Clifford Chance approves plans to scrap 'improvement period' for underperformers

  • Print
  • Comments (7)

Readers' comments (7)

  • How immensely glad I am when I read stuff like this that I don't work in an environment where all that matters is how much money you make, and where you live in fear of not measuring up.
    No amount of money can compensate for a life that's controlled by others.
    What shall it profit a man etc ...

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Rural bliss - assume you work for a charity then? Muppet.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • More firms should have the gumption to give this a go. Too many partners are under-achieving and lining their pockets with the fruits of other people's labour.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Time to look at partners as we now in a climate that anyone who under achieves should be looked at, it is well over due that partners are includes as i am well aware that many are not performing and sit on there arse's doing sweet fa these days and need good kicking.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Anonymous 23 July, 2.44: How articulate... not. Perhaps they should dock the pay of partners who cannot spell. As to the substance: in a difficult climate, expectations have to be reasonable. If they are, and a partner continues to under-perform over time, he should go. Three months sounds a bit short to turn things round.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Rural bliss - what's wrong with living in a world where people got paid and rewarded for actually doing work?

    The biggest problem with law and with this country in general is that there are too many people taking more out of a firm than they put in.

    Glad to see that here at least partners are now subject to the same strict rules as everyone else in a law firm.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Wouldn't it make more sense to pay these partners less, rather than dismissing them?

    A "eat what you kill" model would be appropriate for underperforming partners. It encourages them to improve, prevents them from piggy-backing on the work of others but prevents the drastic measure of termination.

    The idea of a lock-step no longer makes sense for large multinational businesses in my view.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

Mandatory Required Fields

Mandatory

Comments that are in breach or potential breach of our terms and conditions in particular clause 8, may not be published or, if published, may subsequently be taken down. In addition we may remove any comment where a complaint is made in respect of it. These actions are at our sole discretion.

  • Print
  • Comments (7)