Staying power
A recent report by the Law Society, The Great 'Quality of Life' Debate: Best Practice in Staff Retention and Job Satisfaction revealed several worrying trends with two in particular highlighted. Of the firms surveyed, 73% said there were problems with employee retention and 58% identified problems with employee engagement. These are significant and concerning findings.
July 18, 2007 at 08:07 PM
7 minute read
A recent report by the Law Society, The Great 'Quality of Life' Debate: Best Practice in Staff Retention and Job Satisfaction revealed several worrying trends with two in particular highlighted. Of the firms surveyed, 73% said there were problems with employee retention and 58% identified problems with employee engagement. These are significant and concerning findings.
High cost of associate attrition
For law firms, the problem of associate attrition is an increasingly expensive and complex one. Firms that have studied the metrics recognise that they are unlikely to fully recoup their investment in an associate until his or her fifth year. It is then that the associate will have matured into a highly valuable player able to win deals and attract clients. However, that associate is likely to question their commitment to the firm from midway through their third year: do they want to strive for partnership where they are or should they accept one of the tempting offers being promoted by recruitment consultants who see them as rich pickings? It is crucial that the firm keep that lawyer until at least midway through his or her fifth year, by which time it will have had at least one year's good return on its investment. Failure to do so will also mean having to bring in an expensive lateral hire.
Recruitment consultants charge as much as 30% of an associate's salary for their services, so they are keen to promote 'churn' in the firms they service. The loss of expertise to a firm is serious, as are the potential lost clients and the knock-on effect on morale when good people leave. Day-to-day, there is the cost of cover and reassignment of files. When the new associate is hired it will take time for them to settle in and be inducted into the way of the firm, so it is not surprising to read that turnover costs can reach £150k for each £50k worth of salary.
But an effective retention strategy is not just about saving costs: investment in employee engagement can have a positive impact on many aspects of the firm culture, including the bottom line. One of the case studies highlighted in the Law Society research is that of accountants BDO Stoy Hayward which increased its profit per equity partner by 71% in four years – the result of greater employee engagement and communication.
Benefits of assessing recruitment and retention
So what are the benefits of a good workplace retention assessment and what retention outcomes should firms be measuring?
An assessment is important for several reasons:
- it can help a firm to identify the precise nature of any staffing issues across the firm;
- it can help in selecting intervention strategies to address identified challenges;
- it can provide a baseline or point of comparison against which the results of intervention can be compared; and
- results can be used to identify and encourage strategies that are working and to identify what is not working, so changes can be made.
Retention outcomes that should be assessed include:
- turnover rates: turnover is calculated by dividing the total number of leavers during the period multiplied by 100, by the total number of positions in the organisation;
- average tenure (months worked): examining tenure in detail can assist firms in targeting interventions to staff at a particular point in their career; and
- stability index: the percentage of staff that leave the firm within six months of being hired.
This can give particularly helpful information. For example, if the index is high, the recruitment process might be at fault. Too often firms over-sell the job and the firm to prospective employees and then fail to deliver; the disappointed associate leaves to go elsewhere.
Computing current outcomes and setting goals for each department, and for the firm as a whole, allows the firm to identify teams that are struggling and those that are doing well. This facilitates information exchanges within the firm to identify why experiences differ across sites.
Why do lawyers leave?
In human resources parlance, the focus is clearly on 'push' rather than 'pull' factors. Push factors relate to dissatisfaction; for example, lack of access to supervisors, lack of clarity of objectives, poor delegation – the ones that will push the lawyer out the door. Pull factors are those that attract lawyers to a firm, for example, a higher salary. Contrary to what legal headlines would have us believe, however, pull factors are less important as most people will rarely leave a firm where they are happy, even if a greater salary is offered elsewhere: they prefer stability and are keen to establish their reputation.
The Law Society survey highlighted two things lawyers want if they are to stay with a firm. Firstly, good management and secondly, training and development in a way that meets lawyers' needs.
Common to many of the push factors is a lack of good management and supervision. Yet law firms spend only a small proportion of their budgets on training in management and supervisory skills. A reliance on exit interviews often hides the problem: after all, who would criticise the person who is likely to be asked to give them a reference?
The right people in the right job
Training alone, however, will not right the problem. Too often those who have such responsibilities are simply not suited to the task. Lawyers move up the corporate ladder based on their excellent legal skills, but that does not mean they will be happy or suited to taking on management responsibilities.
Firms need to understand the individual's natural work style and whether such responsibilities fit into their interests or aptitudes, otherwise there is a big opportunity for a mismatch, leading to job dissatisfaction and unnecessary employee turnover both for the unhappy partners placed in a management role and the lawyers having to report to them.
Behavioural assessments
That is where behavioural assessments can be helpful. The Birkman Method, developed over 50 years and providing concise, reliable data for identifying the individual's strengths and needs, is a leading behavioural assessment tool which results in a four-dimensional portrait outlining a lawyer's interests and goals, operating styles, motivational needs and behaviour under stress; all factors that impact personal and organisation-wide productivity. The one questionnaire provides up to 30 reports and these can be used at an early stage of an individual's career to test for work styles, allowing a firm to place individuals in positions that suit their personality and allowing them to thrive within a harmonious environment.
An assessment can also assist with training and development by helping to identify the right development programme for the individual lawyer. Here the Birkman Method helps firms learn about how each individual works most effectively so a profile would identify whether a lawyer is:
- suited to a fast-paced speciality or a more cerebral one;
- someone who strives to be in the driving seat or prefers to remain in the background;
- someone who works best in a team or solo, or somewhere in between; and
- one who will find working until midnight on a million-pound deal exhilarating or depressing.
For lawyers who are considering a non-partner path – moving sideways – it can help identify which are their best fits.
Self-actualisation – a key factor
Many lawyers will be familiar with Maslow's hierarchy of needs. His pyramid demonstrated that self-actualisation – the opportunity for self-development – is what drives a person's behaviour once the need for food, safety, love and esteem are met. So, for firms that want a thriving, well-motivated workforce, where lawyers choose to stay and succeed, giving associates the opportunity to meet this high-level need is vital.
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 All'Almost Impossible'?: Squire Challenge to Sanctions Spotlights Difficulty of Getting Off Administration's List
4 minute read'Never Been More Dynamic': US Law Firm Leaders Reflect on 2024 and Expectations Next Year
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1'Largest Retail Data Breach in History'? Hot Topic and Affiliated Brands Sued for Alleged Failure to Prevent Data Breach Linked to Snowflake Software
- 2Former President of New York State Bar, and the New York Bar Foundation, Dies As He Entered 70th Year as Attorney
- 3Legal Advocates in Uproar Upon Release of Footage Showing CO's Beat Black Inmate Before His Death
- 4Longtime Baker & Hostetler Partner, Former White House Counsel David Rivkin Dies at 68
- 5Court System Seeks Public Comment on E-Filing for Annual Report
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