| The Case for Assessment: Using Discrimination for Better Hiring |
|
By Ronda Muir, Esq. Hiring has always been a game of odds. We look at a candidate’s resume, check references and do a face-to-face. Then most of us take a slightly educated flyer. The data on lawyer retention makes it clear how much of a crapshoot hiring really is. According to the NALP Foundation for Law Career Research and Education’s Keeping the Keepers II report, 15% of entry-level associates leave their jobs each year. As for lateral associates, for whom we theoretically have more and better information at hiring time, 20% leave each year. And the number of those lawyers leaving for performance-related reasons has increased every year since 1999. Wouldn’t it be great if we could predict more accurately which potential associates or partners would turn out to reliably work hard, produce high quality work, treat clients well, be loyal and deal honorably with others at the firm? Title VII makes it harder to ask some of the questions that people used to ask, directly or indirectly -- and maybe for the wrong reasons – to help gauge some ephemeral “extra” about candidates: such as marital status , sexual orientation, plans for children, the state of their mental and physical health, any run-ins with the law. The point of such questions usually was to find someone like the interviewer himself. It wasn’t necessarily fair or even very effective, but it was a way to weed out some of the alternatives. More (and More Diverse) Candidates to Choose From Each year, more law students are graduating from law school. In addition to there being more candidates in absolute numbers, the success of modern anti-discrimination laws has produced many more kinds of candidates than there used to be, some hailing from far-flung backgrounds. This plethora of good fortune only heightens the dilemma of how to make a good choice, of how to be “discriminating” in the old, good sense of the word. Barry Schwartz’s recent bestselling book The Paradox of Choice makes the case that an increase in possibilities often just produces paralysis instead of better choices, and that a wider range of options may well impair not only the ability to make a decision but also the integrity of the decision-making process. How to Choose? So how do you decide whom to hire? The traditional selection process has been based on what appears on the candidate’s resume --the pedigree of the law school, grade point average, moot court and law review achievement -- combined with a certain “feel” that the personal interview generates. Some interviewers winnow down their choices simply by resorting to a legal version of the old “in my mold” standard: preferring graduates of their law schools, or children of their friends or, with laterals, lawyers from whom they once sat across the boardroom or courtroom. Or they may have other personal touchstones. Since Title VII only proscribes hiring decisions based on the legally protected taboos of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability and age, you can still choose to hire only brown-eyed people, only those who love the old jazz standards (“no hip-hop in this shop!”) or whoever else you think makes a good hire. A recent article in the New York Times Job Market section reported that Merrill Lynch, Prudential, Sony and a number of other household names are using handwriting experts to help evaluate candidates. Graphologists can tell you, one satisfied user explained, what no HR interview can determine -- things like honesty, aggressiveness (for the good and the bad), stability. A psychiatrist responded that there are a lot of gullible people out there: “You’d think hard-nosed business people would be the last to be taken in, but they’re lapping it up.” In Japan, a candidate often includes his blood type on his resume, since the perceived wisdom there is that blood type determines personal characteristics. So, for example, a Japanese company might advertise that it is looking for blood type Bs to fill a middle management position. All of these methods at least accomplish what Professor Schwartz says we want: a way to reduce our choices. But using these kinds of methods may well leave us feeling that we’ve missed the boat, discrimination-wise. And certainly the turnover statistics support that conclusion. Isn’t there some better way to make good hiring decisions? Discriminating Well Daniel Goleman is known for defining, assessing and promoting emotional intelligence -- his shorthand for a set of identifiable skills critical for dealing well with one’s own and others’ emotions. His studies show that there are three variables that can be ascertained about an aspiring candidate: 1) raw intelligence, 2) relevant experience and 3) emotional intelligence. A high score on one of these variables is more predictive of success than the other two combined. Which one? Emotional Intelligence and Other Interpersonal Skills The extraordinary and unexpected findings of these studies are that emotional intelligence and other interpersonal skills are more determinative of success, even for high-performance professionals, than both finely measured IQs and carefully constructed resumes taken together. The results have been replicated over different national cultures, different types of professions and with respect to applicants different in experience, race, gender and age. In those organizations using personal style assessments in their hiring, training and promotion, turnover has been reduced as much as 70%, productivity has increased as much as 140% and bottom-line profitability has grown as much as 130%. Goleman has developed an assessment specifically for gauging an individual’s Emotional Intelligence Quotient. Included in this broad category are such attributes as: emotional awareness, accurate self-assessment, self-confidence, self-control, trustworthiness, conscientiousness, adaptability, innovativeness, drive to achieve, commitment, initiative, optimism, empathy, service orientation, ability to mentor and to leverage diversity, political awareness, the abilities to influence and communicate with others, to lead, manage conflict, build relationships, collaborate and build teams. Other instruments also measure these types of personal attributes or skills. The old assessment standard is the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, a series of simple questions that can be answered in 20 minutes. Used for over 60 years, this assessment places each person in a matrix of 4 X 4, or 16, personality “types.” Other widely available assessment instruments include the Birkman Method, the California Personality Inventory, Raymond Cattell’s IPAT and the MMPI. Both the Gallup Organization and Professor Martin E. P. Seligman, one of the leading psychologists today in the field of positive psychology, have recently developed assessments to identify “signature strengths.” These assessments are based on research indicating that employees who use their individual strengths in their work are more effective and more satisfied. Whatever test is used, these are not clinical tests -- they do not measure mental health. But what they do purport to do, in the context of a law firm, is predict with a higher degree of accuracy than the individual’s LSAT or GPA scores or his/her interning or clerking experience, how the applicant will perform in any given firm environment. The results of these studies have not escaped the attention of the rest of the world. Who's Using Assessments? Corporations. Many successful companies, including Wal-Mart, which is arguably the best managed company these days, require high-level candidates to take two-three day assessments that reveal their skills and strengths. This information is useful both for placing the person in the right position and getting the best performance out of him or her down the road. A number of firms, such as Personnel Decisions International with 28 offices worldwide, cater to these corporations, crafting customized assessments and digesting the information for management. Law Departments. Corporate law departments, because of their position within the corporate world, are starting to more regularly use hiring assessments, often prodded by the non-legal managers who have successfully used them in their own hiring process. Law Schools. Law schools have for many years incorporated assessments into their repertoire of tools for assisting students in making career decisions. Those offering assessments include law schools at Boston College, Dickinson, Columbia, University of Vermont, Temple, Campbell, University of Pennsylvania and Yale. Out-Placement Firms. Out-placement firms have long used assessments in placing professionals, and, according to Keith S. Mullin, CEO of New York’s Mullin & Associates/Lincolnshire International, “We are seeing more hiring decisions utilize testing. This is most effective when organizations have determined behavioral traits and competencies as success indicators and implemented them into an effective performance appraisal system.” Law Firm Consultants. David H. Meister, a leading professional service firm advisor, points out that the correlation between financial success and employee attitudes has now been clearly established causally: it is employee attitudes that drive financial success and not the other way around. He advises that determining employee attitudes is a major step towards improving profitability. Professor Seligman is so certain that assessments can improve lawyer performance that he has issued a public challenge to law firms. By using simple strength assessments, he will radically improve the productivity of a firm’s associates, at no charge other than a small percentage of the associates' increased profitability. Our experience at Robin Rolfe Resources confirms that organizations which use assessments have better than average levels of lawyer retention, job satisfaction and productivity. Why Not Law Firms? Information gathered from assessments can be applied in a number of ways to the process of hiring and promoting lawyers. By knowing an individual associate’s strengths, a hiring partner or managing partner can determine whether the associate’s attributes are consistent with the firm’s values generally and whether the firm, given its overall composition and goals, is a good fit for the associate’s specific strengths. The information can also help a firm better place the new lawyer in practice groups, firm committees and client teams. As a simple example, some strengths, such as extroversion or relationship building skills, might steer an associate towards public relations or client development. For those lawyers strong in conscientiousness or intellectual curiosity, the technology or best practices committee might be a better fit. Yet, alone in the legal firmament, most law firms use no hiring assessments of any kind and their hiring partners do not even have assessments on their agenda for consideration. When the use of assessments enjoys such a broad and deep endorsement elsewhere in the legal world and the potential benefits are evident, why do law firms persist in avoiding them? “Oh So Special.” In spite of overwhelming evidence that both organizations and individuals profit, literally, from the use of assessments, law firms often consider their hiring objectives unique, and assume therefore that assessments used by other professions are unlikely to be helpful. These firms contend that they are looking for individuals with an ability to excel in case law analysis or blue sky compliance or other specific legal areas. These competencies are unlike, the argument must go, what the rest of the corporate and legal world are looking for. While a healthy dose of “We’re so special” can be useful, it becomes counterproductive when it keeps a firm from availing itself of modern tools. As have old attitudes that once dictated white button-down shirts, resisted technologies from Dictaphones to extranets and, more recently, eschewed business development strategies, this bias will eventually be overcome by the advantages that the twenty-first century can bring. Ignorance Is Not Really Bliss. One reason law firms do not use assessments in hiring is that they are simply unaware of what these instruments can do in terms of identifying appropriate hires and helping get the best performance from them. “While many corporations use assessments in filling their legal positions,” according to Mullin, “law firms usually do not. In my opinion, law firms could benefit from better understanding the kind of information that is collected, what the tests say about someone and how the results can be used.” The Competitive Disadvantage. The managing partner of a mid-sized Manhattan firm says that he appreciates how valuable information from assessments could be, but that his firm is reluctant to request that candidates undergo testing for fear of putting itself at a disadvantage in recruiting. If you’re one of the few firms asking applicants to complete an assessment, what signal does it send? We suggest that law firms and law departments start looking at this issue from several viewpoints. First, the way the message is delivered is key to how candidates feel about assessments. The assessments themselves are relatively short and simple to understand, particularly for the typical associate who has already run a veritable gauntlet of testing. So there should be no anxiety over the difficulty or rigorousness of the questions. Applicants should also be assured that there are no “right” or “wrong” answers, and that no judgments are being made about their mental health. Secondly, it is important to convey to candidates that the purpose of the testing is as much to ensure the applicant’s success as to benefit the firm. In fact, one of the major reasons that firms are able to achieve improved retention, productivity and bottom-line profitability is that the use of the assessments produce lawyers who experience much higher job satisfaction. And, in the final analysis, the importance to the firm of improving its associate pool and their individual performance may override any applicant hesitancy. Can firms really afford to shun such powerful adjuncts to their hiring process? Getting From Here to There Where do firms that want to start using hiring assessments start? Become Educated. Managing and/or hiring partners should take advantage of firms that specialize in designing, administering and interpreting assessments to become more familiar with how these diagnostics can help meet the challenges that the modern day legal practice presents. Expand the Culture. Taking the time to give assessments to currently employed attorneys, particularly recent hires, could not only be a first step toward improving overall firm functioning, but also set the stage for assessing applicants. Once assessment data becomes a part of established firm culture, it is less likely that applicants would feel any stigma about being asked to participate. Address Immediate Needs. The management configurations of most firms have developed by happenstance. Many firms hope that somewhere in their crop of upcoming associates will be one or more who can at the appropriate time successfully handle the rigors of managing firm conflicts or leading client development or developing mentoring programs. Because this kind of firm evolution is essentially driven by wishful thinking, firms often find at some point that they have major gaps. The crisis analysis that ensues, while uncomfortable, can help spur a firm towards action. Assessments allow firms to tailor their hiring so as to address pressing needs. Bolster Your Recruiting Pitch. A commitment to careful and thorough assessments could be incorporated as a positive part of the firm’s recruitment effort. It says that the firm cares enough to use every tool available to it to make sure each new associate is placed in the practice group, on the committees and with a team that is most likely to ensure his or her success. Customize Your Training. Information from assessments would not only help position each associate based on his or her strengths, but could also provide the firm with the basis for formulating cost-effective training targeted to address those areas where new associates need strengthening. Discriminating Well Perhaps the last question is when the number of firms using assessments will reach the tipping point. Once a few firms take the lead in introducing testing, it is likely that an avalanche of me-too’s will soon follow, as there was with the introduction of alternative corporate structures in the 80’s, the jumps in associate salaries in the early 90’s and the introduction of non-equity partnership tracks in the late 90’s. In the meantime, a courageous few firms have the opportunity to embrace what the twenty-first century offers for effectively discriminating among applicants. And to reap the benefits of that courage. ------------ Ronda Muir is a Consultant with Robin Rolfe Resources , Inc. Drawing from a broad background in law, psychology and conflict resolution, Ronda is able to offer business-savvy, psychologically sophisticated evaluations of, and real-world solutions to, the personal dynamics issues that are unique to law firms and law departments. |