they need performance feedback, too.

by marc rosenberg
the role of the managing partner

“a rabbi whose community does not disagree with him is really not a rabbi, and a rabbi who fears his community is not really a man.” – rabbi israel salanter, museum of the diaspora, tel aviv

more: grading your managing partner | why firms conduct performance evaluations of partners | top issues for millennial managing partners | the managing partner’s secret weapon | how a good managing partner impacts profitability | how a great managing partner impacts firm growth | compensation is no way to manage partners | clarify partner expectations | herding cats: advice for managing partners
exclusively for pro members. log in here or 2022世界杯足球排名 today.

everyone needs feedback. unfortunately, many people in all walks of life, in both personal and business settings, avoid feedback because they don’t want to deal with the reality of the messages.

put very simply, the purpose of feedback is to improve performance. many partners have the freedom of opting out of receiving performance feedback because, well, they can. this is regrettable. even more lamentable, many firms don’t have a formal mechanism in place to provide feedback to the managing partner. this is egregious.

being afraid to hear what their partners think of them and their work can only hamper managing partners’ performance.

the process

evaluating the managing partner is in many ways an upward evaluation. as with all upward evaluations, people evaluating the managing partner should be limited to those who are in a position to offer informed input based on direct experience working with the managing partner. hearsay should have no role in the process.

at firms with executive committees, providing performance feedback to the managing partner is a common duty of the executive committee. if there is no executive committee, the firm needs to work out a process for some or all the partners to provide feedback, using the guidelines below.

those people charged with evaluating the managing partner should complete an evaluation form. then someone should tabulate the forms and summarize the results. finally, the results should be reviewed with the managing partner in a performance appraisal format.

the evaluations should be done on a semi-anonymous basis. partners’ names should be on the forms so that the coordinator of the review process can go back to them in case responses need clarification. but the managing partner should not have access to who said what.

often the coordinator needs to filter out negative comments from poorly performing partners. partners who consistently fail to perform in certain areas (staff relations, losing clients, collecting receivables, turning in timesheets, etc.) and have been reprimanded for these transgressions may feel they are in the managing partner’s “doghouse” and could be unfairly hostile in their evaluation of the managing partner.

the process should conclude with a meeting between the managing partner and a small group of people (no more than three) charged with delivering the results and engaging the managing partner in a discussion about what his or her goals should be for the next 12 months.

managing partner evaluation form

overall rating scale

• ee: always meets or exceeds expectations.
• me: meets expectations. this grade is excellent. the managing partner should be very satisfied with this rating; it should not be viewed as an “average” grade.
• ni: needs improvement in this area.

 

evaluation criteria	ee	me	ni
1. has the managing partner assembled and empowered a management team that performs at a high level?
2. how well has the managing partner functioned as the firm’s visionary? has the managing partner achieved a healthy blend of long-term thinking vs. short-term results?
3. does the firm have a written strategic plan? has the managing partner been effective at implementation of the plan’s goals and action steps?
4. does the managing partner keep the bar high on issues of work quality, service standards, integrity and ethics?
5. is the firm active in marketing and business development? is there a well articulated plan for growth? has the firm met its goals for growth?
6. does the firm truly operate as a team?
7. how effective has the managing partner been at identifying merger candidates and merging them in?
8. has the managing partner addressed and resolved partner conflicts swiftly and effectively?
9. has the managing partner made an impact on making the firm a great place to work where staff retention is high, training effective and recruiting successful?
10. has the managing partner made a meaningful, positive impact on firm profitability?
11. are basic, routine matters handled efficiently and quickly (wip billed, write-offs challenged, receivables collected, internal financials issued)?
12. has the managing partner held partners accountable? are the partners in the firm truly held accountable for their behavior and performance?
13. has the managing partner’s involvement in the partner compensation and retirement systems been effective? do a strong majority of partners feel these systems are reasonable and fair?
14. has the managing partner developed an effective style and approach to coaching other partners and helping them develop and succeed?
15. does the managing partner make decisions promptly and effectively? is the managing partner a good problem solver?
16. has the managing partner been effective at building consensus among the partners, where needed?
17. does the managing partner periodically communicate to the other partners about what he or she is doing and what’s going on in the firm?
18. is the managing partner visible in the community and is the firm represented well? does the managing partner help the firm maintain a strong public image?
19. does the managing partner set a good example to firm personnel for personal conduct? has the managing partner been a good role model for the staff?
20. has the managing partner addressed succession-planning issues? is the firm developing future leaders? is there a plan in place?
21. does the managing partner keep the shareholders’ agreement current and enforce its provisions?

 

additional questions

1. what should the managing partner start doing?
2. what should the managing partner stop doing?
3. what should the managing partner do more of?
4. what are three things the managing partner should do next year to improve the firm?

a._________________________________________________________

b._________________________________________________________

c.__________________________________________________________

5. does the managing partner do a good job at achieving a proper balance between managing the firm and serving his or her client base?

[ ] too much time on client base and not enough on management

[ ] too much time on management and not enough on client base

[ ] balance is good

6. other comments and suggestions:

posted on october 14, 2021