Performance Layoffs: WH Close But Still Not Getting It

One of the most interesting stories of the week was WilmerHale’s “transitioning” of a number of associates out of the firm.

While we applaud the disclosure effort, we still think the messaging was a bit confused.

To wit:

Lisa [Pirozzolo] said that a normal outcome of the Firm’s semi-annual evaluation process is that some associates transition out of the Firm. She acknowledged that this process is affected by the reality of current economic conditions, as performance issues sometimes come to light more when business is slower. In addition, due to the economic climate, the Firm is not in a position to give individuals third and fourth opportunities to turn things around. She added that the Firm is trying to provide affected individuals adequate notice and assist them with finding other opportunities.

This is a hot-button topic for us. One of our biggest pet peeves has been firms’ hypocritical denial of the fact that performance standards change. So kudos to WH for partially addressing the issue and, in fact, we agree that in tough times, third and fourth opportunities need not be given (assuming genuine first and second opportunities are).

But performance issues do not “come to light more when business is slower.” When business is slower, performance issues are actually more-difficult to spot for two simple reasons: there’s less work being done, so fewer opportunities to screw up; and, there’s less work being done, so more time and attention can be spent on that work. What’s really happening is that people are affirmatively looking for performance issues, and spending a lot more time doing it, and the bar is being raised.

The memo continues with

Lisa said the Firm has used the same criteria it uses during evaluations to selected affected individuals, including: legal knowledge, level-appropriate substantive expertise, energy, entrepreneurial spirit, loyalty to staff and colleagues, ethical standards, contributions to the life of the firm, and willingness to take on additional work.

And now we’re back at our original problem: the firm is still denying that the criteria are stricter. Sure, the categories are constant, but the appropriate “score” in those categories has gone up. We’re still waiting for a firm to admit that a second year from the class of 2007, who knows exactly as much now as a second year from the class of 1997 did in 1999, no longer makes the grade. That’s the essence of what we called the hypocrisy of stealth layoffs. WilmerHale has taken steps to reduce the stealth part of the equation, but we think the hypocrisy remains.

Related posts:

1. Stricter Standards Applied at Performance Reviews
2. More Hypocrisy in Stealth Layoffs
3. Attorneys Volunteering for Redundancy at CC?
4. This Week in Layoffs – 1/22/10
5. Quicken Keeping a Close Eye on Competitor