Talent spotting

Bond Pearce decided to implement a rigorous assessment procedure for its associates. They wanted to identify potential partnership material as early as possible, but the challenge was to get firm-wide buy-in for the process.

By Tony Askham, partner in charge of HR and training, Bond Pearce, and Debbie Widdop, training and development manager, Bond Pearce.

About four years ago we started looking in detail at what we knew or did not know about the pool of talent in our solicitor cohort across the firm. Who were our stars? Who were the partners of the future and did we have sufficient talent to drive our strategic ‘clients first’ plan over the next few years?

As a firm we had experienced large growth in lawyer numbers, partly as a result of merger activity. We had a wide range of legal specialities, so judging the skills and legal knowledge required to move each forward was going to be difficult, especially as the market in some areas was driving rapid change in the delivery of client service.

Assessing potential

We started at the top by devising an assessment for our board members and partners who might be leaders of the business over the next few years. The process gained buy-in from the large majority of our leaders, who found the assessment challenging yet fair, and the development objectives stemming from it focused on areas that would make the maximum impact. We used the same process for the recruitment of all partners, whether internal appointments or external recruits.

We then turned our attention to our four-to-six year qualified lawyers and the skills they needed to develop to become associates and move onto partnership. We wrote some clear role definitions for our associates and put in place a new promotion system. Our starting point was that at Bond Pearce, being an associate was a role not a ‘badge’. The system, which is still in place, requires a clear business case for promotion. The board decides on the validity of the business case first and, if accepted, the candidate is then assessed and interviewed to determine whether they have the skills and aptitude to perform well in the new role.

The candidate undertakes a battery of ability and personality tests, the results of which are explored during a feedback and interview session with a business psychologist, experienced in senior recruitment and promotion in law firms. The psychologist provides us with a report on the candidate’s strengths and areas for development, and recommends appointment or rejection. A group of three partners interview the candidate, which includes myself as head of HR and training. We then make recommendations to the board. For those who are successful, each is helped to put together their personal development plan and is set clear and stretching business objectives to develop their career over the next two to three years.

This new process is now well-established and accepted as a fair and effective method of dealing with promotion, as well as helping to develop an individual’s skills and career. However, having put this new promotion system in place we were left with a large number of associates who had been appointed under the old system. What were we to do about them? We decided to proceed cautiously and discussed the idea of assessing other associates with all partners. We asked one (now a board member) if she would lead the consultation and the programme that emerged from it. She and I made presentations in all offices to all partners. We went back over a period of time to cement the idea with them and answer their concerns.

Avoiding potential pitfalls

But what were the concerns? Most centered on the need to be honest and open with people about their performance to date, their skills and development needs, and their future career with us. What if we lost people because of the feedback that came out of the process? How would people react to assessment that showed they might not reach partnership? How disruptive would this process be?

Over time people began to see the merits in carrying out the exercise. Armed with this acceptance, our in-house team worked with external business psychologists to design the methodology that would enable us to make a fair and in-depth assessment of the capabilities and potential of the associate group. We also wanted to ensure that whatever process we decided upon there would be input from line management, which helped achieve buy-in for the decisions. We decided we should assess our associate group against the same leadership model that we were using at partner level.

Criteria for capability

This generic model looks at the three key areas of leadership capability, namely:

The core knowledge required of a leader. The model that we used measures commercial knowledge, stakeholder relationship awareness and people management;
The core skills. The psychological wiring of a good leader; decision-making; energy; ability to engage and tune in to people; and influencing skills;
Motivation. Not only in life and work but the motivation to demonstrate the above skills and knowledge. This is crucially linked to an individual’s performance and whether we see the skills and knowledge being used.

In practice, our assessment consisted of:

Psychological profiling – a range of ability and personality tests;
Interview with an external business psychologist trained in the use of the leadership model;
A psychologist’s report, providing an assessment of capability against the model;
Interview with three partners from the project team examining motivation, career aspirations and performance ‘on the job’;
A review of the business performance of the associate, including input from the line manager and consideration of the previous two years’ appraisals.

Feedback to department

Armed with this information, those involved in the interviewing process and the development team agreed what the assessment showed about each associate and what their career opportunities would be if they continued to develop their skills. From this there would be feedback to the associate’s head of department and line manager. At that meeting we discussed our views from the assessment to ensure there was alignment with the views of the partners in the appropriate department. In almost all cases there was no apparent difference in the views obtained and the views of line partners. What was apparent, however, was that line management had an objective way of undertaking discussions about career opportunities and progress for the first time. Historically they may have found this difficult.

We also agreed the feedback to be given to the associate and the business objectives to be communicated, and ensured departments were happy with the career opportunities we were suggesting. We then arranged a feedback meeting for associates with department partners and one of the project partners. That feedback would concentrate on what the assessment process had found about the individual and an honest assessment of their long-term career prospects.

Before starting the process we briefed all who were going to go through it. We explained that the HR team would help to produce a personal development plan following the process. To ensure precious business time was not wasted and the process was seen as career development, it was combined with the year’s appraisals so that line managers could give feedback on performance and set appropriate objectives.

We debated whether to set up an assessment center for a week and do it all in a limited timeframe, but after consultation it was decided to spread the process of assessment and interview over a two-month period.

Analysis of results

We started the process at the beginning of the year and it is now complete. All 22 of the associates in this group have been assessed, feedback has been given and development plans are now underway. What do we know about the group as a result? We know that we have a talented group who are emotionally intelligent; are achievers or transformers; are tactical or strategic decision makers; are commercially astute and strong on clients; and that the majority show leadership and managerial versatility.

We have identified that the core development priorities for the group are to focus on stakeholder relationship awareness and skills to deliver outcomes through others; how to get the best out of individuals; and the need to develop influencing skills.

There were also some core themes to come from interviews, which confirmed what our staff survey showed us. First, we need to continue to develop strategies to support those returning to the business after absence, such as maternity leave. Second, we need to develop ways of offering recognition (internal and external) to those who might not achieve partnership but whose skills are very important to the business. Third, we need to continue to work on the skills of our partners in delivering feedback, coaching and managing their careers.

As suspected, we saw that the business has a wide range of expectations of its associates. It is difficult to drive up overall standards unless we are able to say what the minimum expectations of an associate are. For the first time this project has enabled us to make comparisons and it is clear there are
quite significant differences between associate performance and contribution across the business.

Importantly, if their careers develop as assessments suggest, we have been able to identify a group who should be our partners of the future.

Lessons for the future

We have also identified that many associates have become key to the delivery of services to certain clients and may indeed be the key person in those relationships. Others have skills that are not replicated elsewhere in the firm. The need for active succession planning is apparent.

Just as we have learnt a lot about the associates and their current management, we have also learnt about the difficulties of running a project of this magnitude. The project has taken over six months to deliver from start to feedback. The original intention was to run an assessment center over a week – at which a large number of partners would attend. However, it was deemed that this would waste the time of partners and be too expensive. With hindsight, it may well have been less time-consuming, producing an outcome for the associates and the business within two weeks.

So what are we planning for this group going forward? We must stay involved. First, to provide some of the coaching and guidance that is needed to help this group meet their personal development targets. Second, we need to provide some training to the group collectively.

We have in place a well-developed training and development programme for our newly appointed partners and we will be looking at adapting that to meet the needs of this important group of associates. This programme, which will span approximately two years, will cover areas including:

People management;
Innovation;
Strategic planning;
Business development;
The ‘Bond Pearce way’ of doing things;
Financial management;
IT;
Leadership development;
Personal development planning.

We will also give the group opportunities to get involved in firm-wide projects, which will enable them to heighten their profile across offices, stretch their influencing skills and allow them to practice their people management skills and project management techniques. We will also ensure they receive regular and structured feedback on their progress, with regard to both business objectives and development plans.

So given the large investment in time and resources involved, has the assessment process been worthwhile? It may be premature to comment, but there are clear advantages. For many of our staff, they know their strengths and their development areas for the first time. All understand what they need to do to continue to develop their careers and all have clear objectives to achieve that meet the firm’s business plan. Having a clear knowledge of the group also enables us to begin to develop a succession plan and to really invest in those that have the ability to lead the firm in the future. Only time will tell whether it leads to improved performance overall. 

Tony Askham is partner in charge of HR and training at Bond Pearce and Debbie Widdop is the firm’s training and development manager. They can be contacted at tony.askham@bondpearce.com and debbie.widdop@bondpearce.com