Metrics for Internal Service providers

Ted Harro, a regular participant in the conversations on this blog, has submitted this topic for us to react to (These are Ted's words):

Many people serve as internal consultants or advisors. The more they act with the same intensity as outside providers, the more value they will bring to their company, the better they will get, and the more fun they should have.

Internal consulting is a bit different from being an external consultant. You have a very limited market, and you can't fire your clients. Since prophets are rarely celebrated in their own land, you are positioned differently with your "clients," and must engage with them differently.

One of the challenges is figuring out the right metrics to use in monitoring and managing internal consulting groups (or any other staff advisors.)

A few obvious metrics used by outside providers still apply to in-house providers: client satisfaction (post-engagement surveys, internal referrals) and staff (employee satisfaction surveys, skill development monitoring.)

You could also try to monitor "market positioning" -- share of core capability work done in-house, share of overall capability work "under management" (for example, acting as a broker for outside resources, such as the in-house legal department managing the outside law firm providers.)

The most difficult area is financial performance. Most internal groups are cost centres. Few companies still use "internal pricing and bill-back" systems anymore because it turned into an administrative nightmare.

A few initial thoughts:

Measuring the utilisation of in-house staff (hours engaged/people hours available) still works, though it is a hygiene measure and does not describe effectiveness.

Leverage could work (ratio of total people to senior practitioners, defined by credentials and pay grade)

It would be tough to use a margin measure. I suppose you could do a ratio of overhead cost to employee cost.

Rates are the real question. If in the outside world rates are the market's perception of your unique value, how do you do that in the inside world? Overall department budget? ROI/hours invested?

(but ROI can be a tricky number for a lot of internal consultants)?

Clearly, if it could be measured, "value" is the ultimate measure for internal consultants.

In many firms, internal groups generally track it by how much budget they get, but this seems incomplete to me somehow.

(End of Ted's Question)

---

Ted has posed so many questions that I'm going to "hold my fire" until all of you have the chance to jump in. (Also, I'm traveling in Europe and I'm a bit jet-lagged!)

However, I would extend the challenge by pointing out that, in these days of outsourcing, internal groups probably will need to develop metrics that are at least part-way comparable to those being used by the outside providers pitching your management for YOUR job!

So, what metrics are used where you work to measure internal consulting / advisory / staff work?

The Best Manager I Ever Had

Think back to the best manager you have ever experienced. Someone who got the best out of you, and the rest of your group, to stretch and to accomplish more, while also enjoying it more.

What did this person DO, that made them so effective in raising your performance? (Specifics, please.) What was it about them as a person (if anything) that contributed to the effect they had on you and your colleagues?

Let's not include any generalisations, theory or principles here. I'm looking for real stories about real people.

---

What do effective managers actually DO that makes them effective?

Us and Them

The September 4 issue of The New Yorker contains an article about a researcher, Spelke, who studies babies and infants to try and detect whether or not there are gender differences in how our minds really work.

What I found most stimulating of all in the piece was the following Spelke quote: "Nobody should be troubled by our research, whatever we come to find. Everyone should be troubled by the phenomena that motivate it: the pervasive tendency of people all over the world to categorise others into social groups, despite our common humanity, and to endow these groups with social and economic significance that fuels ethnic conflict and can even lead to war and genocide."

Indeed I AM troubled by this tendency to define ourselves and others by the group we belong to.

• My team versus your team
• My nationality versus your nationality
• My religion versus your religion
• My race versus your race
• My gender versus your gender
• Management versus employees
• Our company versus its customers
• My generation versus your generation
• We true believers versus the bad guys

Ever since I read Ayn Rand as a teenager, I have been an individualist. I am uncomfortable with deriving my identity from the various "groups" I belong to -- gender, nationality, race, etc. For better or for worse, I am defined by my own characteristics, not by generalities based on my group identification -- and I prefer it when others think this way.

As Spelke points out, mostly they do not. Most people derive their primary identification from their group.

Even when it is motivated by an honourable desire to rectify past discrimination, it is nevertheless "group think" to base one's arguments on group identification. For example, a female blogger sent me an email, very gently asking why there were no female bloggers on my blogroll. The thought had never occurred to me to contemplate the question -- you might just as well have asked whether or not there were any African American or Muslim bloggers on my blogroll (I don't know.)

Do you care whether your group is represented? Should you?

As Spelke points out, isn't group think "Our side versus their side" the cause of the world's problems. Shouldn't we stop fighting for our side, and demonising the other team?

Can't we derive our pride from our own accomplishments, not those of the team we are on.

Blawg Review #76

It is my honour to host the Blawg Review, a weekly selection of blogs related to the law.

Since I am not a lawyer, and this blog site is meant to appeal to a broad international audience working in a wide variety of professions and industries, I have (as previously announced) restricted my choices to the themes of work and professional life, firm management, marketing, strategy and careers (rather than legal topics per se).

1. Competition v. Collaboration in Firms

Tom "Bald Dog" Varjan has the blog post of the week in my view.

Of Sailors and Mountaineers: The Inherent Dangers of Internal Competition is a compelling piece of analysis, which nevertheless still leaves us wrestling with the mysteries of why our organisations run as they do. Are we all too competitive for our own good? If so, how has civilisation thrived? Don't miss it.

2. Throttling Clients

Ed Wesemann has a terrific blog for law firms called Creating Dominance, and his latest post is about "throttling" clients (no, it doesn't mean what you think it means). It's not glamorous stuff, but it's important.

He discusses how he went about analysing low-profitability clients, and then engaging actions which induced the clients to change their behavior (or leave). A clear exposition of some basic that all firms should be doing – and don't!

3. Work-Life Balance

Stephanie West Allen at idealawg introduces us to Hot Worms and Workaholics: Let the Workers Be! She tells us that some worms live in water so hot that it would kill other worms:

"I have met many hot worm lawyers and I suspect there may be whole firms composed primarily of hot worms. These lawyers thrive on conditions that might prove injurious or even fatal to other lawyers. I am concerned for the hot worm lawyers and the damage that might be done to them if someone decided that these torrid wigglers needed to swim in cooler waters, to achieve life balance as defined by some other worm. In many cases, a cool, balanced worm may be an unhappy or dead worm. Lawyers come in a wide variety of temperaments, each with a unique, individual, ideal allocation of what and how much goes on each scale of life. That uniqueness is best respected for the sake of the lawyer, the firm, and the client."

Fascinating -- a wonderful counter-conventional blog post.

4. Advice for Young Professionals

Bruce MacEwan at Adam Smith, Esq. has a review of "The Curmudgeon's Guide to Practicing Law” (ABA, 2006), a wonderful book from Mark Hermann (of Jones Day). With great humor and deadly accuracy, Mr. Hermann cuts through the cant and provides tough love advice for those on their way up (and a few who have stopped rising).

I have read the book, and "Adam" is right. Managing partners in law firms should buy copies for all their junior lawyers. In addition, I would estimate that at least one-half of the book applies to all young professionals, in any industry.

5. Leadership, Emotions and Performance

Arnie Herz at legal sanity, reporting on a Harvard Working Knowledge forum, explores the role of positive leadership in creating the motivation, creativity, and performance of the knowledge workers.

Arnie reports that, according to the piece, a key discovery the researchers made is that workers' performance is tied to their "emotions, motivations, and perceptions about their work environment". There are lots of other good links in the blog to research in the field of "Positive Organisational Scholarship."

6. Must BigClients have BigFirms?

JD Hull at What About Clients? estimates that "bet the company work" is perhaps 10% of legal corporate work out there, if that. So what about the other 90% of available corporate legal work? Is there any reason why firms ranging in size from 5 to 150 lawyers with the right talent and specialties can't do that work for BigClients?

The questions is raised: when firms large and small can serve your needs, where do you go? Think carefully, and on the back of examination booklet explain why friendly neighbourhood grocery stores no longer exist.

6. Future Earning Potential of Firms

Gerry Riskin of Amazing Firms, Amazing Practices provides a link to an article by his EDGE International colleague, Friedrich Blase, on assessing a firm's future earning potential by examining its human capital, its structural capital, its relational capital and its investment capacity.

It will start your thinking processes -- there's a lot to be done exploring these topics.

7. Advice on the road to L

F/k/a [formerly known as] links to a number of law professors offering advice to first-year law students, and offers the observation that "much of that 'lost' feeling never does go away -- because far too many law school applicants, law students and practicing lawyers never took the time to assess who they really are and what they actually do want from life and from a career."

Like the rest of us.

8. Client Satisfaction

Mark Beese at Leadership for Lawyers continues the (re)announcement of survey company BTI's results that clients' satisfaction with lawyers is going down dramatically, but provides link to other surveys and sources with confirming data.

BTI's findings (which have been extensively reported for a while now) should be the springboard for deeper discussion of the sources and cures of low client satisfaction in the law, but so far the analysis hasn't progressed -- at least in the blogosphere. Let's hope the firms themselves are taking the hint.

9. Recruiting Interviews

Eric Muller at Is That Legal? contributes a memory about being "conned" at an interview by one law firm partner into commenting on someone at another law firm who turned out to be her husband.

Ethical or good recruiting tactic? You be the judge!

10. Spotting the Winners Early

Carolyn Elefant at Law.com Legal Blog Watch reports in A Future Billing Machine is Born about a Washington Post story on a young man, Dravidian, who:

"whipped through college in one year, relying on a combination of 72 AP credits that he collected in high school, followed by 23 credits his first semester in college (instead of the usual 15), a whopping 37 credits the next (he'd complained that he had too much time on his hands the first semester), with the last three, needed for a double major, completed during the summer. The article reports that after finishing up a master's in math, Banh will forego the doctorate and head to law school to become a patent attorney."

As Elefant puts it: law firms, start your recruiting engines.

11. A Harvard Business School Case Study

Nathan Koppel, guest blogging at Larry Bodine's Professional Services Marketing blog, informs us that Harvard Business School has written a 40-page case study on Philadelphia's Duane Morris.

Based on my memory of how MBA students treated the companies offered up to them for dissection, this may not be the privilege that some at Duane Morris think it could be.

12. Diagnosis in Law and Medicine

Jim Belshaw at Managing the Professional Service Firm (what a catchy name!) picks up on a contribution by Prem Chandavarkar to begin an analysis of how diagnosis is performed in law versus medicine.

It doesn't go deep, but it's a useful beginning on an important topic.

13. Branding a Fruit

Dilanchian Lawyers and Consultants caught my attention by telling the history of transforming the humble Kiwi fruit, through wise use of Intellectual Property tactics, into a branded product.

A bit of a diversion from our theme here, but a fun blawg tale.

Next, let's turn to some interesting blogs about blogging.

14. Marketing Yourself and Your Practice

Kevin O'Keefe at Real Lawyers Have Blogs reports on "Blonde attorney gets new clients at MySpace."

No comment. Decide for yourself what you think about it.

15. Profile of a Prominent Blogger

Dennis Kennedy provides a useful link to an interview with (and about) him on the JD Bliss site, entitled Success Story: Dennis Kennedy: "TechnoLawyer of the Year" Bridges the Gap Between Law and Technology.

For the few who don't know his background, it's a good place to start getting to know the well-known lawyer, consultant, speaker and writer who is considered among the most influential experts on the application of technology in the practice of law.

Dennis was very kind and generous with his time when I was trying to understand what a blog was. If you don't know him and his work, you should.

16. Blogging by Trainees

Scott Vine at Information Overlord picks up on a UK Legal week report that Watson Farley & Williams is getting its trainees to write a weekly blog on the firm's web site. Each of the firm's 12 trainees will take it in turns to write the weekly blog, describing the work they have been involved in and the firm's training and social activities. Neat!

17. Blogging During a Court Case

Justin Patten at Human Law has a brief piece speculating on how blogging might influence the practice of law: "I envisage scenarios where lawyers in conjunction with PR Professionals and blogosphere monitoring tools, assess how a case is being seen on the web. Thereafter an assessment will be made whether a legal remedy is the right solution."

18. Regulatory Restrictions on Blogging

Walter Olson at Point of Law collects some links pointing to the emerging concern that new Bar regulations in New York "might make it nearly impossible for attorneys in the state to publish or contribute to blogs about the law. (Each individual post would trigger elaborate compliance obligations of its own.)"

19. Blogging as a Substitute for Law Reviews

Ian Best at 3Lepiphany speculates that blogging by law students and others could create a much more powerful substitute for law review articles.

Seems persuasive, important and powerful to me.

---

That's it!

Blawg Review has information about next week's host, and instructions how to submit your blawg posts for review in upcoming issues.

Dynamos -- new careers videocast & audiocast

In the 23rd episode of this series, we are going to look at the issues of motivation, excitement and drive over the course of a career. At any given time, professionals can fall into one of three categories: dynamos, cruisers or losers. We will look at the affects that these different mindsets have on an organisation and what managers must do to instill excitement in the workplace.

Audio Timeline

00:39 -- Introduction
00:57 -- Three stages of energy and drive: Dynamos, Cruisers, and losers
04:45 -- The role of the manager in helping underperformers
05:38 -- Mobilising the organisation through excitement
09:18 -- Conclusion

You can download Dynamos or sign up to receive new videos automatically with iTunes or other video players. (Click here for step-by-step instructions on how to subscribe.) My seminars are always available for download at no cost.

How to Get Ahead: Lie and Cheat?

Steve Shu brought my attention to a fascinating article reporting on a study of 5,000 MBA students from 11 graduate business schools in Canada and 21 schools in the U.S.

The study is entitled "Academic Dishonesty in Graduate Business Programs: The Prevalence, Causes, and Proposed Actions". It was conducted by management professors at Rutgers, Washington State and Pennsylvania State universities, and will appear in the next issue of the Academy of Management Learning & Education journal.

The study found that 56 per cent of graduate business students admitted to cheating in the last year, compared with 47 per cent of non-business students.

Jim Fisher, vice-dean of MBA programs at the University of Toronto's Rotman School of Management, said he wasn't surprised by the results, since MBA students are highly competitive and have a high need for achievement.

To dampen the impulse to cheat, students at Rotman must sign a form every time they submit course work for grading to ensure they comply with academic honesty policies. When MBA students work in teams, they also must sign forms stating that they didn't cheat, nor did their team-mates.

"Those numbers are probably under-reported," said Donald McCabe, lead researcher on the study and business strategy professor at Rutgers. Since the survey was voluntary, more dishonest students were less likely to fill out the survey, and those who did complete it may have under-reported how much they cheated, McCabe said.

The study suggested that MBA students were more likely to cheat than others because they were focused on "getting the job done, versus how they got it done. They will suggest, in the business world the emphasis is on getting the job done at any cost."

"There is also employer pressure to get high marks," Larry Wynant of the University of western Ontario said. "The past few years there has been tremendous pressure to get jobs, because the employment outlook has not been as rosy (for MBA graduates) as in the past."

I read this at the same time that that the "20-something" daughter of some good friends was telling us about her new job as a personal assistant in the world of public relations. She pointed out, with great discomfort, that it was not unusual for her boss to say "I worked on the XYZ account for 4 hours but bill them for 20." There's even a word for this form of lying in PR firms, accounting firms, consulting firms and law firms: "value billing."

I have no problem billing a client BY AGREEMENT on what a project was worth, but the casual acceptance of lies astonishes me.

We have crossed over into dangerous territory. When there is the normal expectation that most other people will cheat (given the opportunity) things WILL rapidly descend into the expectation that everyone will. We then have a distrustful, society based on the expectation of corruption -- and everyone becomes super-defensive.

I won't say I have never, ever sinned, especially when I was young and stupid. But what kept me on the true path was the overwhelming sense of guilt and the consequent vow that I would never lapse again. It is one thing to succumb to temptation. It is another to give up one's very belief in principles and pass that cynicism and scepticism on to those around us and to those who report to us.

What happens if, in school and in the first job, we raise a generation of people who think lying, cheating and stealing are the ways you get ahead?

Some Principles of Presentations and Pitches

When giving a presentation, you can focus on one of three things: your material (we must cover all these slides), yourself (let me impress you), or your audience (let me serve you in some way). Guess which it should be.

Make sure you address the audience's needs, concerns, wants -- not yours. They will give you back what you want if you serve them first.

Nothing is more guaranteed to lose an audience than forcing them to sit in a darkened room watching someone go through a fixed, invariant set of slides, no matter how insightful or attractive. Turn the house lights full up so you can see everyone. Hand out copies of all your slides in advance. Work to EARN your audience's attention. Don't try to control their attention -- they will just resent it.

If you get through all your material, the presentation is a failure. If you cover your all of your material, you obviously did not engage and were not interrupted enough by the audience's questions.

Clear exposition is rare and immensely valuable; get all the help you can get. Rehearse with an audience who have been given permission to critique.

When giving a presentation, write down in advance (just for your own benefit) the major points you want your audience to walk away with. If it doesn’t fit on one small card, your presentation is too unfocused.

Don't underestimate the value of a nicely turned phase: Make it memorable! Try to find the phrase that summarises the paragraph, the slogan that summarises the key thought, the re-statement that reminds them of your theme. Open with it. End with it.

Agreements? Disagreements? Other thoughts?

The Dream Job?

Thanks to Larry Star, CEO of Harrison and Star, for pointing me to the following excerpt from "Lear's Fool: Coping With Change Beyond Future Shock" by D. Verne Morland

POSITION DESCRIPTION

POSITION: Lear's Fool

JOB CODE: FOOL-Al

INCUMBENT: (Open)

REPORTS TO: Chief Executive Officer

ORGANISATION : Executive Office

LOCATION: Merlin's Parapet, Heath & Moor Road

BASIC FUNCTION: To disturb with glimpses of confounding truths that elude rational formulation. To herald the advent of cosmic shifts and to apprehend their significance. To challenge by jest and conundrum all that is sacred and all that the savants have proven to be true and immutable.

DIMENSIONS:

Budget: None (save for spangles and bells)

Number of employees supervised: None (God forbid!)

Revenue impacted: All (and then some)

NATURE AND SCOPE: The incumbent must not be a recognised expert in any field (they're dangerous). Demonstrable competency in many fields is required and the individuals "track record" should be good but must be not perfect. The incumbent may not have worked previously as a "serious consultant" unless he recants ... ...

PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTABILITIES:

Since for most of us the ability to think creatively about the future is inversely proportional to the weight of today's responsibilities, the incumbent should feel obligated only to:

• Stir up controversy,
• Respect no authority,
• Resist pressures to engage in detailed analyses.

The incumbent must avoid verbs like study, analyse, plan, develop, refine and assure in favour of verbs like observe, identify, associate, explore, synthesise and stimulate. He should neither lead nor follow, but should stand outside the normal chain of command.

He must exploit his intellectual "carte blanche" to ask outrageous questions and to challenge basic assumptions. He must seek accuracy, not precision; originality, not consistency; insight, not completeness; and a focus on the future, not a preoccupation with the present.

REQUIREMENTS:

Candidate for this position must have:

• Broad temporal horizons -- both past and future -- and a dominant future "zone orientation."
• A "Renaissance Man" mentality involving some experience in many areas and the conviction that the Dark Ages must be left behind.
• An ability to work comfortably with nebulous issues in strictly qualitative terms for as Harvard's John Steinbruner has noted: "If quantitative precision is demanded, it is gained in the current state of things, only by so reducing the scope of what is analysed that most of the important problems remain external to the analysis." This thought is echoed by Garber and Oliver who suggest that "once an issue has become a number, it's probably too late to deal with it."

The candidate must not have:

• Strong preconceptions (e.g., national patriotism, religious parochialism or dogmatism, professional specialisation)
• Inviolable allegiances (e.g., corporate, national, professional)

Intellectual independence is essential for as Pablo Picasso observed: "Every act of creation is first of all an act of destruction, because the new idea will destroy what a lot of people believe is essential to the survival of their intellectual world."

(Note: Misshapen head, if larger on right side, is OK.)

On a similar theme, Jeremy Raymond points out that the fool is the only one who dares to tell the king what is real, but must expect the odd cuff about the ears when he oversteps the mark (unwittingly). The courtier, on the other hand, is more commercial in that he protects his long term position, but may offer meaningless blandishments and dud advice to do this. His position in the court is secure because he doesn't rock the boat, but passes on information to others.

The Fool is of course the highly paid face to face challenger of senior officers and the courtier is the purveyor of information to large numbers of others with the tacit approval of those officers.

Interesting metaphors!

Since I think the funniest movie ever made was "The Court Jester," (1956, starring Danny Kaye) there are no prizes for guessing which role I think would be more fulfilling. All together now: "The vessel with the pestle has the pellet with the poison, but the chalice from the palace has the brew that is true." Run, don't walk, to rent, download or buy this film, especially if you have any 9-year-olds in the house (or can borrow one)!

Improving Mutual Understanding Between Business Schools and Business

On Friday, the 29th of September, (8 or 9 days from now) I will be giving a speech to 150 faculty members from European business schools on the topic given above.

It just occurred to me that if I blogged about it here, some of you may have some ideas and messages you want me to pass along.

Traditionally, there have been four ways business schools (and other professional schools) interact with business:

1. Conducting research which helps us understand business better (i.e. an academic, intellectual purpose of contributing to knowledge.)

2. Producing prepared students, ready for productive work lives

3. Conducting research that is helpful to practicing business people

4. Conducting executive education programs for mid-career and senior people

I'm not sure what absolute "grade" I would give to business schools around the world on each of these things, but I don't think it's high on any of them.

I'm least equipped to evaluate the academic scholarly contributions of business school faculty -- I was never a good academic even when I was a business school student. And anyway, that first purpose is not what I've been asked to talk about (even though many professors would consider it their primary purpose and obligation.)

What about producing prepared students ready for business or professional life? As we have discussed here, I don't think many schools do a wonderful job with helping students develop the social, psychological, interpersonal, political and emotional skills to succeed in life. Business schools don't; law schools don't; PR degree-programs don't; education in general doesn't.

I did note in the Wall Street Journal special Report today (Wednesday September 20) that some business schools like Michigan and Dartmouth Iin the US) and ESADE (in Europe) are rated very highly in developing (or screening for) students who are willing team players without the pomposity that graduates of some other schools have. Anyone want to comment on what those schools are doing well?

I would not give business school faculty at large a particularly high score on producing useful business research. First, it should be noted that few of the key managerial ideas of past decades (TQM, Six-sigma, business process re-engineering, etc) actually originated with faculty research. Get the impression that most "BIG" ideas and big thinking come from consultants and business itself. Or am I being unfair?

I have written before that I am nervous about businesses using business schools for executive education. I think business schools can do a wonderful job at teaching analytics and things of the mind, but are less well equipped to teach managing (ie dealing with real live human beings.)

So what would I do to improve all this, even a little?

Here are a few initial opinions:

1. Build on strengths not weaknesses -- most graduates of business schools (at least in the US and UK) go into consulting, investment banking and other advisory businesses (PR, accounting, etc.) Very few graduates really go to work for "regular" companies. Maybe business schools should admit to themselves that they are training consultants, not managers.

2. Business schools like everyone else should spend more time listening to their customers -- if they can ever figure out who the faculty really want to serve. Other academics? Recruiters? Students Its very unclear.

3. Invite business people in to give lectures and seminars not to the students but to the faculty

4. Require that all faculty do a consulting job for a local business (NOT executive education) and have the client come back and report to all the students and the rest of the faculty how helpful the professor was

5. Make all business school academics run their own business, and report annually to the rest of the faculty how well it is going

6. Find ways to screen students (and faculty?) for character, not intelligence

7. Focus more on designing educational experiences (not content) that help students develop skills through guided practice (how to function in teams, etc.)

8. Stop trying to do a little bit of everything: require that each business school have a strategy, a target niche and a differentiation. Working to build this in competition with other schools will help faculty understand organisations much better.

9. Set publicly announced targets for the school's strategy and appoint an external monitoring board (with high visibility and embarrassment.) Introduce accountability into faculty members' lives.

So, those are some of the ideas I plan to throw out.

What would be some of your ideas of things business schools could do to improve their mutual understanding with business?

360-degree Feedback Programs

Michelle Golden, whose own blog is always worth reading, writes in to ask about 360-degree reviews and upwards evaluations, especially in light of what she perceives to be a much needed shift from a labor force ("asset") mentality to a knowledge-worker mentality. She writes:

Personally, I find them to be a very effective tool when executed properly (which I believe I do and have done for small firms up to a Big 4) though I see them poorly executed sometimes with what can be morale-damaging consequences.

In a well-done 360, I appreciate the contrast that comes to light between the subject's views of him/herself, their managers' perspective, their peers' perspective and their direct reports' perspective. And sometimes, the clients' perspective.

Interestingly, but not surprisingly, the subject usually underestimates or overestimates (significantly and consistently) how they perform across a broad variety of management and leadership areas such as decision-making, crisis management, teaching, learning, follow-up/accountability, delegation, etc. Done well, I've seen 360s build confidence around strengths and indicate a clear path of important areas for people to work on.

My questions for you are:

1) What do you think of 360 evaluations for those who manage others or will be doing so?

2) Do you know of or use other tools that help establish measures of management characteristics such as those just listed?

3) If used, do you think they should be private to the subject for personal development or as a tool the organisation uses to evaluate the effectiveness of their people?

Michelle, I find this question to be on a par with the question: "Should we ask our clients for feedback on how we are doing?" It astounds me that, even in some very elite firms, that battle is still being fought, yet it rages on, as does the debate over 360 for managers.

The simple truth is that, if you really want to be more effective at anything (sports, playing an instrument, romance, managing) you have to find a way to get constructive feedback, somehow. In life, the absence of complaints is not a dependable indicator of the absence of opportunities to improve.

So, it all starts with that big "IF" -- do you care enough to want to improve? If so, then we're just discussing mechanics. If you don't (and the vast majority of people do NOT want to do what it takes to improve unless they are absolutely compelled to) then no 360-degree program is going to prove effective: there are too many ways for such systems to be gamed, subordinates intimidated, feedback to be ignored and change made optional.

We have discussed getting feedback on this blog particularly in the discussion: Getting Good at Getting Feedback (16 people joined in on that one so far).

I also reported in another blog post on a manager who asked his people to evaluate him and promised to resign if he did not improve by 20% (Teaching Guts), which tells you something about my view on your third question, Michelle.

In my experience, the overwhelming majority of 360-degree programs fail to deliver the desired benefits of actual improved managerial performance for one (or all) of the following reasons:

a) There is actually a lack of understanding of what the manager's role is, so it's hard to provide feedback to and evaluate the manager if what he or she should be good at is ambiguous (or has a high level of deniability -- "That's not my job" "That shouldn't matter if I deliver", etc.)

b) Feedback is collected with highly structured, bureaucratic questionnaires which do not address the relevant behaviours and characteristics. They are too formal.

c) The feedback is delivered in such a way (eg without coaching) that the recipient is allowed to "misinterpret" what the information is really saying

d) The feedback is kept "confidential" so there is no "embarrassment factor" if the manager fails to improve. The system relies on best intentions -- the system is not a strict accountability system, which it needs to be if it is to work. Mangers exempt themselves from accountability when they can.

My quick summary is that a manager who really wanted to improve would not need the formality of a company-wide 360-program to get there, and managers who do not wish to be held accountable will not only not be helped by the system, they will ensure that it has no teeth!

There's more, Michelle, but let's see what you and others in the real world who have direct experience with 360-degree programs have to say.

Call for BLAWG Review Submissions

The Blawg Review showcases the best recent posts on law blogs (or "blawgs," as the lawyers like to call them) each week.

I will be hosting the review on September 27 as part of the Blawg Review's special September "back to school" series of academic hosts. I am letting you know in advance in order to encourage my readers to submit your own articles for the review.

If you aren't familiar with the Blawg Review, you can peruse this month's other "back to school" editions hosted by Workplace Prof Blog, the Institute of Global Security Law and Policy blog and Concurring Opinions.

I am a business and management type and NOT a lawyer, so I particularly encourage bloggers (and blawgers) to submit articles on the realities of work and professional life, the business of law, firm management, marketing, strategy, and career development.

I will do my best, but it will be hard for me, a non-lawyer, to assess and interpret purely legal submissions. I ask for prior forgiveness for any errors I make!

Blawg Review Submission Guidelines

• Deadline for submission is 11:59 p.m. PST on Saturday, Sept 23
• I greatly appreciate if you can send your submissions well before the deadline!
• You are welcome and encouraged to submit blog posts by other people which you'd like to recommend as well as your own writing.
• Articles on law practice management, marketing, business strategy and career development are especially welcome.
• Click on this Blawg Review submission link to submit your article

With your support, I look forward to presenting readers here as well as the Blawg Review regulars with an excellent roundup of blog articles on the business of law and life as a lawyer.

The Secret of a Great Marriage Is

To give your love without conditions, but to work every day to deserve the love you receive in return.

****

Your thoughts?

Help Me With My Strategy Please

If past blogposts are any guide, you folks seem to enjoy giving me advice as much as I like giving it to you, so now it's your turn again.

In broad outline, here are some of my strategic challenges and choices that I'd like your input on.

I'm 34 years old, with a reputation and track record of consulting with, speaking to and writing about businesses (around the world) in the professional sector (law, accounting, investment banking, executive search, IT services, real estate, consulting, etc.)  I don't plan to stop anytime soon, so (like everyone else) I need to think periodically about my choices for the future.

As time has gone by, a few trends have emerged in my business:

a) When I started, I think I was pretty much a pioneer in writing about professional businesses and there weren't many people with that as a consulting specialty.  Nowadays, there are many consultants focusing in this area.

b) On the other hand, interest in my work spreads to new industries with every passing year, and a higher and higher portion of most economies are becoming made up of knowledge-intensive businesses.  The world is moving toward my specialty, and it's tempting to start writing about business in general.  But I'm concerned about losing my reputation as a specialist.

c) As I have tried to make an impact on the world with my thoughts, I find that there are (broadly) two groups in my audience.  The bigger group is made up of relatively younger people, or those outside the power structure (staff people, other consultants, small firms and solo operators like me).  This group tends to enjoy my emphasis on core principles and staying true to dreams and ambitions.

d) The second group is made up of top officers in top firms, working at the frontiers of their business, who seem to appreciate me being provocative, challenging the traditional ways professional businesses are run.  (Of course, there are often people in these positions who don't like being challenged that way!)

e) I'm interested in working with and serving both groups but don't want to get too schizophrenic.  Both in content and marketing, the audiences are different.  The first audience reads blogs, and writing for them allows me to feel that I'm having an impact by interacting with tomorrow's leaders.

f) The second audience (top officers in top firms, working at the frontier) is harder to reach, because busy leaders tend not to read articles, blogs, or books.  I may also need a different "positioning" for that audience, because a reputation for only pointing out what's wrong (or could be better) isn't always considered completely helpful.  Senior people also like to believe that I am, in some sense "on their side" -- trying to help, and not too much on the side of the revolutionaries trying to overthrow the power structure.  I like to think I present a lot of affirmative and constructive advice, but I do have a bit of a reputation as the type of consultant, speaker and writer who talks about the elephant in the room that no-one else wants to talk about.  (I know, I know, I wrote about how to do this with charm and style in my article The Trusted Advisor.  But it isn't always easy to challenge and be seen as constructive).

g) My choices are not really driven by economics, but the desire to make a contribution and receive the recognition and strokes that come from having made such a contribution.  However, the economics of serving the two audiences are very different.  If I serve the first audience and want to make money at it, it will probably mean selling ebooks, CDs and videos.  (I think there's a demand for that).  If I serve the second audience, it means generating and emphasising new thoughts in new articles, and deriving an income from high-level face-to-face consulting.  So far, I've been able to do both, and be accepted as doing both, but I don't know whether that will continue to be a good model (or even viable) moving forward.

Obviously, I haven't given you enough information, but hopefully we can have some fun -- and I can get some free advice.  Here are some (sincere) questions:

Should I continue to try and be a "professional business specialist" or write about general business issues?  This might be a question of writing style and language more than anything else, but it affects my "positioning".

What can I do to best serve the first audience of other consultants, staff people, younger people and small firms?  If I wanted to, what would be the best way to "monetise" my services to that audience?

If I want to keep serving the second, top officer audience, how do I carry on being challenging and provocative without being one more person pointing out what's wrong with the established structure?  Is it possible to pull off the high-wire act of being both a provocateur and a wise counsellor?  Should I continue to try that?

A Career Opportuntity for Someone

I'm probably not going to do this ever again, but I'm going to post details about a job opening here. A respected and close friend runs a small but very successful strategy consulting firm, and they are in the market for a Vice President. This is a special favour for my friend, who is one of the good guys who understands true professionalism. Here's the description:

The Beacon Group is a strategy consulting firm focused on supporting a select group of Fortune 500 clients as they build strategies and tactics to win in their marketplaces. Based in Portsmouth, NH, we are a young, dynamic firm growing quickly with opportunities for new employees to work in a fast-paced, entrepreneurial environment. We offer an exciting and lucrative opportunity to excel through a career in management consulting. A Beacon Group Vice President must be equal parts consultant, leader, and strategic thinker. The following is the job description for Beacon Vice Presidents:

• To build and maintain an individual consulting practice that is consistent with The Beacon Group's vision, goals and growth objectives
• To contribute to building long-term relationships and developing new business with existing clients
• To create engagement relationships with new clients
• To commit to the professional development of himself/herself and others
• To serve as a senior leader in the office

Top Vice Presidents who have demonstrated outstanding capabilities and a strong commitment to Beacon may earn promotion to Senior Vice President. At 6 month intervals from the Vice President's hire date, a formal review is given to assess progress and future career opportunities with the firm. Both qualitative and quantitative metrics are used to evaluate performance and recommend potential growth opportunities. Financial rewards increase substantially with outstanding accomplishment at the firm.

A Vice President will have the following responsibilities:

• Identify prospective business with existing clients or new clients
• Determine the scope and nature of potential engagements
• Write successful proposals
• Manage the contracting process with our client
• Oversee the delivery of engagement work
• Supervise project teams
• Sell and deliver multiple engagements simultaneously
• Provide insightful analysis of engagements
• Meet revenue objectives
• Serve as mentor to more junior firm members
• Internally support and further the firm's cultural, ethical and mission objectives

The candidate should have at least 8 years of professional experience, preferably with exposure to management consulting. He/she should hold a BS/BA and ideally an MBA from a leading business school. He/she will have strong analytical skills, demonstrated sales experience in a professional environment and have the ability to provide Senior-level written and oral communication (both in individual and group settings). We also welcome candidates with foreign language capabilities.

My friend says they are specifically interested in healthcare and financial services consultants who are successful at business development. They will have to be located in Portsmouth and need to be comfortable in a small firm that is a true meritocracy. Compensation is "highly competitive."

How to apply? Send a resume to jobs@tbg-online.com or rchristie@tbg-online.com

Lessons in True Professionalism

Hyokon Zhiang writes:

The Korean version of True Professionalism by Richard Wood (that I and Innomove colleagues have worked on) has just been published. The article has both aspects like a father who strictly persuades us of the meaning and the value of doing things right, and one like a mother at the same time who warmly encourages hesitant us saying that doing things right is ultimately beneficial for ourselves. I strongly recommend this article to people who think themselves as professionals, or want to be professional.

Personally, the professionalism side of Richard's advice was the most influential on me -- more than strategy, marketing, recruiting, or any other more "skills" related topics. That's why I translated True Professionalism to begin with. And I believe that there must be other people like that.

I am interested to hear people's experiences about professionalism. For example,

• How do you have the resolve to do what is the right thing to do vs. what is immediately profitable.
• Taking the high road. In some moments the high road is obvious but hard to give up the temptation to pursue short-term gain. Sometimes you want to follow the high road but it is not obvious which route that is.
• Sometimes you feel uncomfortable about your firm's or colleagues' behaviour, and sometimes you feel disappointed about yourself in going along
• Some experiences give you life-changing lessons.

So, let’s pass on some advice and experiences, as requested. What have you learned about what it means to be a true professional? How have you learned to sustain professional behaviour in spite of the world’s temptations?

Think of Work -- new careers videocast & audiocast

In Think of Work, the 22nd episode in this series, we are going to examine the issue of professional engagement and excitement. All too often professionals are doing tolerable work for tolerable people or worse, work that they dislike for people they don't care about. The impact of this, not only on a personal level but in the marketplace, is staggering. We will look at ways to change this in your professional life.

Audio Timeline

00:40 -- Introduction
01:08 -- A survey on professional excitement: Does your profession excite you?
03:25 -- A survey on professional excitement: Do your clients excite you?
06:04 -- The importance of choosing work and clients that actually interest you
09:08 -- Conclusion

You can download Think of Work or sign up to receive new videos automatically with iTunes or other video players. (Click here for step-by-step instructions on how to subscribe.) My seminars are always available for download at no cost.

The Psychology of Waiting Lines

I just received an email suggesting I blog about waiting times in business. I suspect the author of the email knows about my article The Psychology of Waiting Lines, written more than 10 years ago. The topic here is not how to make the waiting time shorter, but how to make it more acceptable or palatable to the person waiting.

In spite of its age, I still get lots of calls from reporters who want to do stories on this, and the article is among my most frequently cited (for those who are counting). This is a great opportunity to get you all involved. I'll give you the highlights of what I said back then, and you can tell me what I missed or should add.

I had eight propositions about how people experience waiting and what businesses could do to make a wait feel less onorous.

1) Occupied Time Feels Shorter Than Unoccupied Time.

In various restaurants, it is common practice to hand out menus for customers to peruse while waiting in line. Apart from shortening the perception of time, this practice has the added benefit of shortening the service time, since customers will be ready to order once they are seated, and will not tie up table space making up their minds.

2) People Want to Get Started.

One's "anxiety" level is much higher while waiting to be served than it is while being served, even though the latter wait may be longer. There is a fear of "being forgotten". (How many times has the reader gone back to a maitre d' to check that his or her name is still on the list?). Many restaurant owners instruct their service staff to pass by the table as soon as the customers are seated to say "I'll be with you as soon as I can, after I've looked after that table over there". In essence, the signal is being sent: "We have acknowledged your presence".

3) Anxiety Makes Waits Seem Longer.

Nearly everyone has had the experience of choosing a line at the supermarket or airport, and stood there worrying that he had, indeed, chosen the wrong line. As one stands there trying to decide whether to move, the anxiety level increases and the wait becomes intolerable. This situation is covered by what is known as Erma Bombeck's Law: "The other line always moves faster"

4) Uncertain Waits Are Longer than Known, Finite Waits

Clients who arrive early for an appointment will sit contentedly until the scheduled time, even if this is a significant amount of time in an absolute sense (say, thirty minutes). However, once the appointment time is passed, even a short wait of, say, ten minutes, grows increasingly annoying. The wait until the appointed time is finite; waiting beyond the point has no knowable limit.

5) Unexplained Waits Are Longer than Explained Waits

On a cold and snowy morning, when I telephone for a taxi, I begin with the expectation that my wait will be longer than on a clear, summer day. Accordingly, I wait with a great deal more patience because I understand the causes for the delay. Similarly, if a doctor's receptionist informs me that an emergency has taken place, I can wait with greater equanimity that if I do not know what is going on. Airline pilots understand this principle well; on-board announcements are filled with references to tardy baggage handlers, fog over landing strips, safety checks, and air-traffic controllers' clearance instructions. The explanation given may or may not exculpate the service provider, but is it better than no explanation at all.

6) Unfair Waits Are Longer than Equitable Waits

In many waiting situations, there is no visible order to the waiting line. In situations such as waiting for a subway train, the level of anxiety demonstrated is high, and the group waiting is less a queue than a mob. Instead of being able to relax, each individual remains in a state of nervousness about whether their priority in the line is being preserved. As already noted, agitated waits seem longer than relaxed waits. It is for this reason that many service facilities have a system of taking a number, whereby each customer is issued a number and served in strict numerical order. In some facilities, the number currently being served is prominently displayed so that customers can estimate the expected waiting times.

7) The More Valuable the Service, the Longer the Customer Will Wait

That perceived value affects tolerance or waits can be demonstrated by our common experience in restaurants -- we will accept a much longer waiting time at a haute cuisine facility than at a "greasy spoon." In universities, there is an old rule of thumb that if the teacher is delayed, "You wait ten minutes for an assistant professor, fifteen minutes for an associate professor, and twenty minutes for a full professor." This illustrates well the principle that tolerance for waits depends upon perceived value of service -- perhaps with the emphasis on the perception.

8) Solo Waits Feel Longer than Group Waits

One of the remarkable syndromes to observe in waiting lines is to see individuals sitting or standing next to each other without talking or otherwise interacting until an announcement of a delay is made. Then the individuals suddenly turn to each other to express their exasperation, wonder collectively what is happening, and console each other. What this illustrates is that there is some form of comfort in group waiting rather than waiting alone.

****

So, those were some of the principles in my original article. (Here's the link again to the full piece, The Psychology of Waiting Lines.)

Now comes your challenge to help this discussion along: what "cool" approaches have you seen businesses use to apply these or other principles and make us, the customers, tolerate waits or even turn the wait to the business' advantage?

Who's doing clever things with managing waiting lines (or queues, as my Australian family calls them)?

What reporters hate about PR people

I just received a copy (thanks Steve Rubell) of a speech given by Tommy Fernandez, the journalist who covered the legal beat at Crain's New York Business, at the July meeting of Law Firm Media Professionals

Taking no prisoners, Fernandez aims fairly and squarely at his audience of the Public Relations professionals who work for law firms -- those who are always trying to get his attention and press coverage for their firms.

Here are his "reasons why reporters hate you"

There are too damned many of you. (He gets more than 100 calls involving law firm pitches per day. Do the math.)

It's getting nearly impossible to tell your pitches apart. There is no trend you can imagine that I have heard several times today.

You don't listen (or keep promises about when you're going to get back with a quote or supporting evidence for a story.)

You treat reporters like your social worker ("you've got to help me out of this situation".) I am not here to help you. I am not your social case worker. I am not here to protect your job, make you feel good or help your clients. The sooner you accept that reality, the better of you'll be.

You treat reporters like a social trophy ("Come to lunch and meet our top execeutives and discuss the latest developments in document flow management software." "What do you mean you don't want to spend three hours with our management committee to educate us on ... .")

Your clients are dumb-asses and you don't tell us: "Is that really the right question to be asking? Is this really the right story to be writing? I'll tell you a story you should be working on, although it won't really be a story until the winter, but that's beyond your deadline, isn't it?"

Reporters hate you (PR) because you act like used car salesmen. "A study in nausea" he calls it. -- Drop your fantasy. There is no spiel, no gimmick you can use to compel me to abandon my common sense. The attitude of reaching (PR) goals is actually one of the easiest ways you can shoot yourself in the foot.

There's more, lot's more, but you get the idea. Not surprisingly, this was Mr. Fernandez' farewell speech -- he's moving on to cover other journalistic beats.

All of which goes to show. What exactly? That PR people don't understand journalists?

You don't have to be in PR or the law to get a lot out of Mr. Fernadez' rant.

The real lesson is that all of us get so wrapped up in what we want FROM the other person that we fail to understand what would make them want to give it to us.

It's beneficial, if painful, to have the other side tell us, in uncertain terms, what it has been like working with us!

Screening for Character

I'm of the belief that the overwhelming majority of recruiting interviewing is a complete waste of time. It's not science and almost nobody has the practiced craft or art to be good at it. We like to pretend that we can find out important things in a one-hour interview, but we really can't.

Everyone's heard the phrase "Hire for attitude and train for skill" and I believe it fully. In fact, I'd go further and say that once you have checked out credentials and qualifications, character, not just attitude, explains the vast majority of someone's long-term performance and whether or not they will fit into your company.

And if the goal of an interview is to judge someone's attitudes, personality and / or character then its going to take a LOT more training than most interviewers are given to determine those things. I don't know too many people, even with extensive training, who could get a smart person to reveal his or her true character in such a format.

The problem is, if it isn't interviews, what other recruiting processes could you use that would actually screen for the characteristics you need?

The best firms, in my view find a way to ask the people who already know the candidates to pass judgement. For examples, when hiring on campus, smart recruiters ask faculty members to give them the real low-down truth about the different students. Or they ask this year's hires to tell them about the students in the year below them or that they met in other on-campus activities. It's usually well-known on campus which individuals have personality, ambition, integrity. Ask three or four faculty or fellow students and their lists will be close to identical -- they have been working with them in close quarters for a year or more and their judgments will be accurate.

But what if you don't have access to these "insider" sources that can tell you the truth about candidate's attitudes, personalities, character?

I'm convinced that an important part of the answer lies in designing processes where people reveal (consciously or unconsciously) their true colours.

In my article First Among Equals, I gave a couple of examples of this:

Two firms in my experience were creative about their interviewing process. The first, a law firm asked all candidates at their final interview to say which had been their favourite course in law school. They then called in a secretary and (with a half-hour to think about it) asked the candidate to explain the content of the course to the secretary. The secretary, in essence, had the final say on whether the person was hired. It was not enough, this firm believed, to know your stuff. Before you were hired, you had to demonstrate the ability to explain it to an intelligent layperson.

The second firm, of accountants, brought all their final candidates together, and put them in a room with a two-way mirror. The candidates were told they would be observed, and were asked to do a joint exercise (equivalent to building a house out of playing cards). The resulting behaviour was fascinating to watch. Thinking that they were suppose to be demonstrating leadership, many candidates competed to "take charge" of their group. In fact, the accounting firm was looking for people who felt comfortable being part of a team without the ego need to be its leader, and made offers only to those who did not try to dominate.

I'd be interested in hearing about other creative ways that organisations determine whether potential recruits really have desired character traits. How do you really tell if someone is good with people? Is a team player? Is honourable, has integrity and is trustworthy? Is the type of person who can maintain their composure in a crisis? Has the "good kind"of ambition and determination without too much of the "bad kind?"

There's got to be something better than an interview to uncover the truth about these important things.

What's a Senior Partner For?

I received an email enquiry as follows:

Have you commented in your writings on the value of a firm having both a senior partner and managing partner -- akin to the corporate equivalent of a chairman and CEO -- or can you direct me to some recommended material?

The first thing to note is that the use of the two terms senior partner and managing partner is not a common phenomenon worldwide. It's normal in the UK and Europe, but very rare in Australia, which tends to combine the roles into one. "Senior partner" is not a term you'll hear used much in Australia.

I haven't written about this topic directly, although I wrote an article on governance in Managing the Professional Service Firm which included these thoughts:

Like a nation state, these (governance) elements can be divided into three groups. The firm's board represents the legislative branch whose duty it is to approve (or disapprove) the policies under which the polity will operate. The managing partner, together with the executive committee and the business manager, form the executive branch. Finally, the compensation committee represents the judiciary.

The board of partners corresponds closely to the corporate model of a board of directors representing the interests of the "shareholders" (in this case, partners). Like a corporate board, a primary function of this body is to oversee and monitor the activities of the executive (the managing partner) to ensure that the shareholders' interests are being served.

Many firms have observed that where the firm's highest committee serves both a policy and executive role, the day-to-day minutiae tend to dominate the committee's deliberations and real policy debates are neglected. Accordingly, most firms have found it wise to separate the policy and executive functions. This same conclusion is generated by a "division of powers" consideration. By separating the policy and executive functions, the firm avoids having too much power located in one body.

The senior partner or chairman can play the policy / legislative functions (at least in the sense of the firm's core constitution) or its judiciary functions -- setting pay for those in high positions, or serving as a court of appeals for those who wish to protest an executive decision.

The senior partner, as chairman of a board of partners, could exercise the same policy formation and management oversight roles that a chairman in a public company is suppose to fulfill. I say "supposed" because we all know that there is a lot of charades and facades in corporate governance. In the publicly-held corporate world, few boards really exercise much oversight -- governments have had to legislate (i.e. Sarbanes-Oxley) to get them to do some basics. Most corporate boards have been "captured" by management, and do not really exercise an independent function.

All of which is to say that it would be dangerous to assume that the corporate model or terminology is a positive metaphor. It may be exactly the model you want to stay away from!

However, it does help us outline a choice that must be made about the senior partner role. In corporate governance theory, the chairman plays an oversight role towards the CEO / managing partner, holding the managing partner "accountable" in the same way that the managing partner holds top executives within the organisation accountable for their targets and performance.

This is actually a very intriguing model, particularly in a partnership where the chairman of the board of partners is supposed to represent the shareholder / partners (as, in theory, the corporate chairman is supposed to represent the corporate shareholders.)

It's a good idea, but is it achievable and desirable in your firm? Is your CEO / managing partner really prepared to be held accountable? Especially when he or she spends his or her year holding everybody else accountable? It's my experience that top people will say they want to be held accountable. But they don't really. They will agree to the forms of accountability being put in place, but will neuter it when it actually tries to exercise any power.

There's a completely different way of looking at all this, which is actually much more likely to work. That is to make one person (the senior partner) the external face and the other (the managing partner) the internal face of the organisation.

In this (quite common) approach, the senior partner represents the firm to the marketplace and other external constituencies (governments, media, communities, media) while the managing partner focuses on actually managing the internal constituencies -- partners, junior professionals, other employees.

While this division of labours makes a lot of sense, it's worth pointing out that the skills (and orientation) involved are quite distinct. As a result, the (equally common) policy of automatically promoting the managing partner to senior partner at the end of the managing term is probably not a sensible idea.

Anyone else out there have a view on the right division of responsibilities between a senior partner and a managing partner?

Choosing a Doctoral Thesis

Since people know that I used to be a university student, and that I have a specialty field (professional businesses) I get quite a few emails and letters from doctoral students asking me to suggest thesis topics.

They want to know what CEOs or managing partners would find interesting, what the researchable and challenging issues are.

My reply always surprises them.

I point out that the only purpose of thesis is to get your doctorate degree approved. By very definition, your thesis will be the worst piece of research you will ever do.

Furthermore, no-one in the real world ever pays attention to a doctoral thesis, so you shouldn't even try to design it with their interests in mind.

What academics care about and what real-world people care about are two different things, and the ONLY people who can graduate you and let you get on with your life are your thesis committee -- your professors.

The job of a doctoral student is to forget what the world finds interesting and to focus with a laser-like beam on what the thesis committee thinks is interesting and worthwhile. If you're getting a doctorate, you're in academia and you MUST play the academic game.

And the whole game is won or lost at the thesis proposal stage. Here's where you have to deploy your sophisticated negotiating skills.

You have to make sure that what your professors think would be a worthwhile and interesting piece of research is actually doable. So, you have to bargain (subtly, deferentially and with an appropraite amount of grovelling) until you get a contract that says "If I do these things as the research, then, no matter what I find, you'll sign the completed thesis, right?"

Then you fulfil your contract, graduate and only then begin to care about what the real world finds interesting and would consider helpful research (if you still want to do any after your first taste of it.)

Good luck!