GCs: How to Manage New Hire Expectations
The results from the 2018 Career Satisfaction survey for in-house counsel make it abundantly clear that most of you crave upward mobility.
June 05, 2018 at 11:55 AM
4 minute read
The results from the 2018 Career Satisfaction survey for in-house counsel make it abundantly clear that most of you crave upward mobility.
When we present a new opportunity to a candidate, especially if the position is at a senior counsel or assistant general counsel level, one of the first questions we are inevitably asked is the ladder climb one: what is the likelihood and time frame for promotion? This question is asked well before we even get to the first interview. Experienced in-house counsel are more realistic and logical when evaluating the lay of the land, versus straight-from-a-law-firm candidates, but that's simply because in-house counsel have seen the dynamic firsthand. Bottom line is that everyone asks.
So, if you are the General Counsel, seeking to make a new hire, how do you manage promotion and title expectations? Unless the hire is being made with successorship specifically in mind, you want to be careful, while also using this as an opportunity to test on culture fit.
There are two very different ways a general counsel can view this topic, and I have lots of experience with both. About half of you take this view: I want someone who will be happy in the role as-is, who won't bug me on day two for a promotion, and who won't fit culturally if they are restless and thinking about titles. About half of you take this view: I want Type A driven ambitious hires, and I'll manage it.
Only hire people who are aligned with your way of thinking about the opportunity at hand and career advancement generally! And be ridiculously candid, with your recruiter and with the candidate directly, about what the new hire should expect. Never oversell the opportunity. Even if you fall into the camp of GCs who want restlessly ambitious souls, be realistic with them about how far and how fast they can really go under your umbrella.
There are some questions you can ask to get a sense of the expectations you will inevitable need to manage post hire. The “where do you see yourself in five years” question is helpful. I recommend asking the candidate about promotions at prior companies or firms. How did the promotional opportunity come about? Expected or unexpected? Did the candidate leap frog a more senior attorney in landing a promotion? Did he or she have to ask for the promotion? Questions along these lines will give you a sense not only of the individual's expectations, but also of the corporate culture at which he or she cut their teeth.
Most candidates for in-house positions know, either from experience or because they have been coached, to take a modest approach at the interview. The “aw shucks” I just want to add value and be a good team player approach. That is, frankly, the best approach for a candidate to take in the absence of more information about what the interviewer may prefer. If you are the GC, you want to press with questions that will test if you are hearing the candidate's true self, or if you are getting an interview persona.
Most GCs assume attorneys are fairly ambitious, and their “bs” radar starts to kick in when candidates get a little too humble. There is some back and forth to this conversation that can start to feel a little sterile. My advice is to persistently press until you feel the interviewee is “getting real” with you. And then hire the person who fits with the expectations you feel good about managing.
Mike Evers recruits attorneys for corporate legal departments throughout the United States. Visit www.everslegal.com. His firm also offers experienced in-house counsel to companies on an adjunct basis.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllA Blueprint for Targeted Enhancements to Corporate Compliance Programs
7 minute readThree Legal Technology Trends That Can Maximize Legal Team Efficiency and Productivity
Corporate Confidentiality Unlocked: Leveraging Common Interest Privilege for Effective Collaboration
11 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Alston & Bird Matches Market Rate for Associate Bonuses
- 2Commentary: Freedom's Just Another Word
- 3Former McCarter & English Associate Fired Over 'Gangsta Rap' LinkedIn Post Sues Over Discrimination, Retaliation
- 4First-of-Its-Kind Parkinson’s Patch at Center of Fight Over FDA Approval of Generic Version
- 5The end of the 'Rust' criminal case against Alec Baldwin may unlock a civil lawsuit
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250