is profitability, growth, efficiency or league-table position.

It is then important to recognise that no matter how skilful the preparation, a firm’s strategy is always subject to change, simply because the environment in which the firm operates is usually evolving. Learning and development professionals should therefore develop and maintain flexible frameworks – anticipating the firm’s varying strategic responses.

Of course, proactively flexing a learning and development strategy and implementation does involve risk. This can be a problem in the typically risk-averse environment of law firms, where attitudes to mistakes can be quite unforgiving. But being too cautious can also be a hindrance for firms – a significant barrier to innovation and change. The good news is that the risks can be mitigated by regular environmental scanning, thorough needs analysis, planning and reflective implementation. All these elements allow training practitioners to reassure management the solutions will work.

Frameworks

Frameworks for delivering training solutions appear to be based on two broad philosophies (Figure 1.) Practitioners whose approach is based on a ‘reactive’ philosophy appear focused on compliance with the continuing professional development (CPD) regime, and feel that they have to be invited to address issues before they will attempt to tackle them. They are also unwilling to do anything that has not been tried and tested in other law firms. While there may be justifiable reasons, such as limited budget and the desire to learn from others in order to avoid costly mistakes, such an approach is not sustainable in the long term. Firms need to be innovative in order to differentiate themselves from others, gain market share and increase their profitability. Simply copying from others will not suffice. As a result, the challenge for training practitioners operating in this reactive mode is to decide when and how to push the firm along the continuum towards the ‘proactive’ approach, which links the provision of learning and development to the needs of the firm. It is innovative and orientated towards organisational development. In reality, most firms are probably somewhere around the mid-point of the continuum – in the ‘active’ state that lies between the two extremes.

Make your own or buy?

When building a framework, the question of how to resource training also has to be addressed. Do you resource it internally as we do at Norton Rose? Here there is an in-house team of seven who design and deliver training and only buy in courses such as voice coaching, where the consultant has specific expertise and/or experience lacking in the in-house team. The benefits of the ‘make your own’ approach includes the flexibility to deliver training such as presentation rehearsals on demand and the ability to imbue training and learning with a thorough understanding of the firm’s culture, practices and procedures. The body of tacit and explicit knowledge and understanding of their firm that in-house teams deploying the ‘buy’ approach could build into training interventions is a major advantage that money cannot buy. Of course, these pluses need to be balanced with awareness of the disadvantage that it can be difficult for in-house teams to remain fresh, and consistently coming up with new ideas and approaches. Fortunately, this can be countered through participation in conferences, networking and the plethora of other opportunities available for learning from thought leaders.

The ‘buy’ approach results in most, if not all, training and development being obtained from external providers. The building of effective working relationships with external suppliers takes time. It also requires a robust methodology to identify the best trainers. Many external providers are experts in their field and some have the advantage of knowing the legal market well so they are able to draw parallels with other firms and discuss market trends with confidence. They are often good at challenging established thinking and ideas, precisely because they are not employed by the firm, nor wedded to established norms and traditions determining ‘the way we do things here’. A potential disadvantage of using external providers is that the firm might receive a very similar product to its competitors.

However, the ‘make your own’ approach also has implications for the way you develop your training team. Those who qualified and worked as lawyers may need to be taught how to design and deliver training in a learning-centred manner. On the other hand, non lawyers will need help understanding the legal business, the firm’s culture and how to deliver in a ‘lawyer-centric’ manner. Both approaches require considerable investment in terms of time, skill, money, patience and determination.

The total cost of training and development is also an issue. There are different views about whether it costs more to run a permanent in-house team or to rely on contractors. In my unscientific view, it depends on the nature of the service to be provided. If you are delivering management-development programmes, and have the resources and credibility to deliver them in-house, this route may be cheaper and more effective. But you will be sacrificing the kudos associated with a business-school brand.

Both models also require significant administration. Activity must be recorded for CPD purposes, facilities need to be arranged and events scheduled. It is also important to remind those booked on to actually turn up!

Identifying needs

However, the current focus on career management suggests that it is not enough to identify training and learning needs generically, for example on the basis of the number of years of post-qualification experience. Effective learning and development is rooted in the need for behavioural change. It is therefore important that appraisals identify objectives and that a written performance review is provided. This leads to an individual development programme for each lawyer in the forthcoming year.

Norton Rose has conducted individual professional-development planning interviews for many years. We use the completed appraisal form as the basis for a discussion about a person’s work – and to plan training and development programmes for the year accordingly. This approach ensures we provide timely and relevant interventions that are orientated to meeting the needs of the individual, their team and the firm.

A cycle of interventions

Determining the most appropriate training solution to use in a given situation can be a challenge. Recent research from the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) found that all training methods are not equal. Some, such as coaching, are more effective than others. It can be helpful to think in terms of a learning and development lifecycle for each training need (or intervention). For example, consider a person who has no experience of negotiating and needs help to master this skill. At the start of the negotiation skills-development process, the gap may be addressed by coaching from their line manager. If this approach is unsuccessful, appropriate training courses or e-learning packages may work. If these do not deliver the desired improvement, the next step might be to use an external coach or mentor. This cyclical approach has two benefits. It acknowledges the fact that some methods are more effective than others – and are therefore more effective at the different stages of a person’s development – and it also facilitates a progression in methods of delivery that maximises the chances of successful learning.

Stakeholder management

An appropriate stakeholder identification and management process is another essential part of choosing the appropriate training framework. Without this you are unlikely to get the necessary results to remain in the business of providing training solutions. It is very easy to overlook the range of stakeholders involved in even the most straightforward learning and development intervention.

Consider for a moment a request from a partner for help with a trainee who needs to improve the initial impression they make with clients and colleagues. The trainee is in the final week of their seat with that partner and will be changing seat next week. Who are the stakeholders in this case? How should the training practitioner engage with them? How should the issue of confidentiality be handled? Such matters are addressed most effectively where they have been carefully analysed in advance by the practitioner.

Communication and culture

Irrespective of the framework chosen, an appropriate communication strategy is essential. In most firms a list of possible training courses appears on the intranet. Sites are often highly sophisticated, full of useful and interesting information. There is only one problem. Too often we make the mistake of assuming that just because the information is available, people will read it. When we ask people why they do not use such information, they often say they are too busy or that there is so much on the site it becomes confusing. It is important for the training-solutions framework to include a range of methods of communication, including face-to-face presentations and posters to keep people as well informed as possible.

It is also necessary to focus on how the all-encompassing use of IT has affected the behaviours and orientation of learners. For example, our trainee-lawyer population already consists of the first wave of ‘digital natives’ – young people who have known nothing other than the computer age. They are at ease with multi-tasking; process information quickly; want to see graphics before text; search for instant gratification; and demand frequent rewards. So what would their ideal training course look like? Would it be like a Nintendo game, with high speed interactive graphics and sound? Would it be on a desktop, wireless laptop, PDA or mobile phone?

In contrast, those of us who did not grow up in the computer age have had to learn IT as a second and compulsory language. We are ‘digital immigrants’, more comfortable with face-to-face, class-based sessions and written text such as Word and PowerPoint documents. We need to reconcile the requirements of the two groups, understanding the needs and fears of the learners, and developing interventions accordingly.

Firms that have international offices also need to address the styles and approaches to training adopted in different countries. In the UK we take the learner-centred approach for granted. Other countries may be less familiar and comfortable with it. For instance, while delivering training to culturally-mixed groups, Italian colleagues have told me that they are used to more didactic approaches.
I have also found some German colleagues are surprised by tools such as personality questionnaires and the levels of personal disclosure in the classroom. Then there is the language issue. Should you employ a native French speaker to deliver courses in France if they aren’t fully conversant with the firm’s structure, culture and processes? Or would it be more effective to send a member of the UK training team who is knowledgeable about the firm but does not speak French?

In the final analysis, choosing the appropriate framework for delivering training solutions demands consideration of a range of factors. Learning professionals should aim to develop something that meets the unique needs of the firm and its people – and which is flexible enough to withstand the challenge of change.

Sources

CIPD (2006), Learning and Development Annual Survey Report;

Honey and Munford (1982), Learning Styles, Peter Honey Publications;

Prensky, M (2001), Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants, On the Horizon, (NCB University Press, Vol 9 No 5 ).

Carolann Edwards is deputy head of training and development at Norton Rose. She can be contacted at carolann.edwards@nortonrose.com