Law firms should encourage knowledge sharing at every level

What can your firm do to maximise the learning it does organisationally, in teams and by individuals?

First, you need to be clear about what you understand by the term ‘learning’. What does it mean to you and your firm? As with so many commonly-used words, it is very easy to use the word ‘learning’ without reflecting on what it produces or implies. For some, it is the process of taking on board new knowledge and/or skills, or improving and updating them for future use. For others, it is the use of knowledge or skills in new situations or during new experiences and noticing the resulting difference. For still others, it is simply what happens when we are
being taught.

In most definitions, learning would seem to involve difference. In many cases, it also involves change. So, are you collecting evidence of learning in your firm? Are you noticing that things are being done differently following a learning intervention? How are things changing? Is good practice being reinforced and validated?

It is often very difficult to know what is different if the starting point is not observed, analysed, discussed, reviewed or even noted either by the individual, the team or at an organisational level. What questions are being asked before formal learning takes place in your firm? How skilful are the individuals in your firm at objectively reviewing and analysing their own performance and that of their colleagues and others? What processes do you have in place to support the capturing of this data, both quantitative and qualitative?

Sharing and testing

Once you have a system in place, however formal or informal, to capture the learning, the change or the difference that has taken place, what are you doing to ensure that the learning goes beyond the individual directly concerned?

Two things happen after individuals learn something: either they hold onto their learning or they discuss it with team members or other colleagues. How are you encouraging people to share or perhaps test their learning?

A comment often heard in training rooms the world over is “I’ll never be able to introduce these great ideas when I get back to my desk”. This usually stems from a combination of the following scenarios:

1. individuals don’t have the confidence to try to implement the change, especially if they perceive that they will have to influence a manager to do something differently;

2. the firm does not have a culture of ‘listening’ or encouraging dialogue about continuous improvement; or

3. managers are reluctant, unable or it simply doesn’t occur to them to engage with ‘returning’ individuals to learn from them or their experiences.

In some cases, there is even a belief that sharing learning will upset the status quo and that this is unhelpful.

R&D solutions

If a firm does not learn by encouraging knowledge sharing at every level, it will fall victim to its own declining lifecycle. As is commonly understood in manufacturing, every product has a natural lifecycle. Companies strive to bring new products to market before their existing products go into the decline phase. Sometimes they simply repackage the product to
give the impression of it being
revitalised. Sometimes they modify
parts or ingredients and declare them
to be ‘improved’.

What is the legal sector’s equivalent declaration? How does your firm declare it is up to date and working with cutting-edge thinking and solutions? Where is your equivalent of the R&D department? I believe it is in the professional development of your employees. It is
a firmwide department. Everyone in the organisation has something to offer, or why else would they be employed? Have they learned and understood what that contribution is? Are they encouraged
to ensure their contribution is as current as it can be?

I doubt that many firms take the learning and development of each and every person as seriously as they could. Clients and fee earning are always going to be at the heart of the firm. But, too frequently, this is used as an excuse for not taking or making time to improve the firm’s offering, to keep the ‘product’ from dipping into the decline phase of its lifecycle. Perhaps therefore law firms need to gain better balance in the thinking of their individuals about the role that learning plays in their continued success.

In order to know what needs to improve, attention needs to be paid to the specific learning required. Assessing and sharing individuals’ learning needs should become part of the firm’s DNA: this is where a firm can truly be regarded as a learning organisation with its own built-in R&D department.

Sue Beavil is UK learning and organisational development manager at international law firm Slater & Gordon (www.slatergordon.co.uk)