May 12, 2006
I've been reading some interesting articles lately that have brought an idea into focus. Hazy focus, but focus nonetheless.
Seth Godin, self-described author, entrepreneur, and "agent of change" (and, I would add, marketer extraordinaire) wrote in a January 2000 Fast Company article that "competence is the enemy of change," because change threatens to make the competent incompetent, at least for a time. As a result, the competent may end up in an uncreative, but very predictable and reliable, process for problem-solving. Godin thus suggests that it's those who choose to try something new and therefore are "incompetent" who are the stars in the making, though the risk they present is that of constant change just for the sake of changing.
In this month's ABA Journal (I told you, go get this issue!), Steven Keeva writes about "Problematic Perfectionism." Keeva presents three theories of perfectionism in the law. One acknowledges that we can all make mistakes and will all leave stones unturned despite our best efforts. One echoes Godin's theory that being a perfectionist retards the opportunity for innovation and professional growth, suggesting that today's clients want quality, not necessarily perfection. And one (a former lawyer, I notice) argues that perfectionism is an inextricable part of legal practice.
Arnie Herz, of Legal Sanity, cites the Keeva article as one of a triumvirate of articles that shed light on today's attorney burnout and lawyer attrition, the other 2 articles addressing success-via-specialization as a fulfillment-shattering pursuit and the repulsion that some associates feel for BigLaw practice.
Are lawyers perfecting and specializing ourselves out of practice satisfaction? If so, what's the alternative? Although clients may say they want quality rather than perfection, I've rarely met a client who's understanding in the face of error. (And that's a whole 'nother discussion for another day.) And the most successful lawyers I've met are, without exception, detailed-oriented folk who dream about cases, who wake up with possible solutions, who sit up in the middle of the night with the fear that they may have overlooked something. Do we need an "incompetent" to lead the profession, and who would accept that?
I'll close today with two quotes.
Albert Einstein: "Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow. The important thing is not to stop questioning."
Charles Schultz: "Sometimes I lie awake at night, and ask, 'Where have I gone wrong?' Then a voice says to me, 'This is going to take more than one night."
Welcome back!
