Annual Reviews

I have a like/hate relationship with performance reviews. Annual reviews often turn into sterile rituals. The dynamic of being judged does not suit most individuals. I endorse the idea of comprehensive and meaningful feedback with employees, and recognize it should be a constant effort rather than a once-yearly effort. On the other hand, a manager who was perennially didactic might become a bit tiresome. Moreover, it’s hard to give feedback on the fly during the “heat of battle,” so teachable moments are often lost. So maybe it is better to have performance reviews once a year, rather than not at all.

But the formats seem so standardized. Do all my accomplishments really fit into a matrix of specific, measurable, attainable, results oriented and time bound? Perhaps my greatest result was achieved by accident when I was playing around with an amorphous idea. Do all my deeds need to map into the 5, 6, or 7 avowed goals of the corporation for that year? All we really need is a blank piece of paper and an honest dialogue about what we hope to accomplish in the coming year.

Maybe performance reviews are a legacy of Frederick Winslow Turner, who measured all human output on a rigorously objective scale. That method may make sense if I am handling pig-iron, but does that work for lawyers? Perhaps it does; at least many law firms think so. This Taylor-esque approach sees man as a machine- fine tune here, polish there, find efficiencies, soon to achieve perfection.

But perhaps the goal of performance reviews shouldn’t be perfection and efficiency, but rather self-awareness which, at its best, allows people to tailor their efforts to achieve the most effective result. As Albert Camus wrote, “[A] man should know himself like the palm of his hand, know the exact number of his defects and qualities, know how far he can go, foretell his failures - be what he is. And, above all, accept these things.” Now that would be one heck of a performance review!

On Hiring

When hiring, I’ve found that there are only three criteria that really matter; can the candidate perform the job, can I see myself working successfully with the candidate and does the candidate really want the job. Oddly, the “can the candidate do the job part” is often the one that gets the least scrutiny. Once a resume is reviewed and that person is called for the interview, their ability to actually perform is generally a given. To counteract this presumption, it is useful to have candidates perform simulations, scenarios and testing- in the context of a legal hire, reviewing a contract or conducting a simulated negotiation. Awards, honors, and professional trade association activities can act as a measurement by proxy for this criterion.

The second standard- “can I see myself working successfully with the candidate” is, by definition, largely subjective. Key areas where a compatible working style matters most are in- how does a candidate like to be communicated with, how does a candidate make decisions, and how does a candidate deal with adversity. This is the area where the art of a good interview pays dividends and is important to have questions prepared in advance and asked in the same way of all candidates. While I largely trust my judgment on compatibility issues, I do like to solicit feedback from other interviewers to triangulate my intuitions. This also helps me fight the tendency to blindly trust my first impressions.

Often the least considered aspect is whether and why the candidate wants the job. The trick is to suss out what motivates a candidate and will this motivation lead to a continuing passion to improve on the job and a continuing happiness with what an employer has to offer. In my opinion, a mismatch of motivations is the primary reason for most job dissatisfaction and performance issues.

There are of course, other factors that get baked into a hiring decision including budget, location, timing, the state of the business, and the like. This post is not meant to be a comprehensive overview of my hiring strategy, but does provide some insight into my general philosophy. I’d be interested in hearing about yours.

Ship of Gold

In 1857, the SS Central America sunk during a hurricane off the Carolina coast, taking with it over 400 passengers and 30,000 pounds of gold. The story of the ship, its sinking, and its eventual salvage in 1987 by a group of deep-sea explorers led by Tommy Thompson (the marine engineer, not the politician), is chronicled in Ship of Gold in the Deep Blue Sea by Gary Kinder. Apart from being a rousing story of human endurance and adventure, Ship of Gold is one of the best business books I have ever read. Yes, I do mean business book; there is more to learn in this tome than in ten standard MBA textbooks. The story holds remarkable case studies in the importance of following one’s passion, managing vision, overcoming failure, raising capital, dealing with unique personality types, assembling teams, fostering innovation on the fly, and managing knowledge; and on a darker note, avoiding the treachery of unscrupulous competitors, dealing with overweening regulation, managing inevitable legal wrangling, and the managing the paramount need to preserve trade secrets.

Also of note, the author, Gary Kinder, is a lawyer by training, and teaches advanced legal writing courses throughout the US. I suspect that these classes offer great value to all who have the opportunity to attend.

In any case, if you have read Ship of Gold, please share your thoughts. Do not miss this superb book.

Questions into Answers

Most of my friends from high school gravitated to engineering professions. Although I didn’t follow an engineering path, I like to think of law as the physics of human dynamics. Unfortunately, human behavior doesn’t often follow the neat predictability of a scientific formula or a law of physics. Members of society tend to be fractious, inconstant, and unpredictable. The law seeks to impose order on a society of loose ends, incompleteness, and uncertainty. These imperfections can be frustrating to legally-trained minds because it violates the hope that for every problem there must be an answer, if only one had access to the right case, statute or regulation.

I have posted in my office the following quote from Rainer Maria Rilke, the great German poet of the early 20th century:

Be patient toward all that is unsolved in your heart and try to love the questions themselves…

To me, this idea invites us to consider that the uncertainties, gaps and imperfections of life are not hateful things, but rather puzzles which challenge our better nature.

Even better is the full quote which reads:

Be patient toward all that is unsolved in your heart and try to love the questions themselves, like locked rooms and like books that are now written in a very foreign tongue. Do not now seek the answers, which cannot be given you because you would not be able to live them. And the point is, to live everything. Live the questions now. Perhaps you will then gradually, without noticing it, live along some distant day into the answer.

And so in the midst of all the uncertainties, questions, and chaos of modern life, we live our answers. Similarly, the higher essence of law isn’t found in a statute book, but rather in an understanding of living, breathing human nature.

Ranier Maria Rilke (portrait by Paula Modersohn-Becker)