The Knowing-Doing Gap

Author: Richard Stock - Lexpert (February 2006 at p. 101)

Stanford University’s Robert Sutton co-wrote a book with Jeffrey Pfeffer called The Knowing – Doing Gap, based on case studies of companies he and his students prepared. For the most part, the companies were in the Silicon Valley and the studies were conducted in the late 1990s, during the dot-com heyday. Before and since then, there has been a steady stream of books and articles profiling companies and management styles favouring speed to market and execution as the keys to a competitive advantage. Larry Bossidy, with Ram Charan and Charles Burck, wrote Executions: The Discipline of Getting Things Done, one of the better references on the subject.

Sutton’s overall findings were clear: the problem is not analysis, but rather how to implement. He observed that some companies had a propensity for research and analysis rather than action, and that they needed to redo their values and vision. In highly competitive markets, new operating philosophies were needed which could be used to guide a wide range of actions in different situations.

Author, lecturer and consultant David Maister is more familiar to those who lead and manage professional service firms. Maister says he has read the strategic business plans of hundreds of law firms and other professional firms. Given the same reference markets (geography, clientele), he claims that the plans are nearly identical. It is the ability to successfully act on them in a timely fashion that sets one firm (or one law department) apart from the other.

Robert Sutton identified five basic causes of the gap to implementation. Some apply to some firms and law departments more than to others. Consensus-building values in legal professionals make the first cause pretty common. The Straight-Talk Trap will find waiting and planning in lieu of action. For this one, Sutton suggests that “people get ahead by sounding smart, not by doing smart things right; the more critical people are, the more they may appear smart.”

There are always one or two people in every group of 10 who fit this behaviour and who anchor 80% of the conversation. Their colleagues incorrectly let them forge ahead. The countermeasures include career and compensation systems which place greater value on action/results than on talk. Even plans and reports that must be reduced to writing should rely on simpler, action-oriented language with systems that monitor follow-up.

The second cause of the gap is When Memory Substitutes for Thinking. The commitment to the past reaffirms the firm’s social identity and culture. The danger of precedent is ever present, especially if the firm has been successful over the years. The usual phrases are trotted out: “If it’s not broken, don’t fix it!”; “no growth for the sake of growth”; and “we’ve always done it this way.” University professors Michael Tushman and Charles O’Reilly’s book, Winning through Innovation, particularly chapter one entitled “The Tyranny of Success,” and John Kotter’s Leading Change are two useful background pieces that can help firm leaders and their teams focus on the future. Robert Sutton and Kotter both suggest that one should give people things to do that they have never done before and that the management team be “moved around”.

The third cause of the gap is When Fear Prevents Acting on Knowledge. Sutton’s research suggested that only 38% of workers trust their companies to keep their promises. There is a well-established fear of blame in most people. Many lawyers have the additional reflex and training of being risk-averse. Few law firm compensation systems reward partners and associates for valiant effort but no success in business origination and for non-billable work. Two basic design imperatives for compensation systems are that a firm gets what it measures and what it pays for. The better-balanced compensation systems for professionals provide a meaningful share of total compensation for leading groups and for producing results which are developmental, higher risk and of strategic value to the firm.

The fourth cause of the gap is When Measurement Obstructs Good Judgment. The cause takes on a different form in a law firm than it does in a corporate or government law department. Law firms still measure worth based on billable hours and total billings per fee earner. Yes, compensation systems level out peaks and valleys and factor in other contributions. While 75% to 85% of what an individual receives in total compensation is directly proportional to their personal economic contribution to the firm, not enough is set aside for developmental and management contributions.

Law departments outside of provincial and federal settings are not “lawyering environments.” They are ill-equipped to monitor and measure the contributions of inside and outside counsel unless these are directly tied to the organization’s strategic business priorities. Ensuring the linkages are in place is critical.

The fifth and final gap is When Internal Competition Turns Friends into Enemies. Not an easy challenge to meet when the private practice of law tends to attract large numbers of independent-minded high achievers. The situation is not as dire in corporate and government law department settings because of values that are more corporate and reward systems which are less reliant on individual contribution. Law firms and large law departments must favour team players only and minimize the visibility of, and rewards to, individuals who do not work co-operatively.

Knowing what the five causes of the knowing-doing gap are does not eliminate them. Law firm and law department leadership must act to prevent and close the gaps that stand in the way of delivering effective legal services and building a sustainable business.