Law Practice Today

In a recent survey about training and development in a law firm, one associate said, “It’s about the feedback, stupid.” It’s a clever quip, and a good example of poor feedback. That said, a major element in training and development of associates is the feedback. Yet in every law firm for which I have facilitated partner evaluations and firm-wide surveys, feedback is the number one complaint by associates about their training and development. This complaint never comes as a surprise to law firm leaders, either. They often say that they expected it. But there is something that can be done about it.

Often the explanation for the lack of feedback is that the person responsible for providing it is too busy. Sometimes an associate’s complaint of not receiving enough feedback engenders a resentful response like this: “I don’t have time to hold his hand. If that’s what he needs, maybe he isn’t cut out for this environment.” It is tough to give good feedback, but being too busy is no excuse. Feedback requires time but not that much, considering that good feedback will motivate associates to work harder for you and to be better in tune with what, how, and when you need the work done. Your feedback to an associate tells her or him a lot about you and sets the parameters for your future work together.

Finding the time is just one aspect of giving good feedback. It also requires setting the stage for the work to be done and also being aware of how giving feedback makes you feel. It requires sensitivity based on knowing the associate well enough to deliver the good and the bad news. There is no “one size fits all” formula to giving feedback. There are real and important differences in personality style among the associates. Understanding those differences is an important element of being a good manager of people. You don’t talk to each of your children the same way, or each of your siblings, or each of your friends. You develop a sense of what and how they can hear what it is you have to say, and you modulate how you deliver news they probably would rather not hear.

I once heard it said that dealing with people is more difficult than dealing with anyone else. Even praise can get dicey (more on this below). So what can you do?

First, keep in mind that in almost all instances, the person is doing the best that he or she can do. Law firm associates are rarely slackers. “You aren’t trying hard enough” is probably not the feedback that you will be giving. If it is, you had better be prepared to provide “evidence” that lead you to the inference you are making. A general statement of not trying hard enough is often simply not sufficient feedback. Sometimes it is more accurately an example of “blaming the victim.” If a draft of a motion is not acceptable, did the person not try hard enough, or does he or she lack information such as the form and content you expected?

Second, you need to delegate well. That is, you need to take the time to set clear

expectations. To do well, associates must fully understand what needs to be done, in what timeframe, with whom, and with what resources. Without a “job description” framing the tasks to be done, the timeframes, and the resources, it will be hard to give feedback. It is not sufficient to say, “Here is a job. Go do it,” and then, when it is done, “This is not good enough. Do it over.” While I exaggerate to make the point, I am sure that a few of you reading this article are nodding your head. Time spent at the delegation stage is time saved on the feedback end of the project. With clear expectations, periodic updates, and review of status, the task of feedback is easier – you have clearly stated expectations on which to base the outcome and the specifics of the feedback.

Third, feedback, like voting in the famous adage, needs to be delivered “early and often.” Even firms that provide reasonably good annual evaluations find that there are still complaints about getting feedback. Even a thorough annual performance evaluation cannot take the place of ongoing feedback. Feedback should be contemporaneous with the event or incident. It is a comment on a significant incident in the course of doing the work. While the annual evaluation is a summary of all of these incidents over the course of the previous months, there should be absolutely no surprises in the annual evaluation. Every incident noted in the annual evaluation should have been previously brought to the attention of the associate at the time providing an opportunity to learn and change at that time. “I wish I had known this before,” is a sign of missed communication (either not delivered or not heard) and undermines any relationship, whether personal or professional.

Fourth, the feedback needs to be specific. It should be based on the expectations laid out at the beginning of the task and should reference what was done well and what could have been done better:

“Thomas, at the beginning I thought we were both clear on the deadlines for this brief. I understand that you were pressured to work on another matter, but it is not acceptable to me that this is late and seems rushed; you’ve done better work for me in the past. You should have come back to me to let me know the conflict you faced. We could have discussed the options. I am disappointed that you didn’t manage this well. There are always conflicts in our work, and success lies in figuring out how to manage them.”

If the feedback concerns behavior about which the person might not be conscious, it is important to be clear:

“John, I need to discuss with you some things that I noticed in the meeting. I am concerned that the behaviors that I noticed in this meeting and in a couple of previous meetings might work against the kind of relationships that you want to build with your colleagues on the team. I noticed that you kept tapping your pencil throughout the meeting and that your leg was going a mile a minute. You interrupted Sandy and Mark a couple of times before they finished their comments. I’m not certain what to make of these behaviors, but I am concerned and want you to be more aware of what you are doing. Were you aware of these behaviors?”

Further, it is not feedback to simply mark up a draft with red ink and hand it back to the associate to learn from your edits. Learning to write well, in the manner you want things to be written, requires clear expectations ahead of time, explanation of criticism, and ongoing coaching.

Fifth, you need to be aware of your own feelings in order to be comfortable delivering feedback, especially when it is feedback critical of the person’s work. By the way, there is a big difference between being tough (a sometimes important capability for a manager) and being a bully. Fortunately, bullies are rare but the cost of having one is quite high; it can become part of the folklore of the firm. Bullies use the guise of high standards to humiliate and berate (often in public), and they rarely, if ever, get the best results from others who are abused. Sometimes bullying behavior is explained by the cliché, “He (she) doesn’t suffer fools gladly.” This terrible notion labels the individual needing the benefit of honest feedback as a “fool.”

Often the person providing negative feedback will experience a range of difficult personal feelings when faced with delivering the news. We all know the highly charged language that is sometimes used to describe negative feedback – “This will kill him,” or “She’ll blow up if I tell her that.” It is often much easier to avoid the feelings – those you assume the recipient will have but also your own. Guilt is often a cause for avoidance, sometimes, as mentioned above, for good reason – “I haven’t been clear enough,” “maybe I gave too much for her to do.” Even when we have been reasonably clear, we can feel guilty about hurting someone’s feelings with our feedback. As a result, we might be vague or gloss over critical feedback, perpetrating a kind of “grade inflation,” or avoid it altogether. Unfortunately, without accurate, timely feedback, the associate doesn’t have the opportunity to improve, and the shortcomings that might have been amenable to change become ongoing problems.

It helps if you put yourself in the other person’s shoes. Ask yourself, “If it were me needing to hear the feedback, how would I want to hear it?” We asked managers a similar question when they were preparing to terminate a large number of people as a result of a merger, and all of them said a variation of: “Give me the news straight out, and let me get on with dealing with it.” It does not help to sugarcoat things and it certainly hurts to be “damned by faint praise.”

Praise can be just as tricky as criticism and, of course, just as important. Glossing over praise is also a missed opportunity. “You did great,” is nice to hear, but what exactly did the person do that was great? Be specific:

“Martin, you did a great job on that project. I especially appreciate the fact that you were on top of the deadlines, kept me informed, and wrote a very well thought-out draft of our position. I enjoyed working with you because your energy and enthusiasm was a value to the team.”

“Mary, that had to be a tough meeting for you. It seemed that you were not getting a lot of support for the idea that I know you had been working hard on and that you thought had a lot of potential. You were calm and gently persistent, which I think was just the right approach given the early stage of this process. I think your work and your ideas are very good, and I also think that the group is going to see that as we continue to work on this project. Rather than getting mad at a couple of insensitive comments, you stayed above that and I very much appreciate your professional approach.”

Finally, it is important to document the feedback and the discussion you have with the associate. Being contemporaneous is important, but the details of the feedback will fade in memory if you don’t write them down. When the time comes to provide input for the annual evaluation process, you will have memorialized the feedback interaction and it will be valuable input. This way there are no surprises in the evaluation.

In summary, be straightforward and clear about the task (what, by when, with what resources), provide feedback contemporaneously (during the task, at reasonable checkpoint intervals, and at the end), be specific with praise or criticism based on clearly stated expectations, and document the feedback so that it will be fresh when you add it to the annual evaluation process.

A firm can develop policies and practices to encourage the feedback process. Some firms are working on intranet-based systems that provide and accumulate feedback for annual reviews. These interesting and important steps can be evidence that the firm takes the need for meaningful feedback seriously. However, procedures and systems cannot deal with the complicated feelings engendered by the give and take of feedback. That aspect of feedback will only be improved with awareness of where you personally get stuck, information on how to be good at it, and support for trying.

FEEDBACK CHECKLIST

Be very clear about the assignment – This is the critical “delegation” process. The associate needs to know what exactly is expected – the work product expected, when it is due, and what resources should be considered in the process. You are anticipating the what, by when, with whom questions and also letting the associate know when you would like updates.

Give feedback on every assignment and at each “checkpoint” – This will help you keep things on track and make certain there are no surprises at the end of the assignment. Giving feedback is part of almost every interaction relating to the work. It is not often recognized as such, but each interaction is an opportunity to be specific about where the work stands and how the individual is contributing to the overall process. Contemporaneous feedback is essential to the associate’s continuing development. It does not help to hear months later that there was an earlier opportunity to improve.

Be specific – General statements about work quality do not allow the associate to make necessary adjustments.

Be careful about how you deliver the message – It might be fine to shoot an email or voicemail for brief, encouraging checkpoint feedback – “The initial draft looks fine, you’re on the right track, and I look forward to the next draft when you have incorporated the material that the others just gave you.” When you need to have more of a dialog on either positive or negative performance issues, it is always better to sit face to face.

Ask for the associate’s point of view – Maybe you can learn something from the perspective of the associate who is receiving feedback from you. Maybe you were not as clear as you think you were. Maybe you delegated work that was not within the associate’s capacity. Try to make the process a two-way street.

Take the time necessary – Don’t give feedback on the fly. Sit down, make it a comfortable learning environment, and try not to be interrupted. Deliver the point and then leave time for the individual to hear what you have said and respond.

Revisit the feedback – If you have given feedback that might have been difficult for the associate to hear, it is always helpful to go back later and ask, “What are your thoughts on the feedback that I gave you, now that you have had a chance to think about it for a couple of days?” In fact, it might be helpful to leave the door open. You might say, “I am open to talking about this further when you have had a chance to think about it. Let me know.”