Let’s start by explaining a paradox. In-house leaders typically see their legal expertise as their core value to organisations. They justifiably place a lot of weight on the ability to offer impartial and unbiased advice. But in-house leaders are increasingly expected to inform strategic positions, to contribute strategic value, to drive organisations forward. And thus, amid that tension, you have the ‘lawyer vs business leader’ paradox.
How can an in-house leader provide unbiased expertise while advocating the organisation’s needs and objectives? How can in-house leaders maintain objectivity while keeping a firm eye on other elements of the business? The answers are not simple. But successful in-house leaders recognise the need to embrace nuance and complexity. Essentially, as shown in the recent ½Û×ÓÊÓƵ report, successful in-house leaders will learn to embrace that paradox.
In this article, I will look at some key takeaways from a recent ½Û×ÓÊÓƵ report, and demonstrate how successful in-house leaders can manage and ultimately embrace the paradox.
In 2011, ½Û×ÓÊÓƵ and Cranfield Business School collaborated to produce the White Paper on . The research found, among other things, that the most successful in-house legal teams serve to support the organisation’s critical business activities, not simply to provide legal support.
More than a decade ago, people across the legal sector recognised the shifting role of the in-house leader. In the years since, in-house leaders contributing to organisational strategy is not simply desirable, it is expected. That can create conflict in terms of self-identify.
According to ½Û×ÓÊÓƵ research, the majority of in-house leaders see themselves as lawyers first, leaders second. That’s not particularly surprising, considering most leaders come from private practice backgrounds, meaning they were recruited and developed by law firms.
The self-imposed ‘lawyer-first’ narrative heavily influences leadership style and identity. It means that lawyers may, for example, prioritise certain tasks, deeming the legal side of the paradox more worthy of their attention. This can result in an unbalanced approach to work.
In addition, this prioritisation of legal work over all other business considerations may be passed on to newer members of the team, the budding in-house leaders of the future, who in turn adopt the same preference of the legal side of the paradox. The absence of balance can become self-perpetuating and cyclical.
A further problem created by self-identity is recognising . ‘Lawyer-first’ in-house leaders may not notice that strategic success is slow-burning, , not often rewarded or recognised immediately, as discussed in the recent ½Û×ÓÊÓƵ Report on Strategic In-house Leadership. That does not make strategic success less important, just less immediate.
In-house leaders unaware of the paradox may focus more on the functional and legal side of the paradox, particularly where deadlines or time-sensitivity is ascribed. In law firms, and indeed across most of the economy, the functional and day-to-day often takes priority, which can cause strategic – and thus long-term – issues.
In-house leaders can mitigate the above issues by simply embracing the paradox. They need to reframe the paradox, understand their legal identify alongside their leadership identity, and learn to reconcile paradoxical tensions that emerge.
In-house leaders should strive to note the difference between a . Problems, for example, have solutions. Problems can have a right or best answer. Paradoxical tensions, on the other hand, are ongoing and contain ostensibly opposing ideas. The solution to a paradox is not obvious and may well prove non-existent.
One example of a paradoxical tension is between global standardisation of contract policies (global legal focus) and local adaptation of the same contract policies (local legal focus). The former is intended to ensure customer experience matches the brand image of a global operator. The latter is intended to make sure customers experience a degree of intimacy.
The former offers simplicity and harmony, the latter focusses on personality and adaption. Both have merits. Both bring benefits and both present risks. And, importantly, both bring specific benefits to the legal and the business leader side of the paradox. How should an in-house leader pick the best option? The simple answer: they shouldn’t.
Managing the paradox means an awareness of paradoxical tensions. That means stepping away from picking sides and trying to find a shared aim that all are trying to achieve. Indeed, as ½Û×ÓÊÓƵ research has shown, picking a side offers a false dichotomy: you can include both, or neither, thus rendering the supposed inevitability of picking a side misleading.
In-house leaders should step back to look at the whole picture, then use influencing skills to support others to take similar action. They should navigate a practical and complementary way forward, one that aims to please elements of the legal and the leader side of the paradox, creating what the as a ‘dynamic equilibrium’.
Indeed, in-house leaders can go further, as highlighted in the practical toolkit designed by the Center for Creative Leadership. After stepping back, noting the paradox, mapping the paradox, in-house leaders should accept the effects, learn from the situation, and take tangible actions going forward, as shown in the below diagram.
The above helps in-house leaders to efficiently manage the paradox and make the best decisions. Managing the paradox is not always simple and mistakes will be made. Indeed, managing paradoxical tensions is a skill and, as with any skill, mastering it takes practice.
As economist Daniel Kahneman explains, paradoxical thinking is something individuals need to develop, not something innate or natural. It requires in-house leaders to deal with fundamental aspects of their leadership, of themselves, of their team and across the organisation.
is packed with practical content to support your development and thinking around effective in-house leadership. The is a great starting point, whether you are new to leadership or seeking fresh perspectives as an experienced General Counsel.
Not currently a subscriber to LexisPSL? .
* denotes a required field
0330 161 1234