Ankar , a leading AI startup in the patent space, has published my article titled " Adopting AI for the Patent Lifecycle: Three Dimensions for Success ." In the article, I emphasize that thriving in an AI-native future can be assured by upskilling of patent professionals and by redesigning patent-centric collaboration workflows and business models to preserve or create value. You can read the article here .

NACD (National Association of Corporate Directors) has published my article titled " Why Boards Should Engage with IP Risks and Opportunities ." In the article, which is only available to NACD members, I explain what active board engagement entails and share IP considerations regarding trade secrets, patents, trademarks, copyrights, and AI. For directors, CEOs, CFOs, CLOs, and innovation leaders, the message is clear: IP strategy is business strategy. IP-engaged boards outperform those that treat IP as a back-office technicality fully delegable to IP specialists. You can learn more about my board presentations and advisory services here . NACD members can read the article here .

First used in 1917, the term bed check means “a night inspection to check the presence of persons (such as soldiers) required by regulations to be in bed or in quarters.” pexels.com , RDNE Stock project. In 2025—108 years later—a corporate attorney shared with me that managers in the attorney’s legal department conduct metaphorical bed checks: On a frequent, often manic basis, these managers call junior attorneys or drop by the attorneys’ offices to ostensibly “check in.” The company at issue is a multi-billion-dollar enterprise that seems to offer its legal professionals the very best in corporate perks and high prestige to match. To the outside world, the company is considered innovative and a proverbial great place to work. Its attorneys have impressive resumes that seemingly bear witness to the excellence of the legal function. On the inside, though, everyone knows that the tacit purpose of the bed checks is to exert control over the rank and file, not to engage in productive substantive work discussions or the building of authentic team rapport. Not a Unique Quandary No matter how far mankind progresses as a civilization, human nature ultimately asserts itself, often with suboptimal results. Legal departments, law firm practice groups, and legal solutions provider teams are no exception. Organizations whose leaders institute or tolerate bed checks typically have a dark secret: Team members feel trapped in a toxic, underperforming work environment. Indeed, bed checks are symptomatic of a control- and fear-based culture in which trust is shaky or wholly absent. Why are bed checks still going strong in some 21 st century enterprises? Possibly due to one or more of these root causes. Managers and leaders are driven by a scarcity mindset , not an abundance mindset . As such, they believe that control and fear are the most effective tools for governance and staying power. The department or the enterprise at large has institutionalized an incentive system that rewards stagnation, cronyism, and adversarial tactics in lieu of vision, innovation, merit, and collaboration. The legal department is multi-layered and swelling, with senior tactical attorneys being assigned one or more direct reports to “manage.” In actuality, the hierarchical management structure exists primarily to justify paying senior attorneys higher salaries and give them a taste of authority and cachet. The organization believes that it has a captive workforce due to factors such as geography or a depressed labor market. Sleepers and C-Suite Executives, Awake! Professionals who are subject to corporate bed checks or similar form-over-substance antics understandably may feel demeaned and demoralized: Their managers’ paternalistic behaviors telegraph a fundamental lack of trust in individuals and their professionalism. These disenchanted “sleepers” may feel a lack of commitment and apathy towards their department or enterprise. They may pose flight risks in the short or long term. If you’re a team member who feels stuck in a toxic situation, it’s critical for you to dig deep to find your way out or at least come to a place of acceptance so you don’t become embittered and broken. I share navigation strategies in this prior article in ACC Docket. For C-suite leaders who genuinely want to cultivate vibrant, high-performing team cultures, proactively vet the status quo on the ground. If managers are wielding bed checks as a customary process, it’s likely that something is seriously amiss. Seek to actualize abundance as I explain in this article . From the Dark Ages to the Enlightenment Regrettably, corporate bed checks persist as a present-day marker of toxicity, frustration, and unfulfilled individual and group potential. Still, they’re more readily discoverable than other insidious, less visible management practices. This presents leaders with a tangible opportunity to diagnose and effect changes for the better. Enlightened leaders manage and lead based on empowerment and trust, not control and mistrust. In so doing, they reap rewards for all to enjoy. If your enterprise still employs bed checks, take decisive action to cease and desist.

As artificial intelligence (AI) patent drafting technologies become increasingly sophisticated, law firms and alternative legal service providers (ALSPs) may confront client resistance to paying fees and rates in line with pre-AI patent prosecution models. To navigate the new normal, practitioners and their organizations need to take a reflective, proactive approach. I share my recommendations in my article published on IPWatchdog. You can read the article here .

In-house legal departments are as varied as the enterprises that encompass them. In structure and operation, some resemble small, midsize, or large law firms, while others look more like a cohort within a startup or a matrixed organization. From a cultural perspective, departments experiencing only organic growth may embody a culture that evolves over the years with limited external influence. In other instances, departments grow inorganically through one or more mergers or acquisitions, where multiple cultures combine to create a new, collective culture. And an incoming attorney or other legal professional brings unique styles, perspectives, and preferences that shape a department going forward. Given such variability, how can one fairly assess whether an in-house legal department is effective? One useful strategy is to hire a   legal consulting firm   whose consultants can offer a rigorous framework for assessment and comprehensive recommendations for improvement. You also can make an informal assessment yourself. In my experience, you can size up an in-house legal department with reasonable accuracy by looking for the seven attributes described below. In-house lawyers and their clients may benefit from reflecting candidly on how well the legal team is performing, and making a course correction if appropriate. Why Assess the Legal Team? Like other corporate departments, in-house legal teams face challenges endemic to organizational systems, such as scarcity of resources, inefficiencies, talent or skill gaps, and interpersonal dynamics. Yet, holistic assessments of team effectiveness too often are the exception rather than the rule. In-house legal teams should be assessed for at least five reasons: Corporate legal departments are expensive.  It’s been said that “Legal is a cost center.” Even if it qualifies as a profit center based on delivered results, an in-house legal team is costly to support and maintain given the associated operating costs, such as employee compensation and benefits. The services provided by an in-house legal team significantly impact the enterprise.  Many legal teams have authority to decide, among other things, which outside counsel to engage and how to utilize them, which can involve substantial spending and markedly influence outcomes. Legal teams commonly manage contracting and disputes for the enterprise; overly-conservative, drawn-out approaches to drafting and negotiations can have a material effect on the business. Counseling missteps, such as failing to fully apprise clients of business and litigation risks, also can lead to substantial spending, liability, and business disruption. Legal departments face dual juggernauts—legal complexity and corporate bureaucracy.  The tendency for some lawyers to get mired in legal complexity is formidable enough. Add to that the bureaucratic burdens of the modern corporation and you have a recipe for potential distraction, inefficiency, and paralysis. Lawyers are not known for their management acumen.  Talented lawyers are not necessarily natural born managers. Nevertheless, they may be asked to lead legal teams and, due to resource constraints, forced to develop leadership skills by trial and error. Success theater is a common art form.  “Success theater” describes a culture in which a team consistently puts a positive spin on performance assessments, rather than openly acknowledging failures or weaknesses. For in-house legal teams that are expert at staging success theater, the result may be to avoid accountability and perpetuate the status quo.  The next question is,   who   should make the assessment? While self-assessments are useful, they may be skewed for want of perspective, fear of job loss, and other reasons. As such, it’s wise for others outside the team also to weigh in, such as stakeholders in the enterprise or, in some cases, legal consultants. The Seven Attributes In-house legal teams that exhibit the following seven attributes are likely to be effective or highly effective, both in terms of the results they deliver and how they function as a team. 1. The team performs high-value work directed to the right priorities. An effective in-house legal team keeps a laser-like focus on what has the highest impact to the business. Mindful of the enterprise’s priorities, risks, and opportunities, it continually reassesses whether work being performed truly adds value or merely consumes team members’ bandwidth for the sake of staying busy or “doing what we’ve always done”—and it stops doing low-value work when identified. It’s also conscious of how team members’ experience and talents are being utilized. To the extent possible, big-picture, strategic thinking should be top of mind among the department’s most experienced team members. 2. The team is a good steward of company resources. Significant costs frequently are incurred by, or based on the advice of, the legal team. Thus, it’s essential that the legal team practice thoughtful, disciplined stewardship in areas such as department size, structure, and discretionary spend; management of outside counsel and other legal service providers; informing clients of the financial implications of strategic options; and selection and purchase of practice-related software. Assumptions may need to be tested often; spending that's reasonable at one time or in one context may be unreasonable at another time or in another context. 3. The team’s lawyers solve problems rather than erect roadblocks. The legal team’s North Star should be to facilitate the objectives of the company in a highly responsive, creative, competent, and efficient manner. Effective lawyers rise above minutiae, seek the heart of the matter, help parties to a transaction or dispute reach agreement or resolution, and provide actionable advice that enables the business to take calculated risks. Ineffective lawyers overthink issues, unnecessarily complicate dealings with third parties, and otherwise stand in the way of expeditious problem solving. 4. The team constantly improves and innovates. An effective in-house legal department doesn’t just deliver great legal advice to internal clients. Because resources are scarce, and habit and bureaucracy breed complacency and complexity, an effective team proactively conceives of and implements initiatives that improve the delivery of services and outcomes. Examples include: devising new or simplified processes that allow business personnel to drive generation and negotiation of routine contracts with minimal attorney involvement; creating operating rhythms that promote regular engagement between business leaders and the legal team on high-level strategic matters; leveraging state-of-the-art technology to eliminate or reduce low-value work; architecting and implementing new programs to monetize company technology (e.g., intellectual property licensing programs); and developing training programs and processes to promote a stronger compliance culture among company personnel. 5. The team has members with differing strengths. Much has been written about team collaboration and how to build and structure teams to achieve optimal impact. A consensus has emerged that the closest-knit, most synergistic, and highest-functioning teams include team members of differing strengths, working styles, and personalities that complement one another. 6. The team’s leaders empower, develop, and inspire team members. Effective in-house legal departments are led by effective leaders. An effective leader possesses such qualities as vision and thought leadership, clarity of communication, emotional intelligence, and a knack for problem solving and execution of initiatives. He or she sets measurable objectives and accords talented team members autonomy to get the job done. Effective leaders strive to build inclusive, meritocratic legal departments that inspire team members to partner with one another and pursue excellence. An effective leader understands that his or her personal success, and that of the entire legal team, reach their apex when team members flourish. Thus, he or she intentionally helps each team member develop professionally by providing training opportunities, offering new challenges, arranging one-on-one discussions to pinpoint areas in which the employee needs or would like to grow, and spotlighting individual and team achievements. 7. The team honestly assesses itself, seeks independent feedback, and effects needed changes. In an effective legal department, managers and their team members are never afraid to go under the microscope. They’re willing to take a hard look at their individual and team performance, and when necessary, make minor tweaks or major changes. Moreover, they seek independent input from their client base, others in the enterprise, and external parties. Relentlessly Pursue Effectiveness For in-house legal teams that exhibit the above seven attributes to a large degree, relatively targeted actions can be pursued to further raise the bar on effectiveness. A team can chip away at areas of opportunity to become more efficient, focused, capable, and cohesive. Besides engaging in self-reflection, the team can participate in training or coaching sessions, seek perspectives from peers inside and outside the enterprise, and apply learnings from non-legal areas. In other cases, the above attributes may be in short supply, rendering a legal department ineffective or even highly ineffective. It may be time for a reset to get the department back on track. An in-house legal team should be an invaluable asset to an enterprise. How effective is your team?

It’s been a year since I left my previous company due to a restructuring  decision. Michael Judkins / pexels.com Like others who’ve been casualties of termination, I can attest to the experience encompassing both challenges and silver linings. For me, one silver lining has been the chance to reflect upon the past and extract insights to guide future professional and personal endeavors. Questions I’ve pondered include: What would I have changed about how I approached my job? Were my mindsets beneficial or self-sabotaging? What did I learn about human and organizational nature? Which of my prior views were reinforced, reshaped, or negated? I also think about those left behind, the people still laboring for an organization. How can they make the most of their efforts, find holistic fulfillment, and be well prepared for potential bumps in their journey? Distilled from my reflections, here are actionable tips for approaching your employment in a healthy and pragmatic way. Prepare for the Unexpected No matter how secure you feel at your enterprise, things can change in an instant. You could be flung into the polar vortex of unemployment faster than you can say hello to your manager and their HR representative at a surprise termination meeting. Suddenly your and your family’s welfare could be threatened, particularly if you haven’t already built a foundation to weather storms ahead. Financial planning and discipline while you’re employed are critical elements to ensure preparedness for involuntary unemployment. Without financial resources to get you through a job transition, you and your family could face especially bleak times. Similarly, building an external professional network, cultivating expertise applicable to other employers or settings, and considering how you could pivot careers if forced to do so will position you to land on your feet in a worst-case termination scenario. Your ability to sell, adapt, and reinvent yourself are essential survival skills for life after termination. Set Reasonable Expectations Intellectually, most of us understand that the modern social contract between employers and employees has jettisoned long-term commitment in favor of short-term, transactional exchanges of value. Nonetheless, employees who take pride in their work, act with a high degree of commitment, and build close-knit working relationships may unwittingly project their loyalty onto their employer. When the latter reveals its true transactional colors, an employee may feel blindsided. Notwithstanding your professional standards and work ethic, intentionally strive to approach your work for an employer as it truly is—a tenuous and temporary relationship whose fate ultimately is outside your control. Set appropriate expectations and keep your options open. This includes recognizing that your employer’s and your colleagues’ allegiances to you only run so deep. It also includes setting reasonable limitations on how much of yourself you give to your employer. Always remember that you, not your employer, have your best interests at heart. Bet Your Chips on Your Own Leadership Development In many organizations, managers or supervisors who exhibit strong tactical performance are assumed to be strong leaders regardless of actual leadership performance. Such organizations may fail to develop highly effective leaders and hold leaders to high standards. Resulting leadership deficits do untold harm to individuals, groups, and enterprises. Against this backdrop, developing into a highly effective leader  and consistently leading with excellence can be lonely paths to forge. Yet, your choice to diligently pursue these paths can have a remarkable salutary effect on your effectiveness and satisfaction while serving at an organization. Moreover, it can equip you to more deftly and confidently chart new courses in the future if you’re voluntarily or involuntarily separated from your employer. Define a Broader Identity Have you ever asked yourself the existential question “Who am I?” Often, our identity and self-worth are closely tied to our professional life. When work chapters end, such as due to termination, career shifts, or retirement, we may struggle to find terra firma. Stress and even depression may weigh us down heavily. Because change is inevitable, we should seek more balance in our lives, so we can be happy independent of our career or any single job or employer. Maintain a healthy degree of detachment from your day job. Build affirming relationships with family and friends. Explore outside interests and hobbies. Find ways to learn, grow, and serve others. Through such pursuits, you can better see yourself as a whole, grounded human being whose identity and self-worth aren’t rooted primarily in occupation and employment. Be Good to Yourself Life is short. Time is fleeting. We may say these aphorisms, but sometimes life’s twists and turns force us to stop and think about what’s really important. When we do, we have a golden opportunity to recalibrate our thoughts and actions for the better. Being highly dedicated to your career and employer is laudable. However, that dedication can be taken too far—it can delude you into sacrificing too much for your job. To make the most of your present employment and pave the way for future vibrant chapters, consider implementing the above tips in concert with these overarching principles of self-care: Invest deeply in yourself and your well-being. Live your life with an abundance mindset . Enjoy the journey, no matter where it leads. Your work-life balance is waiting to be restored. Begin the restoration project today!   Life's a dance, you learn as you go Sometimes you lead, sometimes you follow Don't worry 'bout what you don't know Life's a dance, you learn as you go ~ John Michael Montgomery, 1992

Executive management should look behind the curtain of tactical excellence to ensure that managerial positions on IP and legal teams are held by highly effective managers and leaders. Absent such scrutiny, executives may aid and abet the perpetuation of toxic culture, stifled professional development, suboptimal decisions, and unpreparedness for the future. To ascertain whether a manager is the right or wrong person for the role, one useful exercise is to determine if, and to what extent, the manager operates with a scarcity mindset or an abundance mindset. These dramatically different paradigms have highly consequential implications. A scarcity mindset is destructive, while an abundance mindset is productive. Armed with these insights, executives can take proactive steps to minimize scarcity and actualize abundance and, in so doing, establish optimal conditions for achieving excellence in their organization. To read the full article, please visit IPWatchdog .

C-suite executives in organizations should look beyond tactical excellence to ensure that managerial positions in IP and legal teams are held by highly effective managers and leaders. To help assess the effectiveness of an individual as a manager and leader , executives can determine if, and to what extent, the individual operates with a scarcity mindset or an abundance mindset. In a previous article , we examined the propensities of a manager who operates with a scarcity mindset, and the associated numerous dangers to the business and managed team. Now we delve into that person’s foil—the manager who operates with an abundance mindset and thus brings substantial benefits to an organization. To read the full article, please visit IPWatchdog .

Like any career path, advancing as in-house counsel comes with varied challenges. No matter those challenges, climbing the ladder often can feel like a frustrating, confusing, and solitary pursuit. In my article published by the Association of Corporate Counsel (ACC), I share 6 warning signs to help in-house counsel spot potential career dead ends. I also share tips for succeeding despite the warning signs. To read the article, please visit ACC Docket .

Albert Einstein A friend outside the legal field recommended that I read The 6 Types of Working Genius , a book by best-selling author and management consultant Patrick Lencioni. I'm delighted that I picked up a copy. As I delved into the book, it quickly became apparent just how much Lencioni's insights apply to legal and intellectual property teams, including corporate in-house departments, law firm practice groups, and service providers. His insights offer a powerful tool for (1) diagnosing what may be holding back you or your team and (2) structuring your team to be impactful and high-functioning. The Working Geniuses Lencioni defines six "Working Geniuses" that are tied to overarching stages of work: " Wonder: identifies the need for improvement or change Invention: confirms the importance of that need, and generates an idea or solution Discernment: assesses the merit and workability of the idea or solution Galvanizing: generates enthusiasm and action around the idea or solution Enablement: initiates support and assists in the implementation of the idea or solution Tenacity: commits to ensuring that the idea or solution gets completed and that results are achieved" He posits that each of us possesses two of the above Working Geniuses, which come naturally to us and energize our efforts. For the four Working Geniuses we lack, we possess two Working Competencies, which we can do passably well, and two Working Frustrations, which sap our energy. For example, someone might have the Working Geniuses of Wonder and Invention, the Working Competencies of Discernment and Enablement, and the Working Frustrations of Galvanizing and Tenacity. This has practical implications both for us as individuals and for teams as a whole: If we're assigned to roles or tasks that primarily entail use of our Working Competencies and Working Frustrations, rather than our Working Geniuses, the misalignment and resulting friction may prevent us from performing with excellence. Even if we somehow compensate, we're still likely to burn out and underperform over time. When team members with respective Working Geniuses, Competencies, and Frustrations are assigned to the wrong roles or tasks, team performance most likely will suffer. Teams lacking personnel with at least one of the six Working Geniuses may never achieve at the highest level on a sustained basis. This is because one or more of the corresponding overarching stages of work never will be staffed by a person with a matching Working Genius. Teams that get the Working Geniuses right achieve more. Team members feel more fulfilled. Organizational health is more vibrant. Genius Deficits Within Legal and IP Teams Having practiced for decades in law firm and in-house settings across multiple organizations, I've been a member of numerous teams. I've also interacted with and observed other teams internal to those organizations, as well as teams of third-parties, such as outside counsel and solutions and service providers. There's been no shortage of impressive, highly talented professionals along the way. Nevertheless, not every team or team member has consistently shone as brightly as seemed possible. With the benefit of Lencioni's wisdom, I can better appreciate what might have been amiss. I realize now that some teams had a high concentration of tactically-oriented Working Geniuses, such as Enablement and Tenacity, but had little or no coverage of strategy- or creation-oriented Working Geniuses, such as Wonder and Invention. Other times, the Working Geniuses of team members were mismatched with their roles, or a team leader's Working Frustrations were colliding with their primary leadership or management responsibilities. In the above situations, I noticed that teams might accomplish specific projects and matters well, but struggled to make transformational, systemic impacts or build lasting collaborative relationships across their ecosystem. I also saw talented people plateau in their career trajectory due to occupying unsuitable roles and become discouraged in the process. Managers or leaders whose Working Geniuses didn't fit their roles or who failed to hire team members to supply their missing Working Geniuses stumbled as well. Likewise, their deficiencies stifled the growth potential of their team members. Takeaways for Success Lencioni's book inspires us to take a step back from the whirlwind of legal and IP work, conduct overdue reality checks, and proactively plan for success. Takeaways include: Identify Your Own Working Geniuses, Competencies, and Frustrations. With new self-awareness, you'll have a better sense of your strengths and weaknesses. Instead of pushing yourself towards roles and duties that are fundamentally incompatible, you can aim for those that better suit you. Understand Others' Working Geniuses, Competencies, and Frustrations. So much of our work as legal and IP professionals involves teaming up with others. With an understanding of where colleagues are coming from, you can seek a division of labor that maximizes alignment of Working Geniuses to subtasks, accelerating achievement of results. Put the Right People Into Management and Leadership Roles. Managers and leaders are linchpins of organizations. Decision-makers should ensure that chosen managers and leaders possess Working Geniuses and Competencies that track what's expected of them. Absent proper alignment, no amount of wishful thinking is likely to deliver high performance. Curate Teams in View of the Working Geniuses. Most departments, practice groups, and other collectives have a wide-ranging set of short- and long-term goals and objectives including strategic, tactical, operational, and people-centric imperatives. It's critical to build teams that, in the aggregate, possess all six Working Geniuses, and to assign team members to work scope consistent with their Working Geniuses, Competencies, and Frustrations. Galvanize Your Practice When Working Geniuses are missing or misaligned in legal or IP teams, it's like flying through constant headwinds or trying to force a square peg in a round hole. It doesn't have to be this way. The 6 Types of Working Genius helps illuminate a path toward greater impacts and fulfillment in our teams and enterprises. “When human beings are fully alive at work… they are much more likely to contribute to an organization’s health, and help it avoid the perils of dysfunction.” - Patrick Lencioni

Lawyers are known for being confident professionals. Much of their confidence may stem from self-awareness of the acumen, drive, and dedication they bring to bear for clients. Lawyers in private practice, especially high-performing firms with marquee clients, are no exception. Arguably, confidence is critical for a firm and its attorneys’ survival and success; it fuels substantive performance and empowers navigation through competitive firm hierarchies. A past study found that lawyers exhibit over confidence when predicting likely case outcomes. In my experience, some law firm lawyers are similarly overconfident when perceiving the health of their client relationships. The Project Bubble of Law Firm Practice In private practice, clients come to you with a need to address. That may include, among other things, a question to answer, a dispute to resolve, a request to generate work product, a transaction to negotiate, or a situation on which to offer counseling. No matter the nature of the project, usually you have some semblance of a starting point— like the “call of the question” in a law school exam. You then delve into the project and hopefully deliver an excellent outcome for the client. Some client relationships are closer than others, but most often you’re one step—maybe many steps—removed from what’s going on at your client and what’s in their minds. You only have the information they give you. You’re assisting the client, not living the client’s life. Confidence Fills the Gap Facing limited client information and perspectives, you do your best to intuit reality and conduct yourself accordingly. This is exactly what I did during my twelve years in private practice spanning multiple firms. Looking back, I felt confidence in my (supposed) understanding of my clients’ challenges, needs, and wants. I felt buoyed by my performance and commitment, and by the privilege of practicing in well-regarded, financially sound firms with a vibrant client base. The In-House Reality Check Then I became a corporate attorney. I quickly discovered how mistaken I had been. Many of my assumptions about what it’s like on the client side were wrong, incomplete, or misguided. Energies I expended in private practice could have been more closely aligned with client needs. Had I known better, I could have taken proactive steps to get closer to my clients for mutual benefit. Simply put, I had been overconfident and lacked the tools to recalibrate my understanding and approach. During my twelve years as corporate counsel, I saw my former self in many outside counsel who represented my employers. They, too, were overconfident. They, too, could have elevated their client service and fostered stronger client relationships. Low-Hanging Fruit for Law Firms I came across a recent LinkedIn post in which a law firm partner touted his client service techniques as the gold standard. While his zeal was laudable, his remarks evidenced a flawed understanding of the status quo in many corporate legal teams. His views likely were formed by his work for a small cohort of clients: Having not practiced in-house, he extrapolated incorrectly—and overconfidently. This lawyer is not alone. Many similarly struggle to fully understand in-house practice and size up their client relationships. As a result, they may not reach their full potential. The good news is that outside counsel can drive stronger client relationships without necessarily becoming in-house lawyers. To do so, they need to get out of the project bubble and rewire their thinking. Robust client relationship assessments  are low-hanging fruit for gathering powerful new insights. When intentionally applied, these insights can help practitioners enrich their existing client relationships and become more client-attuned across their practice. Don’t let overconfidence deter you from harvesting the fruit.

“We’re restructuring the team.” In a work setting, these words often are a euphemism for “We’re terminating one or more employees.” Anyone who’s witnessed restructuring knows that even as it aims to create positive change, it’s inherently destructive and disruptive, with impacts extending well beyond those terminated. One common view is that decision-makers treat restructuring as just another tactical project to be checked off their to-do list. They fail to methodically and humanely think through the many dimensions at play, thus causing far more harm and upheaval than necessary. It doesn't have to be this way. I've published a guide for leaders who appreciate the seriousness of restructuring and want to do their very best to reduce its costs and increase its benefits. To read the guide, please click here .