Page 5 - Law Firm Management

NYLJ.COM |
Law Firm Management | MONDAY, MAY 9, 2016 | S5

suffer and the performance quality will often what you did was wrong. You should not have needed the memorandum “in a week or so.” your arguments and made them more per-

be diminished.
taken the cookie from the cookie jar.” A parent Perhaps the whole debacle would have been suasive. Let me give you an example . .”
This is not to say that a law irm partner should not say to Johnny, “You are wrong. avoided had Mr. Smith himself been more In each of the above examples, the partner
should avoid tough criticism of an associate. You are bad because you took the cookie!”
specific, careful and deliberate when he is making clear, with speciicity, where the
Surely such feedback can be well-justiied and This basic parenting principle is equally made the assignment. The research-based associate’s work product is deicient, but in
necessary. However, how that partner deliv- applicable in a law irm when a partner is model Situational Leadership II calls this an a manner that will tend to build the associ-
ers the feedback may determine whether an delivering negative feedback. In both cases— “alignment conversation”; to ensure that the ate’s self-esteem and morale, and not tear
associate learns from the negative criticism a parent addressing Johnny and Mr. Smith partner and associate are aligned on the goal/ him down. Of course in the above scenario,
and uses it to increase her performance level, speaking to Sarah—the goal should be to expectations, the support the associate needs Sarah’s failure was greater—Sarah appeared
and, indeed, whether that associate continues appropriately criticize the conduct without from the partner and the action steps/plan to totally drop the ball by failing to produce

to work for the irm. Associate turnover is impugning the character of Johnny or Sarah. for getting it done.
any work product “within a week or so” as
often a direct consequence of the associates’ When Mr. Smith told Sarah she was unreliable Mr. Smith had requested at their irst meeting.
morale, even more so than dissatisfaction and useless, he was attacking her personally, Be Speciic; Always Remember the Positive
The above principles for giving negative feed-
with compensation. Thus, it is critical that, not remaining focused on the speciic tasks back or criticism are not the only ones. However,
to the extent possible, negative feedback be Sarah failed to achieve. He may as well have All associates are likely to be discour- they are perhaps the most important ones, and
delivered productively—that is, in a manner taken a sledgehammer to Sarah’s self-esteem aged by negative feedback or criticism and, all partners providing negative criticism or feed-
that increases and not destroys an associate’s and morale. How could she possibly react as discussed above, it can greatly damage back to associates should be guided by them.
self-esteem and morale. Use a “velvet touch!”
positively to the criticism that Mr. Smith was an associate’s self-esteem and morale, and To review, when a partner is providing such

Here are some simple rules that can make leveling against her, even though it may have ability to proit from the criticism and grow. feedback, he should follow these basic principles:
negative feedback (aka criticism) of law irm been justiied?
All negatives and no positives will be counter- • Consider the timing
associates productive:
productive. Moreover, this type of criticism • Consider the physical circumstances
What About Me?
or feedback could drive associates with great • Make your criticism about the work, not
Consider the Timing of the Meeting
potential to seek employment elsewhere. In the person
As in most confrontations, neither party addition, and very importantly, the associate • Ask yourself, “What about me?”
In our collective experience, a partner is 100 percent guilty or blameless. This is may be much more accepting of the nega- • Make feedback specific and always
should not give an associate a negative review true both inside and outside the workplace. tive criticism, and respond more positively, remember the positive
or negative criticism on a Monday or a Friday. Where there is a failed project or assignment, when it is accompanied by sincere words of With the above principles in mind, let’s

The reasons for this are clear. If the review a thoughtful partner, before slamming an asso- encouragement.
consider how Mr. Smith should have inter-
or criticism is delivered on a Monday, it will ciate, should ask himself, “What part have I If an associate’s work product is deicient, acted with Sarah when she failed to produce
haunt the associate for the rest of the week played? How did I contribute to the result?
a partner should describe the deiciency with the memorandum “within a week or so” as
and may be extremely distracting, thereby speciicity. Rather than simply state that a he had requested. The dialogue might have
affecting that associate’s productivity. And if memorandum is unacceptable, a partner proceeded as follows.
it is done on Friday, the associate will brood should identify in what respects the mem- Late Tuesday morning, Mr. Smith calls
about it the entire weekend and, in fact, he will All associates are likely to be
orandum is deicient. As examples, is the Sarah and states, “Sarah, if you are available
not have the opportunity to address it with memorandum poorly written or organized? at noon or 12:30, I’d like to speak with you
improved performance until three days later, discouraged by negative Does it fail to answer the speciic questions for a few minutes about the memorandum

which for the associate can feel like three feedback or criticism and it that were asked? Are the arguments unper- I asked you to prepare last week. Are you
years. Thus, if possible, such meetings should can greatly damage an associ- suasive or is there a law in the reasoning? available to meet me in my ofice at either of
occur on Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday. In Is the correct body of law presented? Does those times?” Sarah replies, “Sure Mr. Smith,
the above scenario, Mr. Smith chose to meet ate’s self-esteem and morale, it refer to the most recent relevant cases or I’ll be there at noontime.”
with Sarah on a Friday afternoon when most ones from dozens of years ago? Does the Sarah, of course, promptly appears in the
likely a meeting one day earlier on Thurs- and ability to proit from the memorandum appear to correctly present doorway of Mr. Smith’s ofice at noon. Mr.
day, or three days later on Monday may have criticism and grow.
the facts and holdings of the cases? And so on.
Smith stands up and, in a cordial tone, greets
suficed. Mr. Smith should have planned the It is abundantly clear that for an associate her and asks Sarah to sit in an ofice chair as

confrontation in a way to improve Sarah’s to learn from negative feedback, she must he sits directly adjacent to her. The ofice door
self-esteem and morale.
What could I have done differently to avoid understand where the work product is dei- remains open. The following dialogue occurs:
this outcome? Should I shoulder some of the cient so that she can also appreciate where Mr. Smith: “Sarah, as you know, I wanted
Consider the Physical Circumstances
blame?” Indeed, a partner should consider she must improve. Simply stating in general the Apex memo by today and you didn’t give
asking the associate how the partner could terms that a work product is unacceptable it to me. Obviously something went awry.
“Winning through intimidation” may work have handled the assignment better. Even a will not create the learning experience every Let’s discuss it and see if we can igure out
on the battleield or football ield, but it invari- partner can grow from giving negative feed- associate needs and deserves.
what happened.”
ably will not succeed in the delivery of a nega- back. For example, a partner might ask the It is extremely important that the nega- Sarah: “Mr. Smith, I am so sorry. I really
tive associate review. In the above scenario, associate, “How could I have helped you to tive criticism, though entirely justifiable, wanted to get you a great memorandum and

Mr. Smith stood towering over Sarah while avoid this problem? What do you think I could must be accompanied by positive reinforce- to show you my ability, but when I started to
she was seated. In this, Mr. Smith clearly have done differently to have helped you to ment. Without the latter, the associate will work on it I didn’t fully understand exactly
expressed his dominance and Sarah was have been more successful right out of the be demoralized and, possibly, his self-esteem what you were looking for.”
resigned to a subservient position. This is gate?” Most associates will feel empowered may suffer. Neither of these beneit the associ- Mr. Smith: “What is it, Sarah, that you didn’t
hardly an effective way to build an associ- by such questions, resulting in increased self- ate, the partner or the law irm. Certainly in understand?”
ate’s morale and self-esteem during a dificult esteem and higher morale as they will then almost every instance a thoughtful partner, Sarah: “I don’t think I understood the pre-
meeting. Instead, Mr. Smith should have sat feel like members of a team. The research by while delivering negative feedback, can ind cise issues you wanted me to research. I also
in a chair opposite Sarah so that they would Ken Blanchard proves that highly competent positive things to say. As examples, a partner was very unsure as to what state’s law should
be looking directly at each other. Mr. Smith employees will respond favorably to these may state:
be applied to these facts.”

should not be perched behind his desk but questions and will use these experiences “Although your writing style is very good, Mr. Smith: “Why didn’t you ask me those
rather in the ofice seating area where Sarah as they look for ways to solve problems on the organization and structure of the memo questions as you started on the assignment?”
would feel she was on a more level playing their own.
could be improved, and here’s how.”
Sarah: “To be honest Mr. Smith I was afraid
ield.2
In the above scenario, Mr. Smith clearly “You stated the facts well and your analysis to ask these questions because you might
contributed to the outcome to some degree. of the issues raised by the facts needs work. think I was stupid or something.”
This Is About the Work, Not the Person
He did not adequately explain to Sarah what For example . .”
Mr. Smith: “Sarah, when you work for me
he needed. He did not describe the facts lead- “It is clear to all of us that you have a great there are no stupid questions. Our goal is to
When delivering negative feedback, a law ing to Apex’s potential claims. Mr. Smith did deal of potential and the ability to be a ine get the best work product we can in a timely

irm partner should direct the criticism to the not state which jurisdictions’ bodies of law lawyer. To do that you need to sharpen the fashion. You are only two years out of law
work, and not at the person. This is a touch- were to be researched. He did not invite ques- focus of your research and dig down further school and are still learning. So, never be
stone for building associate self-esteem. One tions along the way if Sarah was stumbling. to ind case law or statutes that will support afraid to ask.”
of the most elementary rules of parenting is He did not set an interim date for a check-in our client’s position. For example . .”
Sarah: “Thanks Mr. Smith. Now I know bet-
that when your child does something wrong, conversation. And, he did not give Sarah a “You did a very good job in identifying the ter and will not hesitate to come see you if I
you should always be careful to say, “Johnny,
speciic deadline but told her only that he
issues. I think you could have tightened up
feel stuck.” » Page S7