Selecting for success

There are many tools that can be used to aid effective recruitment from competency-based interviews to psychometric and ability tests. Most corporates are used to practising such methods as part of their HR process, but many law firms continue to apply wholly subjective methods of assessment and those that have embraced the latest recruitment tools, have often failed foul of misapplying the techniques to the particular requirements of the vacant position. Bettina Alderton, an occupational psychologist at Longbridge International assesses the opportunities and pitfalls for law firms looking to recruit and retain the best.

The corporate world has successfully embraced the benefits of objective measurement in the selection and development of employees, and is proud to demonstrate the value to their shareholders. Some managing partners in law firms, however, still believe that objective measurement is somehow culturally inapplicable to a law practice. Given that partnerships have more demanding shareholders than the average corporate, can management continue or afford to ignore the lessons that have been learnt from leading corporations on the most effective and efficient method of selecting and developing staff?

Our research indicates that law firms are paying the price for using subjective rather than objective evidence to base selection and development decisions. This is having and will continue to have an affect on the bottom line, and naturally this is where shareholders, that is, the partners, suddenly become more interested.

Implementing objective measurement, in the right way, can lead to significant financial as well as cultural gains for a firm, by reducing turnover and increasing productivity and efficiency through selecting the “right person for the job”. This also has a significant affect on the bottom line by reducing training costs and associated costs of getting recruitment wrong. Managing partners who are cost conscious are culturally beginning to realise that this is where the savings are to be made; rather than cutting recruitment fees, it is about hiring and developing the right people.

Best practice

Objective measurement consists of a range of tools from structured, competency-based interviews to ability, aptitude, motivation, personality and leadership capability. These powerful tools can be used to efficiently and objectively enhance decision-making in assessment, promotion and succession planning. This methodology has been consistently shown and validated to be a better predictor of job success than unstructured interviews, by enabling a more objective analysis of individuals.

There are a few law firms using occupational tests and questionnaires in selecting lawyers and support staff. However, implementing ability tests and personality questionnaires per se, rather than analysing their specific relevance to the job role, can actually have a detrimental effect. Our research indicates that in some instances psychometric tests have been used as part of a selection process but without the relevant competencies having been identified. Naturally this provides no value and indeed is actually harmful. Successful objective measurement can only be achieved with thorough job analysis and the identification of the competencies required for the role.

Best practice dictates that we need to define the skills, knowledge and abilities to perform the job role. This process, called job analysis (a formal procedure for gaining information about a job) identifies the relevant competencies, which then in turn determine which assessment method would be most suitable to measure a person’s suitability for the job role and level. After this is completed and the competencies clearly established, we can think about the appropriate tools and assessment method.

Selecting lateral hires

When firms select partners either internally or through a lateral hire, knowledge, skills and abilities should be measured in an objective way to ensure that decisions are made with a high degree of “predictive validity” to ensure that the individual will be a high performer in the new position. Some firms are using these methods for internal promotion but interestingly not for external selection. One needs to question the logic here, as often less or no objective information is known about an external hire and therefore even more caution should be taken in basing decisions on information unrelated to how well someone is likely to perform in the job role. Firms need to consider that if an employee decided to leave the firm and then re-apply at a later date for a position through the external route, they would be subject to a completely different selection process, often one that is a lot less vigorous and effective.

Expensive gamble

Using subjective evidence to base recruitment and development decisions upon will not tell you if an individual actually possess the skills and the ability to perform to the level required. All too often a subjective decision is made about an individual’s level of ability and personality fit. It is then at a later stage, when significant costs have been incurred in selecting and developing the individual, that information regarding the employee’s lack of necessary skills and ability to perform the specific job role comes to light.

Measuring specific needs

Objective measurement not only enables a firm to select the right person for the job, but also allows the selection process to be tailored to the specific needs of the role and the firm. For example, if you want to select a partner with leadership ability, then it is possible to objectively measure specific leadership competencies that are relevant to the job role and the organisation’s culture. Your firm’s definition of leadership may be different from your competitors’. Using a generalist approach can often miss such valuable information. A further advantage in using objective tools is that they allow identification of the team “fit”. It may be that your firm has a team of “finders” and “minders” but lacks “grinders”. It is possible to identify the competencies relevant to this particular role, and this information can be used to objectively measure candidates against, in order to select the ideal person to join an existing team.

The management challenge

Management in law firms need to challenge the status quo and really look at the effectiveness of the selection and development methods they are currently using. They need to ask what value they are gaining from their present methods? Do these methods allow an objective measurement of the key knowledge, skills and abilities necessary to perform the job role? Does the information from the selection process objectively inform, in order to make appropriate selection decisions based on who is the best person for the job? Can objective comparisons between applicants be made? If the answer to any of these is “no”, we need to ask “why not”? We then need to start readdressing the balance by improving existing methods and ensuring there is at least consistency between internal partner promotion and lateral hire.

Bettina Alderton is an occupational psychologist at Longbridge International. She can be contacted at balderton@longbridge.com.