A trained eye for success
Ten tips to make training more effective

Training strategies at law firms range from the rudimentary to the rigorous, but few firms will succeed in implementing truly integrated learning that links people, technology and business strategy. Tony Reiss, a director at Sherwood PSF Consulting, explains the meaning of integration in this context, and examines how firms can go about using such principles to gain competitive advantage.

Sherwood PSF Consulting recently ran breakfast workshops for senior managers with responsibilities for developing the learning function in their firms. The purpose of the events was to explore developments in integrated learning. We were delighted to welcome as guest contributors to our workshops:

Des Woods, head of learning and OD at Linklaters;
John Lucy, head of human resources at Herbert Smith;
Suzanne Fine, head of legal training at Lovells.

In discussions, we agreed that we were surprised that so many law firms failed to see that effective training was a potential source of competitive advantage. We describe such firms as ‘level one’ firms. We also saw that ‘level two’ firms – those with suites of courses available for lawyers at different levels of PQE – had opportunities to improve the effectiveness of this training by adopting new approaches to integrated learning. Sherwood describes the firms that are pioneering the latter as ‘level three’ practices.

We recognised the following ways of introducing integrated learning to make training more effective:

Better integration between technical training and management training;
Integrating and aligning training with business strategy;
Better links between the classroom and the real world;
More effective on-the-job coaching;
Better use of technology to support learning;
Training internal staff to be trainers;
Better links with the HR function;
Better links with other support functions;
Creating a training faculty;
Involving partners in training programmes.

We describe these approaches in more detail below.

1. Better integration between technical training and management training

Many of the larger firms split technical from management training. The styles of the training are often very different, with management skills often best developed through role-play and coaching. Those that head up management training tend not to have a legal background and, with the volume of training needed, there are good reasons for hiring different people to specialise in the two different types of programmes. This does not help deliver integrated learning, however, and we believe there are advantages for firms that can blend these two types of programme better.

For example, an influencing-skills programme for lawyers, which is often developed by the management training team, would be more effective if delivered in the context of a legal transaction, such as negotiating with the other side on warranties or indemnities.

Even if technical training and management training remain organisationally separate, there are needs for closer working together. Having the groups working alongside each other would also help.

2. Integrating and aligning training with business strategy

The ultimate way of measuring the effectiveness of any training function is to measure what effect the training is having on the business. Quite simply, after the training on ‘Winning Pitches’, has the firm won more pitches or not? Some would argue that this form of measuring is more important than whether participants have enjoyed the training, although there is often a correlation between participants’ enjoyment of training and their learning. So we believe effective training functions should spend more time fitting what they do to the needs of the business.

Some of the larger firms are starting to appoint learning and development specialists to be account managers within the main practice groups. Such individuals develop a much closer understanding of the overall business plan of their practice groups. This enables them to design tailored training interventions and add value to the business.

One increasingly important need for law firms is to ensure their lawyers work better as a team. Clients want to be reassured that the real-estate team can work well with the finance team and the Paris office can work seamlessly with the Frankfurt office. Notwithstanding the challenges in achieving this level of performance, training needs to ensure it delivers consistent messages, skills and working practices across practice groups and offices.

John Lucy, head of HR at Herbert Smith, who spoke at one of the Sherwood Workshops, agrees: “In addition to assessing the business needs, training functions could do more to measure their effectiveness and contribution to the business.”

3. Better links between the classroom and the real world

One of the biggest criticisms of management training is that it is often far too removed from the real world. The role-plays are not perhaps realistic or the models or frameworks are not presented in a way that shows they can work in a legal context (that is, there are insufficient links made to what the lawyers do in their jobs). It is important to ensure that sufficient time is built into programmes to ensure the lawyers can reflect and ask questions about relevance, but we believe some of these criticisms are well founded.

Lucy says: “We find it works best to ask partners to write case studies and role plays with the facilitators and role players. We also give the role players access to the fee-earning population to enable them to best judge realistic responses.”

Suzanne Fine, head of legal training at Lovells, has a different approach: “We prefer to outsource the writing of case studies to experienced professionals, such as Sherwood people, who work closely with us on the design. This approach saves partner time, which can then be used for actual delivery of training. We find that the more time spent on the design and set-up of a programme, the better it is received.”

To overcome these challenges, Sherwood has developed some protocols for training programmes that significantly enhance the links that are needed to the real world:

During the programme, participants work, wherever possible, on real-life issues, rather than ones the trainer invents;
Before attending, participants meet their group leader to have a structured conversation about the specific role the individual will have in the practice group. A programme on business development would encourage a discussion as to which client team the associate might work with;
After the programme, the participants are encouraged to meet up again with the partner. They are encouraged to talk about what they learnt (good for deepening the learning) and what challenges or support they need;
As a follow up, action-learning sets are offered to allow participants to revisit the points raised in the programme and they can be offered further suggestions for implementing their action plans.

More effective on-the-job coaching

Fee earners spend something like seven hours fee earning each day. With The Law Society currently requiring only 16 hours a year spent on continuous-professional development, the amount of time lawyers spend on training courses is low. So the firms that can equip their senior fee earners to ‘coach’ the junior fee earners on the job will reap significant rewards. But few firms have cracked this. Delegation is often poorly done. At one end of the spectrum there are still examples of files with ‘post it’ notes saying ‘please fix’ being left on desks. Contrasting with that are the times when senior competent associates are over-managed and left demoralised because they are given no responsibilities or few opportunities to show initiative.

One or two firms are pioneering the introduction of external coaches to support and challenge heads of departments with a view to this style of managing cascading through the practice groups.

There are also important opportunities to integrate classroom training with better one-to-one coaching before and after programmes, perhaps using sponsoring partners or external coaches.

5. Better use of technology to support learning

Interest in using technology is fuelled by the following drivers:

The need for consistent messages to be delivered, which is particularly difficult for firms with many offices;
Lawyers looking for training to be delivered when it’s needed, rather than when the next course is scheduled;
Allowing lawyers to learn at their desks in their own time, thereby reducing travel time and costs.

It is clear to us that there are some exciting developments in the use of technology to support learning. Some firms are investing a lot in this area, either by developing their own e-learning programmes or by buying or adapting off-the-shelf products.

Several comments were made at the Sherwood Workshops about the need for an integrated intranet with useful learning material from learning and development, knowledge management, business development, etc., all available in one location.

6. Training internal staff to be trainers

External trainers should have all the skills for designing the programme and engaging with the group (assuming you’ve picked the right people). But their biggest weakness is their relative lack of knowledge of the firm and its internal systems, procedures and what changes to these are being considered. So, on a business-development programme it can make a big difference if a member of the business-development function co-trains with the external trainer to help build links to internal issues.

For this to work well, particularly if support staff managers are running small group discussions or role plays, they will need some training or facilitation skills. We have designed and delivered ‘Train the Trainer’ programmes for managers of support functions so that training programmes can include one external and one internal person.

7. Better links with the HR function

People learn best when they want to learn. Occasions when people are particularly receptive to learning are either when they are promoted or are given a new role, or when they are in the frame for promotion. More effective training can result if the training function can align training programmes with career structures or competency frameworks and time the training delivery appropriately.

Training also works better when participants already have a sense of their personal strengths and weaknesses. Here an effective appraisal scheme or the use of 360-degree feedback can provide a foundation of greater self-awareness that can be effectively built on in any training programmes. Again, we typically find junior lawyers saying their appraisals are a waste of time because they are just told that they’re ‘doing fine’.

Again, Sherwood has designed pre-programme diagnostic tools for self-assessment against an agreed list of competences. Participants are then encouraged to discuss this with a sponsoring partner, perhaps in the same meeting as the one to agree a relevant focus for the programme.

8. Better links with other support functions

But it’s not just the HR function that can add value to training activities. There are so many ways in which support functions can help. For example:

The business-development function can co-deliver training on CRM activities and can advise on good external trainers for selling skills programmes or can provide just-in-time coaching for partners or fee earners;
The IT function can work with the training function to develop e-learning products;
KM can create learning tools with the training function.

But what we find in many firms is support functions not working well together. For many lawyers looking for useful information to help them do their job better, there can be dozens of such sources in many different places. Not much of it is co-ordinated. Clearly not the most helpful arrangement.

9. Creating a training faculty

“We see the external faculty as an extension of the internal resource. If they are no good, our credibility suffers. Consequently we spend a lot of time kissing frogs to ensure a good cultural as well as technical fit. But all parties need to be prepared to invest – L&D, externals and the practice areas,” says Lucy.

External providers of training obviously want to do a good job. To do this they need to know:

What is happening in the business – one firm, unbeknown to its training providers, announced at a partners retreat that it was trying to create a more collaborative culture, but didn’t tell the external training staff who could easily have reinforced this message on relevant programmes;
What the training function is trying to achieve – one firm was interested to improve the way it measured training effectiveness, but did not consult its training providers who could have shared their experiences of what had proved successful;
What messages are included in the other programmes, so trainers could reinforce key messages and avoid confusing the participants with contradictory messages.

What some firms have found helpful is to organise gatherings of the internal and external training faculty. At these events, important news can be disseminated and issues discussed. Lucy adds: “We like to use externals as a think tank, for ideas, critiquing, modelling, developing best practice. But for this to be effective, externals need to understand the bigger picture and how they fit in. Independence can also be a critical factor when dealing with fee earners.”

10. Involving partners in training programmes

An obvious one, but harder to achieve than it might sound. It is relatively easy to find partners who are willing to turn up to a training programme and do a talk on why business development is important, for example. They might even be prepared to answer some questions. But it’s not easy to ensure the messages are aligned with the programme. Also it can be difficult to get the tone right. Too often associates say they feel a partner is patronising. Also there can be problems with partners having to cancel at the last minute. Some firms that have tried to introduce partner slots to training programmes but have had to drop them because of the feedback.

To overcome these potential problems, it can be a good idea to have a small squad of partners who are thoroughly briefed on core messages and who are open to feedback from participants so that the sessions can be refined and improved.

Quite often these sessions work well if the partner is only a few years more qualified than the participants, rather than somebody that the participants would find harder to relate to.

Lucy emphasises that partner involvement is critical and should be broader than just delivering messages on programmes: “By involving partners in sponsoring, designing and delivering training we get them to take greater ownership for the development of their staff.”

Fine agrees: “The greater involvement by partners, particularly on delivery, the more their expertise and know-how is shared with others.”

The challenge for learning and development functions, if they want to develop a more integrated learning approach, is to link up more fully with the other areas of the firm that can contribute to learning. Not an easy task, but there are great rewards at stake. Of course, they will be learning in the process of trying to achieve it.

A final thought – I think it probably helps to avoid using the word ‘training’ and talk more about ‘learning’. This might help others in your firm get the message and realise that it should be a team effort.

Tony Reiss is a director at Sherwood PSF Consulting. He can be contacted at tony.reiss@reiss-consulting.com