It’s no secret that there is serious discontent with the practice of law in our society. It’s not just the usual jibes about lawyers that have existed since Shakespeare; from concerns over the increasingly litigiousness of American life to questions about whether law school still presents a viable path to a prosperous career, attorneys and those who work with them are taking a long, hard look at the future of their profession.
But Deb Knupp is optimistic about that future – perhaps because she is not a lawyer herself. Knupp is a founding partner of Akina, a company that provides sales and marketing consulting services to the legal indsutry. In response to deficits they have perceived in the industry, Knupp and some of her colleagues have launched Generation Generosity, a campaign to re-orient the legal profession toward growth and abundance rather than scarcity and conflict.
Akina and Generation Generosity will be our partners in a September 16 Lab, in which leading lights from the legal profession will gather to re-imagine their field. Labs Content Director Andrew Benedict-Nelson decided to give Knupp a call in advance of the session. Because Knupp is also a veteran of the Labs process – she participated in our March 2011 meeting with the League of Chicago Theaters – he also asked her about the common problems faced by organizations dedicated to serving others, as well as how people can find new ways to do good in their professional lives. Their conversation follows:
ABN: Your company, Akina, is working with us in two weeks to help re-invent the legal profession. But you’re not a lawyer. Can you explain to me how your company came to have the relationship with the legal profession that it does?
DK: We started the firm in 2001 with the belief that if we could help organizations get present and build authentic relationships,that everything else would come after that. In 2002, we began a venture working with law firms, and since then we have become a national leader in business development, coaching, and consulting for lawyers. Ninety percent of our clients are now attorneys in private practice.
ABN: Why did you feel lawyers needed help in this area?
DK: It was really born out of what we teach. In 2002, the notion of selling or business development was akin to a four-letter word for lawyers. There was a tremendous amount of resistance and pressure not to cheapen the practice of law by encumbering it with the practice of sales. It’s been so curious over the past decade how much that focus has shifted and changed. Frankly, I think law firms are working really hard to catch up.
The priority of developing new business, nurturing existing clients, cross-selling and extending services — this is a relatively new phenomenon among law firms relative to the larger corporate world. Corporations have been thinking about account management and sales for decades. So it’s really a privilege to be part of something of a renaissance that is happening in the practice of law and really teaching attorneys how to execute against fundamentals for one purpose, which is growth, and getting the actual benefits and blessings that come with that.
ABN: I can see from a business point of view why lawyers might need this type of development work. But at the same time, it seems like you may be tinkering with a pretty important component that makes the law a profession instead of just a trade. I’m pretty sure it’s analogous to the reason you’re not supposed to advertise as a physician – you’re not supposed to mix your private interest with the public need the profession is meant to address.
DK: We think that if sales is done with the right mindset it actually is about doing good. That is a core part of our philosophy and our framework: you only sell to those who have actual needs. We teach that if you build a real relationship rooted in real care and genuine interest, and if you’re willing to invest in that relationship by solving a problem that should be solved (not just one you want to solve), you can’t help but over time begin to see your revenue grow.
Very often a client or prospective client may have a legitimate need for which your particular offering or service is not the solution, but if you are willing to stick with them long enough to help them get what it is that they actually need, there is a sense of loyalty and endearment whether that person themselves becomes a client or a source of referrals for the future. We’ve seen this play out with such a high degree of consistency that we are trying to eradicate the idea that sales is self-interest, and turn it into the idea that sales is about service and relationship investment. That’s a big leap.
ABN: I understand what you’re saying about sales being a form of doing good. But there’s a part of me that is still drawn to the professional ethics of those old lawyers. They are essentially saying that there is some amount of business that they are willing to give up for their professional integrity, which seems like a rare and desirable quality these days. Do you think there was something noble in that point of view, and is there a way of preserving it as you effect the kind of change you’re talking about in the legal field?
DK: Without a doubt. What I would ask you to consider is that the history of self-sacrifice in the name of professional ethics is absolutely in alignment with this philosophy. Don’t sell for self-interest — that does violate professional ethics. But I think the idea of nurturing or developing relationships almost got lost in an era of arrogance, when people thought they didn’t need to worry about things like client service because of their technical competence and ability. They thought people would be silly not to work with them and the phone would always ring.
Now what’s emerging is more like the best of both worlds: how can we have a more intentional view of investing time and energy with clients that not only does not compromise professional ethics, but enhances them? In many respects, if a billable hour is not an answer to a client’s problem, you would do well not to force them to buy something or lead them in a direction that unwittingly forces them to buy something. How can we equip the profession of law so that it is known to have such a high degree of integrity and character that everyone knows that the recommendation to pursue litigation or invest money in research or head something off with an opinion are all rooted in what’s best for the client, not necessarily what’s best for the lawyer’s bank account?
ABN: So how do you hope to address some of these issues with this other project, Generation Generosity?
DK: At the end of last year we were reflecting on a major milestone, our 10-year anniversary, which happened in April. It was reflection on those questions that caused the idea of “generosity” to be born. When we looked back on all our clients over the past ten years, we recognized that those that make the most money and have the greatest longevity focus on three things. Number one, they focus on being the type of practitioner that clients want to buy from. Second, they make their firms places where employees want to work. Third, a small segment is focusing on making their firms places where leaders want to work to serve a bigger purpose in their communities.
So the idea of Generation Generosity was to help lawyers re-think who they are and what they do, not only in the aspects of client development but in employee development and leadership development. What kind of changes could happen to the industry? What might become possible? All of this was done with “generosity” as the design principle. We are beginning to ignite a whole series of conversations and services that drive this idea. The ultimate mission is to change the way lawyers experience themselves and to change the way the world experiences lawyers. We’re excited to use the Lab as a new catalyst or launching pad for this re-imagined view of what’s possible.
ABN: I can’t personally imagine the way a lawyer experiences himself or herself, but what do you imagine the world’s experience of a lawyer might be like 20 or 30 years down the line if your venture is successful?
DK: We half-kiddingly say we know we have been successful when lawyer jokes are less funny. That’s sort of a quip, but it does say a lot. Lawyer jokes are funny for a reason. There is a lot of pain associated with practicing law. Attorneys’ primary method of measurement is really on income, revenue, billable work. But success in a monetary sense only has a limited lifeline. We are really moving it into significance. That is where you see long-term sustainability. Significance is really why you are doing something. The fact that you can get paid to do it is great, but it is not the driver.
We think abundance has the potential to be the new operating game if attorneys shift their mindset. There are two unassailable truths. First, nothing of importance, substance, or significance happens at an enterprise level in the world happens without lawyers. If it is going to have any sort of sustainability or scale, it has to include lawyers. Secondly, the only enduring motivators for human beings are autonomy, mastery, and purpose — I pulled that from Daniel Pink’s research in his book Drive.
When you layer those two things together, you start to see the power we can harness for good. The idea of doing good and doing well is still something of a foreign concept for lawyers, whereas in product companies like Caribou Coffee or Kraft or Procter & Gamble — the idea of the “triple bottom line” is much more welcome. In the practice of law, social theory and social enterprise are still foreign to the practice as a whole.
Don’t get me wrong — there are certain bright spots. But as an industry, lawyers are not known for their social innovation. Even pro bono in some regards has been cheapened to public relations or the training of young lawyers, in which case it is really just self-interest.
ABN: I could see where good PR could be a positive externality of a genuine effort to do good through pro bono work. But yeah, it seems like using it to train young lawyers is completely mercenary. You’re effectively saying, “Here are the people we can afford to give away.”
It seems to me that on the one hand you could look at the public image of lawyers as a function of the things you’ve talked about, like the lack of a social entrepreneurialism ethos. On the other hand, lawyers work in an area that is inherently contentious. Given the field on which they play, is there any way to fully heal the public perception of lawyers?
DK: I think things have to run in parallel. To your point, the existing playing field does not allow for a more generative, abundant approach. At the same time, there has been a shift toward greater civility, if you look at the higher instance of mediation, arbitration, and alternative means of justice. That segment of the law is on the rise. There is a new consciousness and sensibility with things like tort reform. Many things will have to change in this environment for lawyers to be revered for their problem solving and their advisory capacity. There could be a whole new professional category where you see the consulting competence in parallel with the legal competence, and how those things may have an effect on commerce.
ABN: One of the things we’re curious about at Insight Labs is the relationship between for-profit and non-profit entities. What is the relationship between Akina and Generation Generosity right now, and where do you see it going?
DK: Generation Generosity was never intended to be an Akina thing, though it is right now. The paradox is that it will fail miserably if it is only an Akina thing. It would just become some cute marketing idea, and it was never intended to be that. We want it to be more of a movement. Right now Akina owns the intellectual property, but there is a desire for it to be its own thing. And though right now it is primarily for lawyers, we think it could be part of a much larger social consciousness and way of thinking.
ABN: I am curious about this moment – and this is a moment that happened with Insight Labs – when a group of people in a company say, “Hey, there is something we could do for the greater good that would be more effective if we weren’t just going out under the banner of our company.” I’m curious about the kind of decision-making that happens at that moment and the different options available. For starters, why do you think it would be a bad idea to simply do this as Akina?
DK: Because Akina would always have control. In our minds, there is more power if it is open source. I think that the challenge for any organization is to understand the real purpose. Authentic altruism is when the right hand doesn’t know what the left hand is doing – all the major world religions recognize that as the highest level of giving. In our practical world, purity is something to be pursued, but the practical reality of it is hard. Still, if you have that as your core, I think the blessings and the abundance will come from that.
ABN: I think that balance makes sense, and it is the reason why many companies have founded separate entities for those philanthropic activities. But I’d like to hear your take on the case for not doing that. It seems to me that if your goal really is to solve a problem and not to create just another place for people to donate money, it might be most efficient for a company to just act on its own, using its existing networks and credibility.
DK: I think that happens as a matter of necessity. Otherwise you’re too busy figuring out where you’re going to go and what you’re going to do. I take the vantage point that says, “Wouldn’t it be great if this were just folded into the fabric of every organization, this idea of us serving a bigger purpose?” What if it became part of every commercial entity to take on a cause?
For us, we asked what kind of impact we could have if we just did this on our own. Then we asked what kind of impact we could have if we aligned ourselves with some like-minded folks. So when you ask if I think companies can act on their own to do social good, the answer is absolutely and unequivocally “yes.” But I think there’s an “and.” I think that in community there is a multiplier effect.
Just as we joke that we will have been successful when lawyer jokes are less funny, you could say that in a larger sense we will have succeeded when commercial enterprises become more profitable by not putting profit in a financial sense at their center. What if business weren’t just about making money? What if it were about something else and you just made money as the byproduct?
ABN: Right now Insight Labs is tied pretty closely with one particular company, Manifest Digital. I am wondering what general advice you might give our two entities as you also try to figure out how this relationship works over time. What can we learn from where you’re at now?
DK: When you think about an alliance and what it is meant to do, there is a measure of independence and a measure of interdependence. I think that Insight Labs would do well to have more like-minded entities like Manifest where there are some clear areas of interdependence. I think that when you work with just one group, their priorities will inevitably trump other interests.
But that isn’t to say that the relationship with Manifest couldn’t continue just as it is, where they house you and things like that. It would just be part of a greater interdependence where different groups bring different things to the table. There is an opportunity to create a coalition of the like-minded. That could be the next step. And there are lots of models on how that kind of thing can work well.
ABN: There are a lot of people in the world who would like to bring the idea of doing good into their work lives but may not be in a position to start a new initiative like you are. What advice would you give them on how to accomplish that goal by other means?
DK: I will point to a recent quote I heard from Len Schlesinger, the president of Babson College. He said that entrepreneurs don’t spend a lot of time worrying about what they are going to do – they just worry about what they are going to do next. Instead of figuring out what great good you’re going to do, think about something that matters to you. Just take a stab at it, whether it is something as simple as volunteering or writing a check or just talking to the staff member of an organization. People often look at philanthropy as something that has to be huge and time-consuming and expensive. They think the only people that matter are the big donors with major projects. You don’t hear about the neighbor who has no children who picked up trash from the local school.
So I think that all that matters is figuring out what you’re going to next. That desire can point you in a direction for further investigating. It’s more about participating than planning, in my mind.