The problems with assessing overall partner contribution

It must be partner appraisal time again because there seem to be a lot of snowflakes on my desk.

Let me explain. At Lewis Silkin, we use a partner appraisal framework which we refer to as the ‘snowflake’. It has six limbs, representing the six areas of contribution that we look for from our partners. The level of achievement of each partner against each limb is plotted on a snowflake-shaped graph. Since we look for a different balance of contribution from each partner, according to his or her particular skills and the needs of the business, each snowflake tends to look different from the others.

This may be a little whimsical for some firms, but by and large the system works well for us at the conceptual level, with broad agreement about the nature of the six roles and the fact that partners should play to their strengths. It also gives a shared language within the firm for the partner-like things we all know we should be doing.

Assessing each partner’s performance against that framework can be a real challenge in practice though. There are a number of practical problems, of which I have been reminded in the current round.

Measuring partner performance

First, some things are much more measurable than others. The easiest contribution of all to measure is a partner’s personal fee generation through his or her own time worked on client matters. It comes to an exact number of pounds and even pence, which can be instantly pulled from the firm’s practice management system.

Contrast that with a partner’s contribution to associate development, for example. Yes, you can measure the number of hours spent on ‘supervision’ or the like, but partners tend not to record time in the same way as each other. This leads to inconsistencies and, in any event, the time spent may have very limited relation to the quality of what was achieved.

Second, the measures we are able to create can become confused with the underlying ‘good’ that they are intended to represent. So, the numeric value of client partner billings can – in the absence of conscious signals to the contrary – become seen as the thing that is valued, rather than the underlying skill and success in building client relationships for which they are (to some extent) a proxy. This tendency is strengthened by the understandable desire that many professionals have for visible and short-term markers of their success in the ‘producer’ role that they first bought into as lawyers.

By contrast to the seductive quality of billing numbers, many longer-term contributions to the public good within the firm can be near invisible, unless the partner is assertive in describing them. Since those apt to contribute to longer-term organisational development may not be the most forward in claiming credit for their achievements, such things can be harder to pick up.

One contribution that might be particularly hard to pick up would be that which a risk management partner made in preventing a major loss from hitting the firm in subsequent years. How would you ever know that a partner’s idea, floated at the risk committee, went on to prevent a financial and reputational disaster, if that disaster never in fact happened (because of the idea)?

Improving the assessment framework

With these challenges (and others) in mind, we may have another look at our assessment framework shortly, more with a view to refreshing our system than overhauling.

It would be good to think that the perfect assessment system is out there somewhere. But, in the time-constrained real world, with the challenges described above and many others related to this area, a meaningful improvement to our current ‘fit for purpose’ snowflake, with added encouragement to all partners to contribute to the long-term profit and sustainability of the firm as well as deliver strong numbers in-year, seem sensible goals to set.

Ian Jeffery is the managing partner of UK law firm Lewis Silkin (www.lewissilkin.com)