By Funke Abimbola
“Being a strategic GC today means operating as a business leader first, legal expert second—delivering insight, foresight, and influence at the highest levels.”
I’ve been reflecting on this observation I shared recently, and I realise it captures something fundamental about our role that many of us feel but struggle to articulate. The GC chair isn’t just another seat at the executive table. It’s a business leadership position that happens to require legal expertise.
But here’s the challenge: most of us got to where we are by being exceptional lawyers. Though the skills that made us indispensable as legal experts – deep technical knowledge, risk analysis, precision – remain crucial, they’re simply no longer sufficient.
The leadership gap
The shift from legal expert to business leader isn’t just about mindset. It requires a fundamental change in how we operate, communicate, and structure our functions.
Consider the difference:
Legal expert thinking: “How do I minimise legal risk in this decision?” Business leader thinking: “How do I enable this opportunity whilst managing acceptable risk?”
Legal expert communication: “The risks include A, B, and C.” Business leader communication: “Here are three scenarios with different risk/reward profiles.”
Legal expert operations: “My team handles legal matters as they arise.” Business leader operations: “My function anticipates, enables, and measures business outcomes.”
This isn’t about becoming less rigorous with legal analysis. It’s about contextualising that analysis within business strategy.
The credibility challenge
This transition creates a credibility challenge that many of us face silently. Our legal expertise got us the role, but business leadership keeps us in it. Yet the business expects us to already have this transformation figured out.
As my colleague at TLD, Kerry Phillip, puts it: “You can only concentrate on the strategic parts of your role if you are also running an efficient function where the day to day is running smoothly, otherwise you will be continually firefighting. So, fix the function first.”
This is where many of us get trapped in what I call the “Strategic Paradox”. We can’t be strategic until our function runs smoothly, but we can’t fix our function whilst constantly firefighting strategic issues.
What business leadership actually looks like
They build operating models, not just teams
Rather than simply hiring brilliant lawyers and trusting them to figure it out, they design systems, processes, and frameworks that create consistent excellence regardless of who’s delivering the work. The focus shifts from individual talent to institutional capability.
They measure impact, not just activity
Instead of reporting on matters handled, contracts reviewed, or cases closed, they track business enablement, risk mitigation effectiveness, and strategic value creation. They answer the question “What business outcomes did legal enable?” rather than “How busy was legal?”
They communicate in business language
They move beyond saying “We can’t do this because of X regulation” to offering “Here’s how we structure this to achieve your commercial objective whilst staying compliant.” The conversation becomes about solutions and possibilities, not just constraints.
The infrastructure imperative
Here’s what I’ve learnt: you cannot lead strategically from an operationally chaotic foundation.
The business doesn’t care that we’re understaffed, that our processes are manual, or that we lack dashboards to show our impact. They expect strategic input backed by operational excellence.
This creates an impossible situation: transformation projects lose momentum because there’s no time to embed them properly. We end up with good ideas that never become operational reality.
Making the shift real
The GCs who successfully make this transition share common characteristics:
They accept that transformation can’t be a side project. Building business leadership capability whilst running day-to-day operations requires dedicated focus and external perspective.
They invest in systems before scaling. They recognise that adding headcount to broken processes just creates expensive chaos.
They measure what matters to the business. They build dashboards and metrics that demonstrate strategic value, not just legal activity.
They design for consistency. They create playbooks, frameworks, and processes that work regardless of who’s executing them.
The path forward
If my observation resonates with you and you recognise that your role demands business leadership but you’re struggling to make the operational changes that enable it, you’re not alone.
The most successful GCs I know have made peace with a fundamental truth: you don’t have to do this transformation alone. Whether it’s building those operating models, creating the metrics that matter, or simply having someone at GC level to sanity-check decisions, there’s immense value in having senior strategic bandwidth that understands your reality.
My colleague Rachel Webb Wiles puts it perfectly: “Don’t be an island. There are too many sole GCs in distress. Reach out and connect with other GCs in the legal community.”
Sometimes the most strategic thing you can do is extend your capability rather than stretch it further.
This is the first in our four-part series exploring the strategic GC dilemma. Next month: “The Ship in Harbour Paradox” – why managing legal risk without stifling commercial ambition requires a fundamental shift in how legal functions operate.
Want to join the conversation? Share your thoughts on what business leadership means for today’s GC role. Connect with us on LinkedIn or email us at info@thelegaldirector.co.uk.
