Advice on communicating the right message

A lot of management is common sense. There is, however, a massive amount of theory and study behind it and writing down common sense is not easy.

In the legal profession, there is a tendency to write everything down except things to do with management. If, and when, something is written down, nobody looks at it. When did you last read your firm’s business plan – which is a very good form of communication – let alone the one written for your department?

So much of good management is enshrined in communications. In the profession there is an ongoing debate about management, supported by the law management section of the Law Society. The impacts of the Clementi reforms and the Legal Services Act will, I am certain, generate more demand for professional management in law firms.

For many lawyers, because they own their businesses, this will require a radical rethink in which communications will play a big part. Lawyers will have to agree that management is a profession and debate whether it is an art, a science, or all of the above. I think it is all of the above, and understanding that there is theory behind it improves communications.

Good communications add value to the organisation and maintain morale, thereby improving the bottom line. It is not as easy, however, to measure as time on a legal matter and costs received.

Communication is probably the most difficult part of management. Interpretation is often different in the written forms or spoken word. Lawyers frequently show that they are masters of semantics, moving into a discussion about the meaning of a word and hijacking whole meetings if not carefully managed. How often have you left a meeting with a clear idea about what was said, only to find out later that someone else saw things entirely differently? It is important that everybody participates to obtain clarity and that they are led by a good chairman.

If people in an organisation do not have a communication structure and, as a result, feel they do not know what is going on, it is a question of leadership. Sometimes leadership can be diffused, because the leaders are not following agreed policy, the skills are not there to allow others to participate, or the skill of good chairmanship is simply lacking. These are often skills that have to be learned. They may not be seen to be important; they may not come naturally; they may not be thought about; or the manager may assume he already has them.

Structures for communications vary. There is no set template or ‘one-size-fits-all’ solution, as size will inevitably complicate matters, but there is no need to make it too complicated (as is the case in some organisations). Over-complication can manifest itself in client or customer relations, and may have something to do with why it is often impossible to achieve good customer service within large organisations, be they private or public. You know that feeling of being passed from pillar to post and nobody seems to be accountable. It ultimately rests, in my view, with communications structures.

I suggest you look at ways to make the lines of communication simpler and as short as possible.

So, what are the methods of communicating
information?

• Written: office manuals, memos and letters, staff notice boards, emails;
• Personal: face-to-face, telephone;
• Group: staff meetings, informal ‘grapevine’, management meetings, video conferencing; and
• Visual: video or DVD, charts, posters, dress, manner/demeanour, offices.

These are all obvious methods but they are not usually written down. Communicating well could and probably should embrace several of these methods to get the message across. A single email is not always sufficient, especially if there is a matter of policy to be addressed which would probably be aided by discussion at staff meetings.

The firm’s identity – the appearance of its offices and how people present themselves in manner and appearance – is also a communications issue. It tells the clients about you as an organisation and communicates the firm’s values to staff, if it is well done – but has a disproportionately greater negative effect if it is badly delivered. There is much research on this and motivation theory, such as Herzberg’s Hygiene Factors, to which I think there is an analogy.

If you are looking for a way to check your firm’s communications, you could do worse than consider how each of the four categories of communications above is carried out, what structure takes care of them, whether there is a policy, and where it is written down.

The Lexcel and Investor in People quality standards include the issue of communications, notably in relation to structures and charts.

Achieving these standards will assist communications and are useful as vehicles for change to introduce new or better processes.

• http://en.wikepedia.org/wiki/Hygiene­_factors