Please enjoy this blog post authored by Kendall Smardzewski, Business Unit Director, Banking & Financial Services and Immigration, Clark Hill.
Our review processes deserve a review! Or so we posited. We recently invited our law firm colleagues (practitioners, operations professionals, and support staff) to participate in a short survey to help answer the question: how can we improve the review process? Our top five takeaways are below.
1. REVIEWS ARE HELPFUL BUT THERE IS SIGNIFICANT ROOM FOR IMPROVEMENT
A majority of our participants found the review process helpful to their job performance and work environment to varying degrees, but less helpful with their professional development. Consensus is that a formal and trackable process has its benefits, but those being reviewed expressed greater room for improvement. Noted areas for improvement include timing, reviewer selection, specificity of feedback and clarity regarding compensation updates.
2. TIMING MATTERS
Most respondents were unclear on the timing of their review process; overall consensus is that firms could do a better job outlining both the timing of the review period and the relevant performance schedule (what exactly is the time range subject to the review?).
Another key theme was poor communication from leadership regarding the timing of the process. Many stated their first firm communication on performance was the invitation to begin the review itself. Based on this feedback, we recommend that firms reiterate the performance schedule throughout the year.
3. MORE REVIEWERS, BETTER FEEDBACK
Across the board, participants wanted more feedback and from more people. Vague feedback was cited as a frustration point for some participants. One participant noted their review indicated some underperformance, but without citing clear, direct examples or recommendations for improvement, which felt like a “drive by shooting.” We recommend that feedback be as specific as possible, including: using objective metrics, citing specific examples, and suggesting performance improvement training opportunities.
Many wanted a 360 review with all stakeholders (including direct supervisors, peer colleagues, and reports) to get the most comprehensive and specific, actionable feedback on their performance. In particular, including people who worked outside of their traditional/assigned workflow led to a more holistic review of their entire contribution. Most participants enjoyed reviewing colleagues outside of their direct supervision. We recognize that a 360 review comes with it’s own challenges. If that is not possible, providing people an option to choose reviewers outside of their normal workflow is still helpful.
4. ONE AND DONE?
The majority of our participants expressed a desire to have more regular and timely feedback outside of the formal review process, beyond informal drop-bys or checks ins. Many people recommended formalizing the process at more regular intervals— like quarterly reviews—as part of an annual process to provide training and progress tracking. Additionally, both the reviewed and reviewers thought that underperformance should be addressed throughout the throughout the year, in real-time, and not just relegated to the annual check-in. One participant noted that their performance review was given 90 days after the review period ended (and correspondingly 90 days into their current review period), leaving them feeling “behind the eight ball” to address performance issues.
5. COMPENSATION CONFUSION
We asked survey participants whether compensation was attached to the performance review; respondents were split down the middle. Half the respondents were told of their merit-based raises and discretionary bonuses (if applicable) during their review. The other half were informed of compensation as a separate process. Regardless of timing of compensation updates, some expressed a lack of clarity on the process. In addition, many indicated desire for compensation factors to be included with feedback at more regular intervals.
Overall, our survey showed that while performance reviews have value, improvements on communication, timing, and scope of reviewers could increase the quality of the review. Here’s hoping our quick review will serve as a discussion point the next time your firm reviews their review process.
#PracticeManagementandPracticeSupport#ProfessionalDevelopment#Firm#100Level