A new tool may be added to legal administrators’ skill set – managing gossip. Law firms are known for having active gossip mills. Most legal administrators simply view gossip as a natural phenomenon that can’t be controlled, but new research at Oklahoma State University points out some interesting conclusions about research. While acknowledging that men and women both participate in gossip, the study focuses on women in business organizations.

Big gossipers, the studies found, are seen “as significantly more powerful, more masculine and less feminine than low gossipers” and are more controlling and less emotionally warm, even with their friends. Although gossip is seen as a stereotypical feminine trait, women who are big gossipers are seen as more dominant, aggressive and overtly communicative and as having a greater need to exert influence. In fact, they are viewed as gatekeepers of information and people in the know; they use gossip to reaffirm their own power within the organization.

But for gossip to provide the image of power, it has to involve “insider” information about the firm. Gossip about personal items carries less status than information about firm decisions or even client activities. The research shows that, while there will invariably be some level of gossip, open organizations that routinely provide firm information have less active grapevines because there is less unannounced information to fuel the gossip and meet the status needs of major gossipers. And, there is a positive side of gossip. The research shows that an active grapevine provides a number of incredibly important functions including enforcing group norms, creating a sense of intimacy among those who share gossip, and signaling group boundaries. 

Bottom line, you don’t want to encourage or foster gossip but it should also not be written off as idle chatter. Managers who have learned to manage or direct elements of gossip appear to be able to sway organizational opinions and control cultural change more than those who do not. 

As associate and staff retention becomes a larger part of law firms’ core business strategies, the performance evaluation function takes on even greater importance. But, in many firms, the most sincere intentions are sabotaged by insincere implementation. That is, we are learning that a department director or practice group leader who “goes through the motions” of performing evaluations may have a more detrimental effect on the people firms are trying to keep than not doing evaluations in the first place. 

This is becoming particularly noticeable in firms that have adopted 360 degree evaluations. We performed a highly anecdotal survey of six law firms that take great pride in their performance management systems and, particularly, their evaluation program. We found a direct tie (in fact it was virtually predictive) between overall employee dissatisfaction and attrition, and the effort placed by supervisors (for staff) and practice group leaders (for associates) in preparing and delivering performance evaluations.

The primary negative concerns were:

1.       Lack of sincerity and enthusiasm (one practice group leader reportedly started the evaluation by saying, “I think this is a worthless exercise but I won’t get my pay check unless I do it.”).

2.      Lack of preparation (an employee got ten minutes into an evaluation when both she and the supervisor realized that the evaluation was for a different person).

3.      Superficiality (upon being told that she was not careful enough in her work, a paralegal asked for an example and was told, “I don’t know, it’s just a general impression I have.”).

4.      Lack of importance placed on the process (the evaluator taking phone calls and responding to blackberry messages during the evaluation interview).

5.      Lack of constructive criticism. A frequent complaint is the lack of any suggested remedial actions for areas of deficiency.

One Practice Development Director commented that if he were putting together a PD program from scratch, the first thing he would do is provide ongoing training for anyone with responsibility for doing evaluations.

A basic strategic in coping with recession is to figure out what successful law firms did in the last recession and copy their actions. As we look at firms that used the recession when the tech bubble burst in 2000 as a growth mechanism, we find that they did engage in layoffs but they were strategic. That is, they were based on areas that were not the focus of the long-term growth of the firm, even if that meant reducing staff in offices and practices that were not as slow as areas where staff might not be cut. A survey by corporations experiencing the greatest growth since the last recession by the management consulting firm, Accenture, shows that the companies that focused their cuts on areas that didn’t impact their strategic direction fared best during recovery. For law firms, this might focus staffing reductions and cost cutting on highly competitive practice areas with declining rates. 

Writing samples have been a routine part of the associate selection process in law firms. Now we are seeing candidates for staff management positions in law firms being asked to provide a sample of a significant report or to prepare a writing sample on a specific issue.   In large measure this is in response to bad experiences with staff members, particularly in technical positions, who lack the ability to communicate in writing. As one COO we work with said, “This is a law firm, our lawyers deal with the written word. Someone without the ability to put together an organized and grammatically correct paragraph stands out like a sore thumb.”

There was a time when some law firms had policies prohibiting the rehiring of former employees. The concept seems foreign today, especially in light of firms that are developing special programs to attract associates and staff employees who voluntarily left firms for other employment. Among them are e-mail blasts listing employment opportunities and inviting former employees to return. One firm held an alumni reunion which yielded six associates who choose to return when they learned that the firm would accept them back.

Most law firms reserve video interviews for those situations where it is inconvenient or extraordinarily expensive to do a personal interview. But some firms are using video interviews as an inexpensive screening device that allows a large number of partners in the firm to consider the candidates without the need for a time-consuming interview. By taping a video interview, a large number of partners can view portions of multiple interviews and give their feedback to recruiters. Many recruiters feel that they are less biased if they review videos a couple of days after the actual interview and have the opportunity to focus on the candidate’s responses and body language. One firm we know entered into a contract with Kinkos to provide a volume discount for interviews.