Associate Life Survey: Dreading That Review?
We received about 600 responses to this week's ATL / Lateral Link survey on associate reviews, and there were some interesting twists.
First, while most firms, 60%, only conduct reviews once a year, a growing number, 35%, are providing six-month reviews as well.
A handful of firms split the difference, conducting six-month reviews for laterals and first-year associates, but then defaulting back to once a year. Others are conducting mid-year reviews for "underperforming" associates only, which doesn't appear to be a great recipe for great press.
Of course, not many associates think that they're underperforming:
* Almost 90% of respondents said that their reviews were "positive" (29%) or "very positive" (57%).
* Only 6% of respondents said that their reviews were "negative," and only one percent thought they were "very negative."
* The remaining 7% thought their reviews were simply "neutral."
But even though almost 90% of respondents thought their reviews went well, that doesn't mean they thought the reviews were fair. In fact, about a quarter of associates who thought their reviews were positive still said that they were actually more likely to look for a new job in light of those reviews.
Find out more about how associates reviewed their reviews, after the jump.
Although almost 90% of respondents thought their reviews went well, less than 80% thought the reviews were actually fair.
* Not surprisingly, most of the associates who received negative reviews (and all of the associates who received "very negative" reviews) thought they were unfair.
* About 35% of associates receiving merely "neutral" reviews also thought they were unfair, presumably because they expected more positive feedback.
* But about 10% of associates receiving "positive" reviews thought they were unfair, and even a handful of associates who thought their reviews were "very positive" still thought they were unfair.
The difference between how reviews went and how secure associates felt about their jobs afterward is even more striking.
* Only about half of associates felt "more secure" (36%) or "much more secure" (18%) about their jobs after receiving their reviews.
* Another 9% felt "less secure", and 4% felt "much less secure."
* About 44% of associates who received merely "neutral" reviews felt less secure about their jobs after their reviews.
* But so did 11% of associates who received "positive" reviews and 2% of associates who received "very positive" feedback.
So, why are even the associates with positive reviews unhappy about them?
Most likely, what seems "unfair" to the associates receiving positive reviews is not the substance of the reviews themselves, but rather the bonus that follows them. As one commenter put it:
One thing that might also need to be considered is that some of us have raises linked to our reviews now. My latest review was excellent, but they still screwed me on my raise due to "economic concerns." So while my review itself was positive, I'm more tempted to look for another job because of the pittance raise they gave me as part of it.
These "economic concerns" obviously impact job security, not just for the "underperformers" getting weak reviews, but also among associates who are only receiving average reviews. In the current climate, even "neutral" reviewees might get caught in the crossfire if a firm decides to make cuts. And 44% of them appear to be worried about just that.
The economics are also making quite a few star performers look for new employers with more appealing bonuses. About 25% of associates who thought they received "positive" reviews, and 5% of associates who received "very positive" feedback, said that they were more likely to look for a new job in light of their last review.
Conversely, only six percent of associates who received merely "neutral" reviews said that they were less likely to look for new jobs, with 54% going the other way. (Associates receiving negative reviews were uniformly more likely to look for new work.)
But are the economics also affecting the substance of the reviews, rather than just the size of the bonus?
Maybe. None of the respondents in practice areas like investment management, energy, and bankruptcy reported bad reviews, but 16% of structured finance associates and 12% of real estate associates were given poor marks.
Perhaps they have a legitimate gripe about fairness after all.
--
Justin Bernold is a Director at Lateral Link, the sponsor of this Associate Life Survey.
(36) Comments
FIRSTIES yay!
omg!!! i can't believe this--first time!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
#1 here.
still can't believe i was first. yay!!!!!
wow, this so freaking exciting.
i must confess, it's not really my first time. it's about my third or fourth time... but i haven't been first in so long and it feels so good.
is anyone firsty?
As a government lawyer, I am curious: are law firm reviews like military fit reps? Are you doomed if you get anything less than exemplary reviews?
Justin Bernold is an idiot bar none. These pieces are truly appalling. And the pics of the cats, well, the less said the better. TRULY.AND.UTTERLY.DEPLORABLE.
DAMN 1 - I WILL GET YOUR NEXT TIME :( :(
I AM SO DESPERATE TO BE FIRSTY, SO SO DESPERATE!!!!!!!!!!!! I WANNA DO IT MORE THAN ANYTIHG NELSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I don't even read the pieces, which have no relevance to my life. But 4 is TTT for not recognizing the greatness of lolcats.
I love the cat pictures!!! But I agree, the story sucked. If you're going to write about a dull topic like reviews, at least write about slightly interesting discrepancies among firms, like which firms let associates have copies of their reviews and which don't, and which firms say which partner made the comments in the review. And then tie that into which firms have let people go for 'performance' issues.
#1 here again.
Sorry to hear about your loss #5. Best of luck in the future!
wow, i can't believe i am still firsty, i've had so much to drink already. oh well, F-I-R-S-T-I-E-S!!!!!!
:D
Can you grown-ups stop saying "firsty"/"firsties"? It's creepy.
What is with all the god damn cat photos? It's what the secretaries (before they were fired) used to look at and laugh. What happens when the cat photos run out? Surely there's no endless supply of retarded cat photos? Please?
Elie...your first task should be to phase out the cat photos.
Wait until next time, #1, I"LL GET YA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I"LL MAKE IT HAPPEN - IM GONNA SATISFY MY FIRSTINESS NO MATTER WHAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
4, 10 - Why do you get so worked up about the stupid cat photos? Do you really have so much undirected rage that you need to rant about something this pointless in blog comments? I personally think your posts protesting the cats are hilarious and make the cat photos worthwhile even though I otherwise wouldn't care one way or the other.
Please stop with the retarded cat photos already
12 - Why do you get so worked up about the comments criticizing the stupid cat photos? Do you really have so much undirected rage that you need to rant about something this pointless in blog comments?
i hate cats, but THIS lolcat photo is toooo cute!!! (plus i was a big fan of Tom and Jerry)
14 - Yes.
12
Love the cats
hate the cats.
cant the site do a poll here?
Who supplies all the cat pictures for this site??? ATL loves cats
I don't usually like the cat pictures, but this one is pretty cool.
Yay LOL cats! And I also think the firsties and the thirdsties and the ones who want to be either are cute in a funny way.
14, if 12 and people like 12 did not post, then the only posters would be those complaining about the lolcats, which would make it more likely for ATL to stop using them. Since 12 likes the lolcats, it makes sense for 12 to complain about the complainers. Ya dig?
love the lolcats
22 - If the lolcat-haters don't post their complaints, then it's less likely that ATL will stop using them. Ya dig?
- 14
Psycho cat-hater, please get some therapy so you can move on with your life.
Every post by Justin has those lame lolcats. Maybe it's to detract from the overall lack of substance in the post itself? Maybe it's some misguided attempt to establish a "hook" that readers can view and feel better because they know it's good ol Justin?
In any event, variety is good. Repeated LOLCATS are bad. The duck one above is funny. But that's the first funny one in a long time. Most of them are childish and more apt for a teeny-bopper site.
Reviews mean NOTHING when it comes to making partner. Go ahead and drink the Kool-Aid if you want, but remember that money talks and bull$hit walks. Everything comes down to one of two things: (1) having a powerful partner who needs you to stick around the firm and work his clients (so he can enjoy the good life), or (2) having your own book of business. Please don't be naive and think that because your review was great, outstanding, superior, etc... that you're on track for partnership. There are only two tracks to partnership, and if you're not on one of them, you're better off looking for a new job.
13, how do you know those cats are retarded? they look perfectly fine to me.
28 - u so silly! LoLove it!
28:
I'm assuming they are retarded based on their poor grammatical skills.
- 13
28:
I'm assuming they are retarded based on their poor grammatical skills.
- 13
Seriously, what kind of a person hates kittens? LEWW gets champagne glasses. The surveys get LOL cats. Pretty easy to scroll on by if you don't like kittens. (But again, what kind of person hates kittens?)
They are actually genius cats who are speaking in a pidgin english they've picked up on the web. Another vote for the lolcats.
i love lolcats.
Post a chart or two. It would let us see the distribution better.
X axis = review quality
Y axis = fairness
X axis = review quality
Y axis = job security.
this is an excellent lolcat!