Forward Motion for Pillsbury CMO?
I heard through the grapevine that Liz Pava, Pillsbury CMO, has resigned from her position. Her last day is rumored to be May 30th. This resignation follows on the heels of the launch of the new Pillsbury corporate identity package (see earlier post of May 16). Rumor also reports that it was definitely her choice and the reason for her departure was “the ball just stopped moving forward.” Why do CMOs and Marketing Directors really quit? It can’t always be for “a better opportunity” (translate: more money, more power, more you name it) or can it?
I started thinking about my own departures. I was in 3 law firms as the top marketing professional over the past 13 years. Each time I left it was for “a better opportunity.” In hindsight it always seemed like a better opportunity because something in the relationship with the firm had begun to break down which caused me to look for that “better opportunity” in the first place. Oddly, I don’t think that what was broken could not have been fixed in any of the cases and may have actually been the better opportunity had I been able to confront my illusions. There was just something psychologically compelling about moving on. Here’s my water cooler analysis.
The beginning of the end was when the firms decided to launch a “major” change in their business model, management committee, or client service model, etc. etc. You name it. They wanted change. Their ability to change in a meaningful way was in question. With all this talk of change came a change in their perception of their self. In order to justify this change, they would find or create holes in existing relationships. Like suddenly the successes of the past and the time everyone had invested in building the business together was no longer enough. Tear up the foundation. Start over. It was almost as if they were ordering up a new car or sexier wife.
I love change – sort of. Especially when it’s built on respect and substance. But, whenever there was a change change was in the air and leadership’s perception of themselves grew, their trust and respect for marketing became the late model car or the old lady. Following this there was an unwillingness to “move the ball forward.” That triggers my flee instinct.
Changing law firms or geography or both can be great for career; especially for someone like me who gets bored quickly and thrives on all things new. Yet I can’t help thinking that if illusions were confronted, stronger and more effective results would have emerged. This throw away world we live in impacts attitudes of others and ourselves, and our career moves. Law firm marketing isn’t like product marketing. A constant influx of new blood to infuse creativity isn’t necessary as law firms are rarely truly creative. Once in 10 years maybe?
Do you have any thoughts on why CMO’s come and go so readily or any stories from your own experience that might shed light on this topic?
There always seems to come a time when the hurdles cannot be overcome and you cannot move the ball any further. Either the respect has broken down, new management wants to go in a different direction that you cannot follow, or the grass just looks a heck of a lot greener over there.I have to say, however, it always seems that the official “break up” comes after a huge project, merger or technology roll-out. Similar to how marriages break up during a home remodel. It comes down to money, power and decision making authority. Mix it all up with some egos, and you have a new job search starting. I think your conclusion that we need to “work through” our relationships in the firm is spot on. We are so quick to toss aside institutional knowledge rather than deal with the issues affecting the relationship. Instead, we take the easy way out and look for a new job, or they decide to go in a “new direction” and we wrap it all up neatly in a bright red “better opportunity bow,” and sit back as the 2-4 year cycle begins a new, setting the firm back in the process.At the end of the day, is Pillsbury going to accomplish anything different or remarkable under a new CMO that Liz wasn’t capable of doing? Probably not. She did a heck of a lot while she was there in keeping that ball moving forward. As you said, there is only so much “creative” to go around in the law firm environment.Not sure as to the specifics of why she decided to go, but I do understand it. You just get tired of fighting your way through your day, every day, day after day. Maybe that’s the new career in legal — “marriage” counseling between lawyers and their professional staff, lol.
My last move came because I was bored. I had done the job for 5 years and year 6 looked like more of the same. Opportunity knocked and I opened the door. I had run a successful client development program and I wanted to see if I could make lightening strike twice. That’s mostly why I left the old gig… mostly.That said, I think one of the challenges that law firms face is that no one really is looking after the professional development of senior staff. The attorney side of the ledger has all kinds of “hand holders” — for lack of a better term — from the managing partner, to a professional development director, to CLE coordinator, and so on. On the staff side, most law firms have a COO and, possibly, an administrative director. We outrank the admin director and are usually on par with the COO. So we are left on our own to develop our professional skills. That’s not a bad position to be in, but when you work at a law firm, your own PD comes after the firm, the attorneys, your staff, etc. While we watch all that money, time and effort go into developing attorneys, we can become stuck — or worse — marginalized if a new managing partner takes over (particularly one with whom we don’t necessarily see eye to eye). So we become a little jaded, a little disinterested and a little more willing to listen to a headhunter’s pitch. I’m not expecting law firms to lavish professional development perks on their senior staff anytime soon. In fact, I think most firms believe senior staff are always replaceable. And because most attorneys will never admit to being wrong, when they lose someone who in hindsight was a true warrior on the firm’s behalf, they rarely can admit to their mistake or learn from it.As an aside: I think it would be interesting to compare the avg tenure of a CMO or Marketing Director to the avg reign of managing partners. I think they might be pretty close in length, which suggests that Marketing people get washed out with the old managing partner. (Sonnenschein is a recent example of this.)
Tank: Couldn’t agree more with this comment. “And because most attorneys will never admit to being wrong, when they lose someone who in hindsight was a true warrior on the firm’s behalf, they rarely can admit to their mistake or learn from it.” In fact, after I left one firm, due to lack of forward motion, they hired a consultant to review “my work,” only to find the consultant asking why they didn’t work harder to hold on to me. The fact is, they really didn’t need someone with my level of talent. They really needed someone to execute on the ideas of random partners.j.
I’m nodding my head a lot reading the comments above. My own career hasn’t been driven by these changes, however, and I wonder if that is a personality thing. It could also be a intellect thing, and I don’t pretend to be as smart as some of my friends who’ve posted here.I have never been bored at a job I’ve had. I haven’t seen hurdles that can’t be overcome. I haven’t found egos I simply couldn’t work with.When the ball has stopped moving forward at some jobs, I’ve found ways to move it sideways and still be of service to the folks I work with and for. I’ve certainly identified the issue Tank calls attention to: professional development for staff is slim to non-existent in law firms for non-billable personnel. That’s why LMA, LSSO and other groups are so vital to marketers.If we weren’t self-directed when we arrived at law firms, we have to get that way fast! Power and influence are coveted and closely guarded, so the decision process is not out in the open. Law firms naturally resist new thinking, and marketing is about seeing things in a different light or using a tool in a slightly new way. It can be surprisingly easy for the ball to stop moving forward.Maybe if we worked more on accepting the frequent but small incremental advances that law firms may embrace because of their low risk, there would be less “greener pastures” behavior. If the half-dozen law firms I’ve worked with are any example (and I believe they are), the large leaps in marketing are scary for law firms, and make most want to hold off other changes until the waves from the most recent one die away.Marketing folks tend to get energized by these big leaps and want to see the next move be just as powerful and dramatic. Pushing for two in a row is a form of law firm CMO suicide, IMHO.
This type of conversation does not make your jobs attractive to people who may consider going in-house. We all know what the problems are, but what are the solutions? How would you counsel someone who is considering going in-house.Here’s a challenge: Instead of writing a book on how to market a law firm, how about a book about how to survive and thrive working as a marketer in a law firm. And, I even have a title: What They Don’t Tell You During the Interview!
Anonymous – great point. I find that it takes a certain personality to thrive in the law firm environment. We have to have the tactical abilities to get the job done, but, let’s face it, what we do isn’t rocket science. I have found that my job is much more about working with, and managing, a diverse pool of personalities. How I approach and work with an IP patent litigator is much different than a white-collar/SEC litigator. You then have the high-flying M&A folks, add in some rainmakers and some service partners with no book of business, all of whom have agendas that conflict with the firm’s strategic plan (if they have one), and we’ve got the makings for a party. Top it off with a group of 1st-years making more money than any 26-year old should ever see, and seem to think they actually know something about the practice of law, and you have the setting for a fun, intellectually stimulating and, yes, challenging work environment.For me, what I find the most challenging about my job is what I find the most attractive: the attorneys. I get to work in an intellectually stimulating environment with some really smart people. Look, deciding on the new logo is not intellectually stimulating, and is probably the most frustrating of tasks, but arguing with a partner – and winning (I have that in writing ready to be framed) – why we had to move away from the Stuart F. Cooper design to something a bit more modern was. Yes, there are days that I just want to bang my head up against the wall … but a couple days later I get that same partner coming back for more of this marketing “garbage” and I realize that I again moved the ball forward, and I like my job again. Unfortunately, for the casual observer, when they witness us sharing our frustrations they don’t look upon it as a group of similarly situated professionals seeking identification and validation from one another. What they see is more similar to sharing with my mom about a fight with my husband. While I might ‘forgive and forget’ with my husband before we go to bed later that night, my mom will still be angry with him at Thanksgiving. I know we moan and groan about working with attorneys, but, deep down inside, I think we all love it, and not in a self-abusing way. Otherwise we’d do what I refer to as the “2-firm and out” dance: outside industry person is brought into legal as the new CMO. Realizes almost immediately that the job is nothing like when they were VP of Marketing for X-company, where people actually took their counsel and responded to requests. So, a couple years into it they “find a better offer” at a firm down the block, because, let’s face it, the money is really good, only to come to realize that it’s not the law firm, but the lawyers, that are the challenge. They wait a respectable amount of time, then leave legal.As to writing the book on interviewing … I think it has to begin with a job description more focused on the personality traits necessary to do the job well, rather than the “skills” necessary to perform a task – those can always be learned (or delegated).