New York Lawyer
December 11, 2003

Q:
I�m a partner and our firm has just started using an upward review program. Associates get to give their views of partners, but without having their names used. I can see some usefulness to this approach, but I think this just gives associates a chance to sound off without taking accountability for their views. It can hurt people when somebody has an axe to grind. What do you think?

Submit Your Question

Find More Answers

A:

The more respectful and thorough performance evaluations that an organization can institute, using a variety of approaches, the better. Remember that high performance workplaces of any sort routinely feature candid exchanges of information as part of their success formula. And anonymous reviewing as a transitional step in devising better feedback procedures is fine. It�s good to use in places where there hasn�t been much upwards feedback, or useful feedback of any sort.

For the short term, as long as the anonymous evaluations are properly managed � that is, that inconsistent, possibly vengeful comments are weeded out; the information is delivered respectfully to partners so that they are not angered to the point of wanting to chuck the whole thing; and follow up to ensure improved performance is put in place, so the whole thing isn�t an empty exercise � it�s a useful approach.

People on all sides have obligations. Associates have to remember that their comments can affect people�s reputations significantly, and be measured and careful in their ratings and comments. Partners have to take the remarks on board and realize that better management and performance on their end will redound to the benefit of the firm and the bottom line.

One consultant experienced in dealing with upward reviews programs says they work out well. �Most associates who fill out upward reviews do so honestly and in good faith, just as most partners do with respect to downward reviews,� says Arnie Kanter of Kanter Professional Management. �Where a particular answer appears to be inconsistent with the partner's self-image or the views of other associates, the questions for the partner or coach to ask are: `Are there behaviors of mine that might have led an associate to feel that way? Have I treated some associates differently than others?� If the answers are `no,� the comment may be off base.� He cautions, though, that where several associates come to the same conclusion their views are �almost always worthy of attention.�

There are disadvantages to the anonymous upward review. Because people are afraid of being identified, they won�t include telling details; however, one of the key points of effective feedback is relying on specific details rather than sweeping generalizations. Also, although the tendency will be to reject an �outlier� comment in a sea of positives, in fact the person might be different in some blameless way from the rest of the associates and suffering unfairly for it.

Remember the purpose of feedback: it is to effectively communicate sensitive information, to preserve the relationship between participants, and for the recipient�s conduct to change as a result. These are all vital ingredients. You can get the message across but so alienate the receiver that they just hate you and don�t change. Or you can soft-pedal it to the point that the person doesn�t think he or she has done anything wrong. Another outcome: you can get the message across, and stay friends, but not devise a way to put the plan into action � and nothing changes.

In the longer term, it�s better to work on open communication that goes both ways. Both an anonymous system and more candid communication can operate side by side, ensuring that those people who are too timid to give upward feedback will have an outlet. Individual supervisors should work to develop strong mutual feedback systems. Ideally, people working together should be able to speak honestly and respectfully, without having to resort to anonymous note passing. Some of the keys are:

Stick to the facts. When people resort to judgmental conclusions in describing others, that�s often when the trouble starts. So instead of saying �You�re an angry jerk with a bad temper,� one can say, �When we worked on the Smith case and the brief was late, you screamed at us for ten minutes and scared us half to death.�

Set an example. The way this works best is for the more senior person to welcome critical feedback (as long as it�s respectfully given), and to act on it. One iteration where a subordinate passes along a thought (�you always wait until the last minute�) followed by improved behavior (the partner plans ahead better) will give underlings a vast sense of relief that they can pass on ways to improve a working relationship without being penalized.

Insist on follow up and measurement. If there�s a problem, devise a game plan to improve performance, and a way to measure improvement. Again, it�s best for the senior person to lead the way. It can be, �Okay, I�m going to work on this problem. I�m going to mark down in my calendar that in a month we�re going to revisit this issue, and you can let me know if you�ve seen improvement.� Or it can be more specific: �You�ve told me that I don�t explain things clearly enough. We�ve agreed that I will write out the assignments, that I�ll ask for questions from you, and that I�ll avoid huffing and puffing noises and a lot of eye rolling showing how impatient I am.�

Communicating respectfully about performance not only will make people better performers, they will also feel greater allegiance to and respect for a workplace where feedback is encouraged and actually results in change.

Sincerely,
Holly English
Principal Consultant, Values at Work