The surprise for these attorneys came when consultants were called in to create a new firm brochure. The consultants insisted on interviewing all of the attorneys and several key staff to piece together a complete firm identity. As a result of the interviews, the attorneys received not only a new brochure, but some unexpected news from the consultants: the staff was far from motivated to meet their full potential.
The attorneys invited the consultants to a meeting to explain this information more fully. The consultants said that in speaking with firm employees, they had discovered low morale, internal friction, and lack of ambition to make sure all tasks were well done. The reason, according to the consultants, was very low expectations from the attorneys.
The attorneys subsequently called a firm meeting, inviting all staff members. One attorney with a comfortable rapport with the employees acted as the meeting's moderator. He told the staff about the conclusions drawn by the consultants and the concern this raised for the attorneys. He then asked staff to submit suggestions, anonymous if necessary, on how firm morale could be improved. He told the participants that all suggestions would be read and discussed by the attorneys and then discussed again with the staff. From this basis, a more concerted effort would be made to improve morale and motivate everyone to reach their full potential.
The firm held another meeting with all the attorneys and staff and decided by democratic process on a review system which could be fair to the attorneys as well as staff. Everyone agreed to evaluate the system in six months and accept, reject, or alter the program. Six months later, the staff made a few adjustments but expressed their general satisfaction. The attorneys noted their delight at staff's interest in the firm's well-being and their increased expectations regarding staff potential.
The employee review process is often regarded with fear and trepidation by employers and employees and for good reason. In most cases, it tends to be a one-sided process, where the staff member is called into an attorney's office and seated across from the attorney. With a large desk in between and usually stacked with paperwork, the employee is asked a few general questions before a judgment is rendered. The staff member is usually too inhibited to voice concerns and generally agrees to whatever the attorney suggests.
Managers who use this system report that employees frequently rate themselves lower than supervisors do. This provides a uniquely beneficial opportunity for the supervisor to praise the employee's good points, reassuring the employee and instilling a less adversarial atmosphere.
The opportunity for feedback and discussion is invaluable in training staff. At the same time, this process can be and should be used to map out career and training paths with employees. The program generally receives considerable positive feedback from staff and attorneys who have used it. The only negative response is that the process takes more time than the traditional "one-sided" review meeting.
Still, the increased attention paid to each individual employee does not require the time often devoted to far less important items such as libraries, decor, and computers.
EMPLOYEE REVIEW POINTS
A number of criteria can be used to evaluate law practice staff. The points should always be used in a positive, not negative, sense. A scale by which to rate the employee should also be used so that conclusions are not "yes" or "no." Some examples of criteria might be attendance, organization, impresssion, general attitudes, and skill areas. These allow different employees with different strengths to be recognized for their individual qualities. It is not recommended that attorneys use any written form to evaluate or discuss staff personality traits. The reason is that such forms are sometimes not kept completely confidential and can be very damaging to staff morale.
