Psychologists at the University of Toronto and Tufts University say that people with powerful looking faces will be more profitable and that one’s career success can be predicted as much as 30 to 40 years earlier simply by looking at their face.
Professor Nicholas Rule of the Department of Psychology at the University of Toronto, is the lead author of a new study published in Social Psychological and Personality Science. “This includes clothing, posture, and hairstyles, but the real window to judging people is the face. We developed a method to measure facial power and found that it is a strong predictor of law firm profitability.”
The ratings of perceived dominance from photos of managing partners were correlated with the profits of the leaders’ respective law firms; the findings were positively associated with one another, both for the judgments made from current photos and those made from college yearbook photos of the same people. Just think about the cute notes in your college yearbook. What if someone who predicted your success actually had the talent to read your face?
The psychologists studied only lawyers, but say the same principles apply to all people and industries. So, does this mean that we are trapped by our DNA, by the faces that nature provided us with at birth? Where does active will come into play? Oh, I’m sorry, this sounds just too much like my college philosophy class.
But, think about this for selecting your next law firm leader. Think about this for jury selection. The applications are endless … if true.
For more, see the findings presented in a paper titled “Judgments of Power from College Yearbook Photos and Later Career Success”, published in Social Psychological and Personality Science.
Today, a client called me to ask whether I know a compensation systems consultant who can help their firm create the right environment for non-equity partners to become equity partners. My response was i) compensation systems are a function of the firm culture and governance; ii) one first must analyze what the goals of the firm are and ought to be; iii) for any system to work, it must have the acceptance ("buy-in") of the principle stakeholders in the firm.
Most systems will work so long as the participants deem the system in place to be fair and reasonable. The system is better, in my opinion, when there are objective metrics in place. But, even subjective metrics work as long as the participants think there is fairness and justice working … with an appellate process in place that is also fair and just.
Oh, by the way, I concluded, I do that! <g>
Apropos of this conversation, I read that another law firm is being sued for unfair compensation system that works against the women in this firm. See my earlier post on this subject.
As in most law firms, compensation systems is where governance and other issues are expressed.
In a recent matter, a female partner claims that Dewey & LeBoeuf, a law firm that has received diversity awards, discriminates against women. She asserts that women partners receive less compensation than men in the firm.
The firm’s partner distribution system is apparently based on origination, not just billable work. This is the case in many firms. What do you do, however, when “the old boy network” was created years ago, when women were not major law firm players, and there is no “sunset” provision in the firm for compensation? Seemingly, this would entrench old relations as the basis for current compensation … and allow little or no access to women, to younger lawyers, and to other diverse groups in the firm.
Firms unwilling to look anew at their compensation culture will continue to face challenges from within as well as pressures from clients from without.
A new report discusses how a law department can make money for its company.
Assertion of rights (warranties and other claims) and prevention of wrongs (preventive law) are two ways to protect clients. This report describes one of the two ways. In the assertion mode, there appears to be a metric of "counting" the benefit that lawyers provide to clients. This may be what is needed to persuade management to pay more attention to its legal department.
Yes, the numbers can be significant. In this case (the assertion mode), however, the client must be willing to engage the lawyer/law firm/in-house counsel to be alert to those opportunities. In the latter case, the client must likewise be willing to engage the lawyer to show the client how to negotiate and/or structure customer relationship so that challenges/problems do not arise or at least are minimized.
In both cases, there must be a willingness to include the lawyer in the business process. In the former, we wait for a problem to arise … and then claim credit for a return on the investment in the lawyer. In the latter, we are inserted into the process from the beginning … and the ROI is more difficult to measure. After all, how can you measure or take credit for something that didn’t go wrong in the first place?
Lou Brown was the "father" of preventive law. I "grew up at his knee" and learned a great deal from him. The concept of "preventive law" was a difficult one to "sell" to both clients and lawyers, especially in an era of good times and increasing wealth for lawyers. I suspect it will be a difficult sell even today, despite the even greater need for it. It’s always easier to claim credit and persuade management that the lawyer is an essential part of the recovery process when you can claim credit for the flow of recovery money.
Good work and congratulations to those who prepared this report. Perhaps we will get closer to preventing problems by showing how we can cure problems. I’m not so sure though. This reminds me of the search for cures for lung cancer. The American Lung Association raises a lot of money and makes millions of dollars of grants to research for a cure for lung cancer. Yet, less than 5% of their grants are for behavioral research that prevents smoking, the primary cause of lung cancer. Why cure cancer so patients can go back to smoking, why create a cigarette with fewer carcinogens, when not smoking at all will take care of most of the problems? Why set patients up so they can return to buying from the tobacco companies?
Seems to me to be the same here.Warranty work (cure) is important, but better customer relations (prevention) is the better approach.
In Friday’s Wall Street Journal, there was an article about Bert Lahr’s 1956 Broadway performance of Waiting for Godot.
The article was enticing and caused me to go to Amazon.com to order the mp3 download of the performance. I purchased the download, but had trouble viewing it. I went to Amazon’s "help" section and followed the instructions for over an hour … then I saw that I could contact them. They asked if I wanted email response, a phone call later or a phone call NOW. I asked for the latter and within less than a minute received a call. Now, that is SERVICE!
The person must have been from India (after all, it’s a holiday week-end here <g>), but I could understand him. He offered to give me a refund or download the play again. I chose to download it again … after all, I did make the purchase because I wanted it. But, we still had trouble and what was downloaded did not appear to be what the WSJ review promised. So, without argument, protest or difficulty, the man said I would get a refund.
While I didn’t get what I wanted, my recourse is to go back to the journalist and determine what I didn’t understand. BUT, I was super impressed by the detail to service presented by Amazon. They will now address the issue for me on their end, I was not charged for something I didn’t get and I will sing their praises. (Oh, I guess that’s what I just did.)
Amazon, thus, is not just a repository of books. That can be had in a library. But, they are a customer experience to satisfies. Congratulations to the folks at Amazon. I am one very pleased customer.
Do the clients of your law firm say the same thing about dealing with you? Is the experience of dealing with your law firm, despite the stress of their legal challenge, more than satisfying? Are they being cared for? Demonstrate that you care for them and care fully.
Just saw this movie … There are many levels to this film. First, Anne Hathaway, the female lead, is drop-dead gorgeous. It is impossible to take your eyes off of her (if you’re male. <g>). The guy’s o.k., too, but not my type. <g>
I thought this was going to be another "chick-flick," o.k. by me. But, it’s far more. It’s a condemnation of the drug industry on the one hand, and a very serious commentary about Parkinson’s disease and those suffering from it.
I went to see the film without knowing it’s subject. Just thought it would be a feel-good film without violence, a requirement of my wife to see a film together.
Frankly, it hit far closer to home than I expected or wanted. It’s a film very much worth seeing … and I don’t say that lightly.
The turkey is on … he is now marinating in wine, stuffed with fruits and veggies. Two and a half days from now, my family and I will enjoy a very tender bird.
This is the one day of the year that I expect my kids to come to my home, with my grandchildren, and enjoy the turkey that I cook. It’s a great day.
This time of year is when all the stress of the season begins, the retailers seek your attention with great offers and on-line spam/scam seems to increase geometrically. It takes a great deal of meditation, yoga or just good ol’ fortitude to keep oneself calm. Today, the first day of the holiday week, our household seems to be controlling the angst better than usual. Yes, there is still hope.
My wish for you is that you have a peaceful, happy and fruitful holiday season.
