Improving Associate Retention Through Confidential Interviewing

Partners in law firms of all sizes and specialties now realise it is one thing to attract high quality associates, but an even more difficult challenge to retain them. Competition for top quality associates continues to intensify, so effective associate retention is more important than ever.

Programmatic Retention Methods

Many firms have attempted to meet this retention challenge by such measures as increasing associate salaries to meet competitive market rates, offering incentive compensation for extraordinary performance, flexible scheduling, encouraging associates to participate in pro bono programs, providing evening meals or transportation, providing concierge services, expediting insurance coverage, and offering tuition reimbursement and child care services.

At least nominally, many firms have also undertaken to provide improved organizational support for associate professional growth, by means of enhanced communication about career advancement, training and professional development; individual mentoring by partners; and frequent performance feedback.

Notwithstanding the above retention programs, however, associates are still job-hopping from one firm to another, with firm loyalty being more of a rarity than the norm. What is a firm to do if, even after implementing some or all of the above retention programs, its top quality and experienced associates continue to leave the firm?

Confidential In-Depth Interviews

Recently a different approach was implemented successfully at a mid-size law firm that was experiencing low moral and associate “attrition”: personal, confidential meetings with all the associates. The author conducted these meetings in small clusters to obtain associates' perceptions about “what life is like” for associates at the firm. Afterward, the author reported his findings to the Management Committee, recommended an improved career development program for the firm's associates, and facilitated an all-attorney meeting to answer questions about the findings and launch the new program.

Below are (somewhat simplified) examples of discussion questions the author used to establish an initial dialogue with the associates:

• Are the firm's stated values about “open communications and concern for quality of life and professional development” an accurate representation about how you are treated, both professionally and personally?
• How do your opportunities for advancement ' professionally, personally and financially ' compare with those of peers performing similar kinds of work at other law firms and corporations?
• How do you think your total compensation (cash and benefits) compares with the average total compensation paid to peers who perform similar kinds of work and have similar demands on their time?
• Are partners' demands on your billable time and expectations of your total time commitment reasonable (compared to other law practices performing similar kinds of work in private firms and corporations)?
• Do the assignments partners give you add up to a stable, diverse and challenging workload?

Contrary to the expectation of some partners, these meetings with associates did not deteriorate into “bitch” sessions about the firm. Rather, the associates took these meetings seriously and gladly offered constructive suggestions about how partners could establish better working relationships with them and improve overall rapport. A few associates were impressed that the firm had retained a management consultant to address these issues.

Findings

Here is a brief composite of the associates' perceptions about the firm and its partners. Associates felt that:

• Partners were basically “good people” and excellent lawyers who had their clients' best interests at heart. The associates would willingly recommend or personally use members of the firm as counsel.
• The partners did not, however, know how to supervise and develop associates. The associates would like to become partners in this firm ' if only the partners could “get their acts together.”
• Partners were not nearly as interested in the professional development of the associates as they claimed to be. During pre-employment interviews, partners misrepresented the type of training associates would receive.
• When assigning work for a client, partners told associates only what they had to know to complete the assignment, without revealing the rationale for the work and the broader scope of the client project. This made associates feel that they were not an integral part of the team serving the client, and that they were not making a contribution toward satisfying the client's objectives.
• Work assignments at the firm also did not provide associates with appropriate intellectual and personal challenges. They were not being given an opportunity to develop and use their skills and talents in areas in which they excelled.
• More experienced associates were not given sufficient independence and responsibility for their work; partners continued to micro-manage them.
• Associates were among the last to know what the firm's major plans were; eg, most associates were not told in advance that the firm planned to open an office in another city. Partners similarly left associates to learn about mundane developments by chance; a common complaint was that secretaries knew more about what was happening at the firm than the associates.
• Partners failed to provide open and honest communications and constructive feedback about the associates' work.
• The partners talked about opportunities for partnership, but were unwilling to discuss the criteria for making partner or the length of the partner track for senior associates.

These perceived issues had contributed to a considerable amount of discontent among the associates. Fortunately, however, the confidential meetings with associates also revealed that there was more common ground between the associates and partners than had initially been apparent. Moreover, the associates' responses to the author's questions provided insight into strategies and programs the firm could implement to solve the retention problem.

Management Follow-Through

At the conclusion of the associates' meetings, the author met with members of the firm's Management Committee and recommended:

• That the partners commit to making associate development a high priority and to improving communication between partners and associates.
• That firm management reassess all aspects of associate career development at the firm to decide which programs were working, which ones needed to be tweaked, and which required major surgery.
• That firm management formulate objective and subjective evaluation criteria, so that partners could offer constructive recommendations to associates on their performance and personal characteristics.
• That the firm employ a professional human resources specialist to help develop and implement programs for enhancing interpersonal relationships between partners and associates.
• That the firm designate one partner to head a new Associates Career Development Committee.

The author then helped the new committee develop strategies to address the associates' concerns, including enhancing the quality and frequency of communications.

Finally, the author planned and facilitated an all-attorney retreat at which the new career development program for associates was presented. Associates were encouraged to ask questions about the new program, and partners responded directly and candidly.

Results and Conclusion

Within 9 months after the firm's Career Development Program was implemented, virtually all the recommended initiatives were implemented, at least to some extent. The morale of associates improved, and associate turnover declined.

As illustrated by the successful experience of the firm described above, partners and associates should seek to better understand each other's professional and personal objectives, by maintaining ongoing and systematic dialogues. Well planned retreats and other meetings are helpful in promoting such communication, and confidential interviewing can yield further insights for problem resolution.

All these advances in mutual understanding improve professional and interpersonal relationships between associates and partners, and they specifically enhance a firm's ability to retain top quality associates.

Partners in law firms of all sizes and specialties now realise it is one thing to attract high quality associates, but an even more difficult challenge to retain them. Competition for top quality associates continues to intensify, so effective associate retention is more important than ever.

Programmatic Retention Methods

Many firms have attempted to meet this retention challenge by such measures as increasing associate salaries to meet competitive market rates, offering incentive compensation for extraordinary performance, flexible scheduling, encouraging associates to participate in pro bono programs, providing evening meals or transportation, providing concierge services, expediting insurance coverage, and offering tuition reimbursement and child care services.

At least nominally, many firms have also undertaken to provide improved organizational support for associate professional growth, by means of enhanced communication about career advancement, training and professional development; individual mentoring by partners; and frequent performance feedback.

Notwithstanding the above retention programs, however, associates are still job-hopping from one firm to another, with firm loyalty being more of a rarity than the norm. What is a firm to do if, even after implementing some or all of the above retention programs, its top quality and experienced associates continue to leave the firm?

Confidential In-Depth Interviews

Recently a different approach was implemented successfully at a mid-size law firm that was experiencing low moral and associate “attrition”: personal, confidential meetings with all the associates. The author conducted these meetings in small clusters to obtain associates' perceptions about “what life is like” for associates at the firm. Afterward, the author reported his findings to the Management Committee, recommended an improved career development program for the firm's associates, and facilitated an all-attorney meeting to answer questions about the findings and launch the new program.

Below are (somewhat simplified) examples of discussion questions the author used to establish an initial dialogue with the associates:

• Are the firm's stated values about “open communications and concern for quality of life and professional development” an accurate representation about how you are treated, both professionally and personally?
• How do your opportunities for advancement ' professionally, personally and financially ' compare with those of peers performing similar kinds of work at other law firms and corporations?
• How do you think your total compensation (cash and benefits) compares with the average total compensation paid to peers who perform similar kinds of work and have similar demands on their time?
• Are partners' demands on your billable time and expectations of your total time commitment reasonable (compared to other law practices performing similar kinds of work in private firms and corporations)?
• Do the assignments partners give you add up to a stable, diverse and challenging workload?

Contrary to the expectation of some partners, these meetings with associates did not deteriorate into “bitch” sessions about the firm. Rather, the associates took these meetings seriously and gladly offered constructive suggestions about how partners could establish better working relationships with them and improve overall rapport. A few associates were impressed that the firm had retained a management consultant to address these issues.

Findings

Here is a brief composite of the associates' perceptions about the firm and its partners. Associates felt that:

• Partners were basically “good people” and excellent lawyers who had their clients' best interests at heart. The associates would willingly recommend or personally use members of the firm as counsel.
• The partners did not, however, know how to supervise and develop associates. The associates would like to become partners in this firm ' if only the partners could “get their acts together.”
• Partners were not nearly as interested in the professional development of the associates as they claimed to be. During pre-employment interviews, partners misrepresented the type of training associates would receive.
• When assigning work for a client, partners told associates only what they had to know to complete the assignment, without revealing the rationale for the work and the broader scope of the client project. This made associates feel that they were not an integral part of the team serving the client, and that they were not making a contribution toward satisfying the client's objectives.
• Work assignments at the firm also did not provide associates with appropriate intellectual and personal challenges. They were not being given an opportunity to develop and use their skills and talents in areas in which they excelled.
• More experienced associates were not given sufficient independence and responsibility for their work; partners continued to micro-manage them.
• Associates were among the last to know what the firm's major plans were; eg, most associates were not told in advance that the firm planned to open an office in another city. Partners similarly left associates to learn about mundane developments by chance; a common complaint was that secretaries knew more about what was happening at the firm than the associates.
• Partners failed to provide open and honest communications and constructive feedback about the associates' work.
• The partners talked about opportunities for partnership, but were unwilling to discuss the criteria for making partner or the length of the partner track for senior associates.

These perceived issues had contributed to a considerable amount of discontent among the associates. Fortunately, however, the confidential meetings with associates also revealed that there was more common ground between the associates and partners than had initially been apparent. Moreover, the associates' responses to the author's questions provided insight into strategies and programs the firm could implement to solve the retention problem.

Management Follow-Through

At the conclusion of the associates' meetings, the author met with members of the firm's Management Committee and recommended:

• That the partners commit to making associate development a high priority and to improving communication between partners and associates.
• That firm management reassess all aspects of associate career development at the firm to decide which programs were working, which ones needed to be tweaked, and which required major surgery.
• That firm management formulate objective and subjective evaluation criteria, so that partners could offer constructive recommendations to associates on their performance and personal characteristics.
• That the firm employ a professional human resources specialist to help develop and implement programs for enhancing interpersonal relationships between partners and associates.
• That the firm designate one partner to head a new Associates Career Development Committee.

The author then helped the new committee develop strategies to address the associates' concerns, including enhancing the quality and frequency of communications.

Finally, the author planned and facilitated an all-attorney retreat at which the new career development program for associates was presented. Associates were encouraged to ask questions about the new program, and partners responded directly and candidly.

Results and Conclusion

Within 9 months after the firm's Career Development Program was implemented, virtually all the recommended initiatives were implemented, at least to some extent. The morale of associates improved, and associate turnover declined.

As illustrated by the successful experience of the firm described above, partners and associates should seek to better understand each other's professional and personal objectives, by maintaining ongoing and systematic dialogues. Well planned retreats and other meetings are helpful in promoting such communication, and confidential interviewing can yield further insights for problem resolution.

All these advances in mutual understanding improve professional and interpersonal relationships between associates and partners, and they specifically enhance a firm's ability to retain top quality associates.