#16 – Meta Matters – And We’re Not Talking Social Media
Part 1 – Some Reflections on the Important ‘Meta’ Issue for In-House Lawyers – How Do In-House Counsel Best ‘Learn to Learn’?
A complete shift in topic this week, far away from the topic of Social Media, which has consumed the last 3 issues of this newsletter. That was a fantastic discussion and I want, once again, to thank all of you who took part in it. The War in Ukraine, I hope it goes without saying, does not recede from our troubled thoughts just because we switch topic.
I’ve been in bed with a nasty bug for most of the week, not great if you have a weekly newsletter to produce – in addition to a day job consulting to a range of lawyers.
So I’m launching a new topic, but haven’t quite had the energy to write the central thing myself. Instead, I’ve called on one of my wonderful friends, Martin Wilson, to bear the brunt of the writing. And I’ll be chiming in with fewer words than I might otherwise – but still sticking my oar firmly in the water. And you the readers will, I hope, be happy.
Or at least that’s the plan …
So here’s the topic.
Confusingly (deliberately, confusingly) I’ve called the topic - ‘Meta Matters’. Suggesting, you might have thought, that this was going to be more guff about social media, the Dark Behemoth Mega Corp formerly known as Facebook etc. etc.
No such thing. What I’m actually moving to are ‘Meta’ Matters in a different sense. The topic here being Meta Learning, specifically if and how in-house lawyers can learn to learn – in this case specifically how they can learn to learn how to refine, grow and develop their leadership, management and relational skills.
In Greek, the word ‘meta’ (μετα) means ‘beyond’ or ‘transcending’. So when we talk about meta-learning (an increasingly important discipline within pedagogy, the method and practice of teaching) we are talking about something that transcends learning itself, namely learning about learning or learning about one’s own learning and learning processes.
The topic is raised by Jill, a GC from Kansas City, who asks a question that I am often asked – are all in-house lawyers developable? Due to my nasty bug, I hospital passed the question to my chum – and former coachee – Martin Wilson, who was Deputy General Counsel at Christie’s (the Auction House) when he had the misfortune to be coached by me many years ago. Martin went on to become Co-head of Legal and Compliance at Christie’s and is now Chief General Counsel and Head of Fiduciary Services at Phillips (the leading global Contemporary Auction House), and the author of Art Law and the Business of Art. He remains an overall good egg (for those of you unfamiliar with some British idiom, that’s not a Surrealist Art riff, it means he’s one of the good guys).
Martin has his own take on the question posed, which I love … because it opens up a debate which I think should be fascinating. Some of his cultural references will make no sense to someone who isn’t into football (US – soccer) or guitar – I’ve embedded a couple of hyperlinks in the text rather than add footnotes – just in case you want to understand more; you’ll get the gist of the piece without going down those particular rabbit holes.
I’ll share a few short thoughts of my own after Jill’s email and Martin’s response (and extended thoughts, no doubt, during the debate in upcoming issues - #17, #18 and perhaps beyond).
In the meantime, thanks Martin, truly, for catching the ball at such late notice. Which is more of a rugby reference, than a football reference, for pedantic readers.
Enjoy reading, and please comment and contribute to the debate by posting direct on Practical Counsel. Also, please write in with your unique people issues to me (practicalcounsel@substack.com) - I unequivocally undertake never to reveal your identity and will change key details of your situation so as to preserve your confidentiality and anonymity (unless you don’t want this). I also undertake to write to you personally with my own thoughts and comments on your situation and am always happy to follow up with a call on Zoom or similar.
‘Dear Jonathan’ … and Jonathan’s Reply
Dear Jonathan,
Interesting as I have found the last couple of issues on Social Media Postings, they were kinda hard to relate to. I’m GC of a large Industrial Corp based out of Kansas City, and the reason I try to read things like Practical Counsel is to keep up with some of the important trends.
So my question is a lot more basic than what you’ve been writing about in Issues #14 and #15. Can all lawyers truly develop and grow some of the key skills required for the senior in-house role?
Case in point. I’ve a department of 12. One of my Senior Counsel is whip-smart in his specialty (regulatory issues). Ask him a technical question and he ain’t gonna need to go back to the books to quote you chapter and verse. But his people skills – oftentimes, gone missing, out of town, shop shut for vacation.
I’m sure you’ll say all lawyers can learn people skills, but can they? And if they can, how should they best go about learning them?
Sincerely,
Jill (she / her)
—
GC Expert’s Response – in place of Jonathan’s Response
Martin Wilson is Chief General Counsel and Head of Fiduciary Services of Phillips. A veteran in-house lawyer, he spent 20 years at the well-known international auction house, Christie’s, including stints as Co-head of Legal and Compliance at Christie’s and Global MD and GC, Global President’s Office. He is the author of Art Law and the Business of Art, published in 2019.
Dear Jill
Let me first start with an apology. On behalf of Jonathan. You wrote to him and you are getting a response from me, another General Counsel. Jonathan has been unwell this week, and asked me to take a stab at replying to your email.
Your question goes back to an old debate about what can and cannot be taught. Perhaps most importantly, how do you learn to be a leader or a manager? There is a tidal wave of instructional information out there on the internet, on video and in bookshops on every conceivable subject and a brief look at social media sites like LinkedIn will tell you that management and leadership skills are a favourite. But can those skills be learned by everyone and is it really possible to become a leader and manager from your armchair?
Here’s my personal perspective. First, I have a mildly embarrassing confession to make. Embarrassing, at least, for someone of my age. Occasionally on my train journey home I watch You Tube videos explaining how to execute the perfect Lionel Messi dribble and nutmeg, leaving the opposition rooted to the spot. I am also an avid student (also on You Tube) of intricate and thrillingly fast guitar licks. In a series of “Aha!” moments I work out, from the comfort of my train seat, the key superpower moves that will take me from rookie to Jedi levels on the fretboard and in the penalty area. But here’s the problem: when I run onto the pitch or when I pick up my guitar, I find that my skills will not have really improved as a result of my detailed study of these instructional videos. However carefully I try to educate myself and break down the moves to their component parts, my skills remain stubbornly better suited to the local veterans’ football team and the open mic night at the local pub.
And similarly, in a work context, in my effort to improve my leadership, management and relationship skills I worry that my potential is limited by my abilities and personality. I therefore often find myself looking online for guidance, mostly through social media, around managing teams, leadership, winning business and handling the challenges which we all face day to day. But, as with my football and guitar education I do sometimes wonder whether the act of consuming this guidance and advice makes me a better manager, a better leader or a more effective business getter. Or, as with my sporting and musical endeavours – does it just allow me to talk a good game?
My concern is whether I can take my leadership and management skills to a higher level but, like you, I have also come across people in my career who are exceptional technical lawyers but really struggle with people skills in the first place. In these cases is it fair to assume that one can indeed educate those skills? And if so, how does one best go about it?
As lawyers we are taught that if you work hard and put in the hours you will master the technical skills to be successful. In my experience that certainly holds true in our 20s and 30s as we work long into the night and over weekends honing our analytical, drafting and debating skills. But at some point there is an expectation that we move away from the technical and start the journey to become a leader, a business getter and a manager. The problem is that leadership and management skills are for most lawyers uncharted waters. So we reach for guidance - often from our laptop or our bookshelves.
But, are we deluding ourselves if we think that we can all develop or acquire such intuitive skills? The tough truth I think is that not everyone can make that transition at a high i.e. sophisticated level. And even amongst those who can, the difficulty of that journey will vary depending upon a variety of factors. Some lawyers are just comfortable being technical lawyers. We should not assume that excellence as a technical lawyer equates to excellence in management. However, I also think that we are all, to different degrees, capable of improving our people skills. And while our capability and willingness to learn will vary from person to person it is worth it for all lawyers to invest time in this area. People skills will make you a better lawyer whether or not you manage or lead.
So how do we learn people skills? By using an instructional video, or by reading a self-help book or a newsletter? Can the revelations we come across actually translate into positive change? Or do they just give us the illusion that we are capable of change and/or that we know what we are doing? And worse, can they actually make us less confident and more confused? This seems to me to be a really important question in a time when more of us are working from home and those at the beginnings of their careers find themselves at home on Zoom or in half empty offices. It is also an interesting question to ponder as I stare blankly at the screen during yet another online training video issued by my compliance or HR department. Is it really possible to develop our leadership skills – or even our technical skills - via a screen, a book or a newsletter? And, if not, are we perhaps, by relying upon these media for our training and education, storing up a problem for the future?
The field that I work in – art law – is quite a new discipline. When I started working in the field twenty-five years ago there was no such thing as an art lawyer. Now art law is something many young lawyers aspire to practice. As a result I wrote a textbook on the subject and have over recent years found myself helping to mentor and train aspiring art lawyers both within and outside my organisation. I do these things because I love my work and hope, by passing on my enthusiasm and knowledge, to encourage others to follow the legal career path that I have.
One of the questions I am often asked is how one acquires and develops the skills necessary to be an effective General Counsel in the art business. The truthful answer to this question in my field, and no doubt in others, is that above all else you need to develop a high degree of intuitive and emotional intelligence. In practice that means how to talk to people to make them feel encouraged or reassured, how to share enthusiasm, how to lead and how to be seen as a problem solver. These abilities, as we have seen, are exceptionally difficult to learn and teach as they are both rooted in, and in some cases limited by, personality. It is even more challenging for lawyers as our early education and focus upon technical skills rarely equips us with such skills. In fact many of the skills we are taught – in particular winning the argument - are the antithesis of the measured diplomacy required for leadership and management. So how do lawyers go about the often-abrupt transition from executor to enabler?
One of the most interesting and persuasive books on the subject of developing technical talent is Bounce – The Myth of Talent and the Power of Practice by Matthew Syed. Syed is, by background, a professional table tennis player and the premise of his book is that it is only by intense repeated practice that the brain learns how to react to certain situations – and in doing so become better at some tasks than others. Put simply, you cannot become a grandmaster chess player by reading about it. You need to clock up a huge number of hours facing variations of actual challenges to become truly skilled. And the most seductive aspect of his analysis is that he seems, on the face of it, to suggest that anyone can develop these skills if they are willing to dedicate the 10,000 or more hours to intense repeated practice. Pretty inspiring stuff for those of us aspiring to improve on the football pitch, on stage and in our professional roles.
I am excited by Syed’s conclusion because it taps directly into what drives my You Tube and social media viewing habits. If I study the instructions carefully I will come to know how to carry out the task. And if I then put in the hours and execute the task repeatedly I can master the skill – perhaps to an extraordinarily high level. Syed seems to be saying anyone can do anything if they practice hard enough. Talent and predisposition are not required.
In fact, I think that there is more going on in Syed’s model than repeating a skill until it can be executed to perfection. In a business context or on the pitch we don’t repeat our skills in a vacuum. We learn which skills to deploy, when to deploy them and how to deploy them by lived experience. Our talents develop naturally and gradually as we work on teams watching and interacting with others and over time we come across the same situations. This is the working equivalent of Match experience – what footballers call “reading the game”. And in a profession where mistakes are simply not permitted, the key part of that process (whisper it) is making mistakes. The racing driver Nikki Lauda said “From success, you learn absolutely nothing. From failure and setbacks, conclusions can be drawn.” That lived experience – which some call “experimental learning” means we learn to hone our reactions to become more skilled at dealing with each situation effectively. This intuitive element, developed through experimental learning, is a key ingredient of technical ability. And my point is that whether we want to or not, we are all on this experimental learning journey regardless of our starting point. You or I might have a head start and a different end point if we have natural people or management skills but the technical lawyer whose people skills are occasionally or permanently on vacation will also be on that journey – just starting from an earlier point and maybe also ending at a different point.
The problem with repetition and lived experience, though, is that it requires, as Syed’s 10,000 hours would imply, an extended period of time. And, particularly if you are starting from an earlier baseline, time that is usually not afforded to us - and certainly not in the abrupt move into management. This is where I feel that reading and visual training comes in.
Instructional guidance provides a layer of basic understanding which is a pre-requisite to repetition and experimental learning. You can’t expect the technical lawyer to develop people skills from scratch, particularly if he struggles with those skills in the first place. Having someone describe, even in writing, how they go about a task is inspirational and has huge value – if only to prevent the wheel being re-invented. Like my You Tube videos, I may not be able to execute the moves myself but by visualizing what it should look like I understand better what the challenge is and how I should address it.
We senior lawyers also have a role to play and can accelerate the learning curve. Viewpoints and experiences offered by experienced practitioners and veterans can themselves help educate others. We can help educate by describing how we have successfully tackled problems. And it’s not just about our successes. Nikki Lauda wasn’t just talking about learning from his own mistakes and setbacks – he knew that you can learn just as much from the stories of failure, setback and success told by others as from your own lived experience. You don’t need to wait until you are in management to observe where others have succeeded or failed. When, as leaders, we mess up, the silver lining is that not only do we learn from that error – those around us do too. Have you ever been managed by someone who made you a better manager by showing you how not to do things? I would be interested to hear your stories……
I’ve been focusing, in this part of my piece, on more junior lawyers. But we also know that learning is an ongoing process – regardless of how senior you are. Leading an in-house team can at times be a lonely job. General Counsel sometimes do not have the luxury of being able to debate issues, weigh up difficult judgment calls, compare experiences or consult with experienced peers. I feel that it is both educational and healthy, within a safe space, to encounter views that challenge my own. At its best, the online world can sometimes provide that space. Sharing like this can be hugely beneficial.
So where I think I end up is that we all have different natural aptitudes and skill levels. Where people skills are concerned we have to accept that some people have or have the capability to become exceptional communicators and others not so much. But people skills at some level are a necessary part of what we do as lawyers so whatever the raw material time spent on developing those skills is not wasted. And who knows? That technical lawyer may yet surprise you.
I hope that this reflection is helpful, Jill, but that beyond trying to answer your question it will provide everyone reading this newsletter with some food for thought and discussion. I am sure that there will be many who believe that there are some skills that cannot be taught. And some who believe that anything is possible with the right teaching and dedication. For my own part I know that I will never become a great sportsman, musician, lawyer or leader reading newsletters or watching instructional videos from the comfort of my train seat, but I do know that doing so is enjoyable, motivating and contributes to my development – even if it is only part of the equation.
Best wishes
Martin
Some words from Jonathan
I am only going to add some limited comments of my own, at this stage, relating to Jill’s questions, Martin’s excellent piece and the topic more generally.
It’s only right that Martin’s piece takes centre stage in this issue, he having gallantly and generously picked up the ball (another rugby reference) while I was ill in bed. I’m still not 100% recovered so will keep my comments brief. This isn’t just because I’m unwell, but because some of the things I would want to cover will require an individual issue of this newsletter.
My first point relates to Jill’s core question – whether all of the key skills required for the senior in-house role are developable. The immediate context of the question is a member of Jill’s team who lacks, by the sounds of it, some basic relational skills and who might well be low or very low on emotional intelligence (a topic of its own which we will be covering in subsequent issues).
Martin implicitly accepts in his piece that not all skills can be mastered by everyone. To take a stark (perhaps trite) example someone who has lost use of their lower limbs for whatever reason can never become a skilled footballer, due to physical impairment. Most motivated able-bodied individuals, through learning and application, can however acquire footballing skills, to some degree. My understanding is that certain innate aptitudes are likely to determine the limit of those skills (I don’t need to get into the detail of those aptitudes here). As Martin puts it, however much learning or training he does, he personally is never going to go from a certain level of competence to that of a skilled professional.
To unpack this further and discuss the extent to which all (or perhaps it should be each) of the key skills of a senior in-house lawyer are trainable would require a significant discussion. I am parking that for another issue of this newsletter. All I am going to say here is that I think that many or all of the skills are trainable for many, but not all, senior in-house lawyers. If you are a GC or senior manager of other senior lawyers you will almost inevitably recruit or inherit the occasional senior in-house lawyer who is highly unlikely to develop (or incapable of developing) a particular skill. The reasons for this require significant unpacking – but the headline, in my view, is that some individuals are neuro-constrained in relation to certain competencies or skills, i.e. for some reason, often complex and cognitive / neurological, the individual lacks the capacity to develop or significantly develop that particular skill. More of this in other issues of the newsletter. I’m not sure whether I’m differing significantly from what Martin writes in his piece. I suspect not.
My second point is a Meta-Learning point, about the nature of learning. Many lawyers are trained to think in a very linear way. Many are very results-oriented, which can also partly be a result of training. In my experience, many people with personality traits relating to results-orientation and / or linearity of thinking style self-select into law (I know this having administered hundreds of personality tests to lawyers I have coached or trained). Even if not naturally linear thinkers, lawyers are trained professionally from day 1 in logical cause and effect reasoning. I remember my earliest exposure to law, core subjects at University like Contract and Tort (yes, Dear Reader, I read Jurisprudence at University, and loved it) …. we were encouraged to think about proximate cause, to grapple with complex issues around causation, to parse out the illogical. I was privileged to be lectured by the late great Tony Honoré, who with the equally late great H.L.A. Hart wrote the seminal work Causation in the Law.
Problem is, learning ain’t linear. And some dyed-in-the-wool lawyers come to expect all things to be reducible to linear process and to distrust anything that eschews the linear.
I’m going to shift here to a metaphor that comes from Martin’s world, Art (albeit figurative ‘fine’ Art rather than the Contemporary Art for which Phillips is best known as one of the world’s great Auction Houses).
Learning of certain skills is analogous to the process whereby a great figurative artist builds a fine oil painting. A dab of this type of learning here. A splodge of that kind of learning there. At times the picture looks unclear or blurry. You might choose to add in some additional learning colours and shapes to build up the picture. Add some further dots or blotches of learning and shape starts to cohere. Eventually a picture emerges, albeit when you stand close to the picture you can’t see the picture clearly.
The analogy isn’t complete of course. At some point an actual figurative artist painting in oils puts down his palette knife, or rests his brushes, for a last time and declares the picture ‘done’. This doesn’t – or shouldn’t – happen in my view with leadership, management or relational skills learning. That learning should never end. The learning should never be varnished over and ‘locked in’. It is, rather, essential to retain neuroplasticity.
And to extend the analogy a bit further. Incredible paintings can be built up in a myriad of different ways. The canvass is literally unlimited. A great artist doesn’t paint by numbers. A great leader doesn’t learn her skills in a particular tried-and-tested way.
More of this in due course, too. My point for now is that in order to develop the basket of skills we are talking about here it is important to remember that you don’t and can’t acquire them through some trite linear process. Sorry, it’s just more complicated than that.
What I think will be helpful to debate in these pages is some of the ways lawyers might best be likely to acquire these skills. I’m going to invite contributions from a variety of people in order to answer this – as well, of course, as providing my own views. And I hope that you, my readers, will also share your views, through comments on the newsletter on Substack, but also on the Personal Counsel LinkedIn page and on my personal LinkedIn page.
This week’s key takeaways
1. Meta-learning is a type of learning concerned with learning about one’s own learning and learning processes.
2. The topic for this and the next few issues of Practical Counsel is how senior in-house lawyers can best learn (i.e. acquire, develop, strengthen) leadership, management and relational skills.
3. A linked topic /sub-topic raised in this issue of PC by Jill is whether all senior in-house lawyers are indeed capable of learning all relevant leadership, management and relational skills.
4. The bulk of this week’s issue is written by Martin Wilson, Chief General Counsel of Phillips.
5. He cites Matthew Syed’s book ‘Bounce’ and the research cited there that it requires up to 10,000 hours ‘practice’ to take a skill to levels of super proficiency (e.g. Grandmaster at Chess, Grand Slam Tennis Champion).
6. Martin talks about the range of ways in which one can learn about leadership, management and relational skills nowadays – e.g. by reading a newsletter such as this one, but also through books, other online material e.g. articles, YouTube videos, podcasts etc. etc. There is a plethora of available resource ‘out there’.
7. Martin also makes the point that you need to ‘practice’ what you learn about through these various routes – and then reflect on that practice, in order to improve and learn from your mistakes.
8. Jonathan explains that learning is not a linear process, albeit many lawyers are most comfortable with linear processes as a result of either their training or personal disposition.
9. Jonathan also expresses the view that most senior in-house lawyers can indeed develop / improve on most or all relevant leadership, management and relational skills. A minority are, in his view, incapable of acquiring or developing significantly some or all of these skills.
And now …….
Contribute to the debate and write in with your comments and observations. Also write to Jonathan with any other people issues you face as an in-house lawyer.
Jonathan can be reached by email at practicalcounsel@substack.com
A note for you picky lawyers; and a plea for tolerance
I am a British lawyer by background and went to both school and University in the UK. So my English is British English. I have taken a conscious decision to write this newsletter in British English, but to try to avoid phrases that aren’t common outside the UK. Sometimes, though, I’ll use a phrase that isn’t commonly used outside the UK, without realising that it is a Britishism. I also endeavour to use the vernacular spellings of my contributors (e.g. to use US spellings for a US contributor), but won’t always get this right.
My plea is for you to tolerate the British spellings and grammar and the occasional Britishism. And to focus on the substance of the newsletter rather than the occasional (to you) annoying turn of phrase, bit of grammar or unorthodox spelling, or the occasional inconsistency in spelling as between, for example, UK and US ‘standard’ spellings.
Thank you and best wishes,
Jonathan Middleburgh