Midyear Reviews and Hybrid Working Practices
The growth of hybrid working patterns in modern law firms has heightened the need for more regular performance reviews. Laurie Lyte, principal and founder of Lytehouse Solutions, says that midyear reviews “have become more important in hybrid environments because managers have fewer informal touchpoints to gauge performance.” She emphasizes the importance of structured check-ins to help ensure expectations are clear, priorities are aligned and issues are addressed before they impact client service or results.
Dr. Diane Rosen, founder and president of dr-squared Consultants, says that hybrid working has changed the natural cadence of feedback; if people are not in the same physical space, “informal feedback and conversations are less likely and therefore everything gets saved up for the formal review.” She argues that it’s vital to provide employees with ongoing feedback to optimize performance and engagement — and to allow for adjusting course where needed.
However, there has been rollback on remote working over recent years, and Ria Karnik, managing director at Major, Lindsey & Africa, notes that “the standard approach for most firms is a required office attendance of between 60-80% of a working week.” But although she does not believe that hybrid working is the driving force behind the need for performance reviews, she nevertheless says that conducting regular reviews to allow for a two-way dialogue around performance and support needs is imperative.
Midyear vs. Annual Reviews
Holding reviews once a year is standard practice, but there are certain benefits to adding a half-way check-in point. Reliance on a single review every 12 months — and the resulting pressure to condense a full year’s performance into a single evaluation point — can pose the risk of “employees feeling required to construct narratives of performance,” according to Kirsty Pappin, founder of Aries Legal Practice Management. She argues there is a need for more frequent, lighter-touch reviews. The more regular conversations and improved feedback cycle that arise from a second check-in point means that training needs are identified sooner, supervision issues are addressed promptly, workload imbalances can be corrected and career development and associated expectations are clarified.
The more regular conversations and improved feedback cycle that arise from a second check-in point means that training needs are identified sooner.
According to Lyte, where annual reviews are often considered to be a formal evaluation, midyear reviews are often more about calibration, allowing firms to “reset priorities where needed” and helping to avoid surprises at year end.
Although the addition of a midyear review is a step closer to a more constant feedback loop between employee and employer, Rosen emphasizes the need for an ongoing conversation between managers and employees, warning that the “formal review process should not supersede the need for dialogue between manager and employees throughout the year.” In other words, the first time that an employee receives serious feedback should not be in the setting of a review.
Conducting Midyear Reviews
Setting a Framework
It’s important to differentiate midyear reviews from their annual counterparts. Pappin says that it’s crucial to “avoid replicating the length and complexity of annual appraisal forms” and that midyear reviews should focus on what is and isn’t working well, whether objectives set in the annual review remain realistic and what, if anything, should change over the next six months.
Training
Training managers to carry out reviews effectively is highly recommended. They should ideally receive specific training on delivering feedback “thoughtfully and fully, not just reporting on ratings” according to Rosen.
Effective training can also promote more objectivity in their assessment, says Pappin, helping them to “avoid proximity bias” and ultimately delivering better outcomes from the overall review process.
A Conversational Approach
Managers carrying out the reviews should come prepared with clear examples of what is working, where adjustments are needed and what success looks like for the remainder of the year, according to Lyte. But she says it’s vital that reviews are “structured as shared conversations rather than one-sided evaluations” and that staff being reviewed are given the opportunity to provide their own insights. This allows managers and employees to not only strengthen the working relationship but also help managers better leverage individual strengths to support performance and build capacity across the team.
Metrics and Feedback
Once the midyear review has been completed, legal administrators can then assess any metrics obtained to plan improvements. Rosen says that although many performance management systems rely, to some extent, on quantitative metrics in order to ascertain whether employees are on track developmentally for their roles, any feedback needs to be “clear, actionable, based on observation and delivered with perspective and kindness.”
Karnik echoes this requirement to balance the delivery of factual metrics with empathy, saying that any required remedial measures should be outlined “without a negative inference” and with a focus on helping staff achieve relevant targets.
