What Is the Future of Performance Feedback?

Annual performance reviews are out, and daily feedback is in. With a new generation of leaders shaping how employee performance evaluations are conducted, the Wall Street Journal recently looked at companies that are replacing annual reviews with real-time assessments.

The idea is to help employees be more productive by giving them opportunities to make adjustments on an ongoing basis. We consider whether there is any role for real-time feedback in the legal profession, where year-end appraisals are typically a long-standing part of law firm culture.

Fostering transparency

Many law firms use a consensus evaluation system, which has been criticized for — among other issues — a lack of transparency around where critical feedback is coming from and information that might provide context for it. Real-time feedback could offer an alternative, but the obvious downside is the awkwardness of delivering that feedback. Firms might overcome this by treating it as a professional development opportunity. Companies who have adopted these tools host workshops and training sessions — some facilitated with AI chatbots — to help leaders practice the skills involved in delivering face-to-face feedback and sharing feedback online via direct messages. Participants also learn how to maintain professionalism and interpret criticism when receiving feedback.

Despite the benefits of delivering more personal and frequent feedback, it’s somewhat hard to picture law firms adopting these systems. For one thing, negative performance reviews play a key role in the annual culling process at many firms. More frequent delivery of reviews could upend that practice. And they would certainly require more time from lawyers who are already very busy.

Reviewing in a group

Some organizations now take a team approach to real-time feedback, gauging traits such as effectiveness in meetings. One model calls for a facilitator to hand out sticky notes in a meeting and divide employees into two teams.

Halfway through the meeting, each team scores how helpful the other team has been on a 1-10 scale; the facilitator collects and shares the scores and leads a discussion about next steps. Following their discussion, teams can change the meeting agenda to ensure that they get the most of their time together. Even when they don’t shift the agenda, meeting participants get immediate feedback on how they operate as part of a team. There’s no doubt most lawyers relish the chance to voice an opinion — but would they be willing to hear constructive criticism from their peers?

Sharing “upward feedback”

Another tool for measuring effectiveness on an individual basis is “upward feedback,” when managers receive feedback from their direct reports. Some companies ask directs to evaluate their managers via an online tool designed to encourage actionable feedback. For transparency, people who submit feedback do so with their name attached so that colleagues can follow up to address any issues they identify. That factor probably makes this one a dealbreaker for firms. It’s hard to imagine a world in which associates felt safe providing critical feedback to the partners they serve.

In an ideal workplace culture, real-time feedback would provide both employees and leaders with information that could improve productivity and performance. But given what we know about the typical law firm culture, where status management rules and the general level of trust in colleagues can be low, it’s hard to imagine firms embracing this next-generation approach to feedback.

Would you welcome the introduction of any of these tools in your firm? Let us know!