A changing landscape for GCs
The discussion confirmed the scale and range of dimensions of change organisations are experiencing: across inflection points such as rapid scaling, IPO and crisis fall out; geopolitical impacts across supply chains; regulatory change; and market dynamics. But the primary focus was AI, with the pace of development and uncertainty of deployment as central factors. And this, set in the context of the changing role of the GC – with the discussion confirming responsibilities and input outside the legal domain, contribution to enterprise growth, and the ethical contribution and pressures in shaping organisational decision making and culture. One GC described their role increasingly as a NED (non-executive director) on such topics, alongside their more operational duties.
From advisor to architect
The primary theme was the shift in leadership from reacting to preparing: driving change proactively, towards strategic objectives. Reducing firefighting and increased profile and influence came out as important benefits to taking a more active approach to change, re-igniting the value of trying a different way.
The conversation quickly moved to the practical. How do you create space to think and work strategically and drive longer horizon transformation while managing day-to-day demands? How do you lead change in a way that is visible and credible?
Technology and AI: pressure and opportunity
AI ran through the discussion as the number one live issue. There were a range of perspectives, concerns and levels of operational maturity in the room and a rich sharing of ideas. Big moments in the discussion were around the risks and responsibilities of tech deployment, and the transformation that is coming around how legal work is undertaken.
One visual in particular prompted a range of realisations about how GCs will need to plan well beyond AI tool adoption into redesigning the operating model of their teams.
One attendee shared how AI had helped them scale their impact without growing their team. Another prompted a discussion about what to do when you don’t feel you have the time or wherewithal to learn about AI and its implications but feel pressure to do so. Another noted an immediate perspective shift as a result of the discussion.
The discussion also surfaced that working with AI is not only about the promise of efficiency, but its deployment is exposing what is already not working in terms of processes, knowledge management, governance and data hygiene within legal teams.
On risks, our digital adoption research reflects the tension shared in the room between AI use being widespread, but confidence in governance not keeping up. Closing that gap is a clear priority that requires both proactive focus and an ongoing change programme.
This all raised important questions. What work should lawyers focus on in a technology transformation agenda? What operating model, mindset and capabilities will best enable that delivery? And how do you develop your team – and in particular juniors – in a context where technology can accelerate output, but not always understanding?
What makes change difficult
The challenge is not just what needs to change, but how to deliver it alongside everything else. GCs are not trained in change management and all the associated methodologies and behavioural science.
Time, competing priorities and constant firefighting came up repeatedly. So did the difficulty of leading change when the end point is unclear. Many programmes do not deliver their full value, often because people are seeking certainty that does not exist or because execution does not take into account all the dimensions required.
Even though there may be a willingness or awareness of the need to drive change proactively, there are barriers that get in the way – including in the psychology of leaders. For example, in uncertainty, leaders can ‘push downwards’ for clarity or seek endless cycles of data to provide an answer. As well as causing delay, this can inadvertently cause anxiety, working counter to the wider change objectives. Leaders can also hold back communication, control the narrative too tightly, shift into ‘tell’ mode, or seek to define an artificial end state. This can reduce trust and cause teams to disengage. Being aware of these tendencies can help GCs avoid falling into unhelpful tropes.
While many in the room felt they had a great vantage point in their role and influence which stood them in great stead for leading change proactively, operational capability and building evidence-based credibility through data came through as the weakest areas GCs wanted to strengthen, and how to approach that – including a discussion about the role of visualisation of data to support change objectives.
What helps change land
The discussion surfaced a number of practical approaches to leading change – particularly when ‘the jelly wont set’ as the term was coined, i.e. when certainty is not available. These were around creating the conditions for change to occur, and engendering leadership in others, rather than trying to provide all the answers.
- Being clear on what is foundational and not changing, thus providing stable ‘anchors’ for people.
- Providing guardrails to shape the project or change environment, creating confidence to experiment within that space.
- Naming ambiguity and setting a direction for travel, even though the destination is still evolving – not over engineering certainty.
- Building ‘tribal safety’ for teams and peers, so people feel confident working together in the context of the change, not just relying on top-down leadership. Role modelling learning not knowing was a key success factor.
One technique shared was mapping organsiational relationships and influence to establish who is best placed to be the vocalisers for the change: another executive communicating the message instead of you, or grass roots ambassadors can have an outsize impact. Valuing professional identity and collaboration also came through strongly. Legal, risk and technology teams bring different perspectives, but each have important authority in their craft – working together early and leaning on shared contributions leads to better outcomes.
Key takeaways
A few messages stood out, including the benefits for GCs of moving from a reactive to an ‘important not only urgent’ focus – or what Emma Dowden, Burges Salmon’s COO described as being ‘planful’.
- AI is both a major pressure and an opportunity. Getting up to speed on developments can be done quickly, without a huge investment of time, and will be necessary in order to shape the change agenda and related decision-making effectively and responsibility. The value will be in what GCs do beyond deployment of individual tools and capabilities into re-thinking and re-structuring how to operate.
- The GC role is ever expanding and with the backdrop of an accelerating business environment, competency in driving change will be ever more critical to be an effective leader in that role.
- The pace of change is real, but lawyers are actually well equipped to deal with uncertainty. To which the session concluded that the opportunity – and mandate – of leadership is moving from a reactive state to a more strategic, readied way of working – driving the change you can see is needed, and helping others to keep focused on what’s important when there is no fixed answer.
In-person
