Employee survey reveals support staff dissatisfied
The ;Lawyer’s first employee engagement survey, conducted ;by YouGovCentaur, shows a chasm between lawyers and business services staff, with the latter feeling undervalued, underpaid and out of the loop.
An ;overwhelming majority of business support staff – 64 per cent – did not feel that non-fee-earning roles are valued at their firm.
Nick Woolf, a partner at headhunter Sainty Hird, who recruits lawyers and senior non-fee-earners, says: “It’s a shame, but I’m not surprised. Law firms are dominated by fee-earners. Unfortunately a lot of firms view support staff as just that – lackeys to support the real business of generating fees.”
Woolf’s view is shared by fee-earners. One senior non-fee-earner at a top 10 UK firm says: “There’s a fairly well-established ‘us and them’ divide. Support staff who are embedded in the practice areas rather than centrally have much less of an ‘us and them’ problem. It’s support staff based in central functions that are much more invisible to most lawyers.”
One City partner says: “Unfortunately, I don’t think many lawyers understand what these people do. I expect to see a rise in non-lawyer managers who might better understand these functions.”
Internal communication was identified as a critical area for improvement, with many business support staff seemingly unsure of their role within the firm.
Just 41 per cent of business services personnel agreed that the firm communicated how their role contributes to overall firm strategy. That makes fairly depressing reading, but even worse are the career development prospects.
Only 16 per cent of business services people felt that there are good opportunities for promotion within their department or practice area. And only 25 per cent of support staff believe that people are given clear messages about their future potential.
“There’s an increasing focus on career development – for example, some firms have four or five grades for secretaries – but it could be better. There’s a single ladder, and you either go up it or you don’t, or you leave,” says one business development manager.
Career development is also a crucial issue for lawyers. The employee engagement ;survey reinforces the findings of The Lawyer’s January 2007 YouGov survey, which revealed that only 64 per cent of assistant solicitors across the profession were aiming for partnership. That figure slumped to just 37 per cent among firms with more than £250m turnovers, which is roughly equivalent to the top 10 firms in the UK.
If anything things are getting worse. The employee engagement survey revealed that only 46 per cent of fee-earners were aiming for partnership in their own firm and only 40 per cent believed it was an achievable aim. ;Despite ;gloomy ;partnership prospects and a rise in alternative career paths at some firms, only 28 per cent of fee-earners agreed that their firm ;provides a good alternative to partnership.
“But that’s right, isn’t it?” comments Woolf. “Not everyone ;becomes ;a millionaire. The best will get partnership. It can only be for those of the very highest calibre.”
Analysis of the statistics reveals four critical areas where improvement is needed for fee-earners: career development and career structures, partnership opportunities, work-life balance and reward.
Despite ;spiralling salaries in recent years, only ;48 ;per ;cent ;of respondents are satisfied with their basic salaries; only 32 per cent are satisfied with their bonuses; and a shockingly low 21 per cent believe that bonuses are ;calculated ;fairly throughout their firm.
These figures are boosted by fee-earners, who feel much more fairly rewarded for the work they do than business support staff. Fifty-four per cent of business support staff said pay would be the most likely reason for them to leave. Among fee-earners the biggest single factor was work-life balance, with 42 per cent saying that this would be a reason to leave. Of all employees, 41 per cent are less than satisfied with their work-life balance.
The survey is the first census of the UK legal sector to cover all employees, including fee-earners and all business support functions, such as HR, business development, secretarial, IT and communications.
Employee engagement sits at an average of 62 per cent for fee-earners across all firms taking part in the survey, but less than 49 per cent of support staff are fully engaged.
Employee engagement surveys have replaced old-fashioned job satisfaction surveys because research suggested ;that ;job satisfaction is a passive measurement and did not translate to profitability.
“There’s a much stronger link between engagement and productivity. If you have engaged employees, they’re likely to be more profitable to the firm,” says YouGov associate director Matt Roddan.
More ;than ;4,000 employees at 11 firms were surveyed, providing a range of responses across the legal market. The 11 firms represent a cross-section of the market, ranging from international giants to smaller regional firms.
View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page
Readers' comments (41)
Anonymous | 2-Sep-2008 10:28 am
Defining 'professional'
This is NOT a comment about the worth of people in HR, PR, etc, but just to be clear, they are not professionals. The definition of a profession is job for which people have to pass particular exams. Thus accountants, doctors, lawyers and architects are professionals, because those industries have their own exams, but PRs, HRs, etc aren't.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Susan | 2-Sep-2008 11:00 am
Distinguished roles
Yes, you are right Anon, HR professionals are not in the same profession as lawyers and doctors, HR professionals generally have a wider range of skills to perform and sometimes hold the academic qualifications in excess of those required to qualify in law.
I agree with your comments Ex senior support manager.
It's a pity that Partners and fee earners do not have a looking glass, so that they could look in at the practice and see how it would function without the support staff.
They would soon realise that every member of staff is as important as the next and every person within the legal environment has their own part to contribute to the profitability and morale within the firm.
It's not just about the professional qualification or standing of a specific group of people or person, its about the skill and professionalism applied by each and every member of a team who work towards the same goal. Come on partners! work with your HR team to discourage the disparity. Promote your support staff as an integral link within the firm, respect and value them to do the job that YOU employed them to do.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
HR Professional | 2-Sep-2008 11:07 am
Defining "Professional" take 2
Actually the definition is vocation for which advanced learning is required. I studied for 4 years for my CIPD which involved a considerable number of exams. Therefore your analysis of what is deemed to be a profession is actually incorrect, much like the rest of your views.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 2-Sep-2008 11:20 am
Now now...
What were the rest of my views? I only expressed one. And there's no need to get huffy, I did say that the post wasn't about the worth of people in HR, only the defiinitition of professional.
Further to that particular point, the key distinction is while to be a lawyer or an architect, etc, passing the professional exam is an essential legla requirement, exams such as the CIPD are not essential to working in HR.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Sean Keaveney | 2-Sep-2008 11:30 am
Support Staff
Many of the comments below (from both sides of the debate) are baffling and frankly some of them are ridiculous.
The level of ability and effectiveness within the fee earning ranks varies as much as it does in support roles; vocational title (be it "lawyer" or "human resources" or "marketing") is no indicator of capability and it is, to my mind, a poor point of reference when evaluating an individual's contribution to a business.
Good support services within any business are of real value to that business and although it is the fee earners that attract and keep clients paying for work from a law firm, the fee earners' ability to attract and keep clients is enhanced (but not determined) by good support services.
Personally, I believe that the effectiveness of HR; PR and marketing (amongst others) is difficult to determine with any level of certainty, but you do know when it is failing!
Importantly (and strangely ignored in these comments), there tends to be one (comparatively) over-paid individual "managing" such support teams, who delegates to underpaid and undervalued teams of ambitious but unmotivated individuals and in my view support teams would be far more motivated (and accordingly effective) if the salaries paid to such teams were more evenly distributed to the individuals rather than overpayment to one individual "managing" them.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Plain speaker | 2-Sep-2008 12:08 pm
Clarity Matters
What an interestingly fractious debate.
I would like to add to the debate but, as I am surrounded by the most professional group of people I could ask for, I have no complaints. These people bring a multitude of professions to our firm in both a fee-earning and non-fee earning capacity, and we are only ever interested in attracting and retaining the best talent. At our firm, clarity matters.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
An accountant | 2-Sep-2008 12:27 pm
Arrogance is rife!
To all the "fee-earners" out there who seem to think that they are highly qualified. Would that a degree and two years work-experience (training contract) qualified you as an accountant! Try the ACCA exams sometimes - it takes on averge 7 years to complete them.
I think I have had enough of "professionally qualified" arrogance. I happen to have an accounting qualification AND a post graduate management qualification but consider myself no more important than the other employees within the practice.
It is the level of skill, knowledge and application which matters (and which should be rewarded) and certainly not the ability to pass a law degree or any other examination!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Mike | 2-Sep-2008 12:31 pm
Re: Clarity Matters
I take it you work in the PR team?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
A professional non-lawyer | 2-Sep-2008 1:55 pm
What is a professional?
Every firm has different people in different roles that contribute to the success of the firm overall. How many law firms could function in the 21st century without IT support, PR/marketing, HR, finance/accounts, dtp, PA's or secretarial support? Yes the fee earners bring in the business but without support they can not deliver. Maybe if more of the "professionals" realised that non-lawyers are also professional at what they do - even if it is in a non-fee earning capacity - more support staff would feel a valid integral part of a firm.
Everyone wants to feel appreciated for what they do - fee earners please recognise that support staff are a vital part of your business and remember a simple thank you can increase engagement and satisfaction.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
ex law firm HR | 2-Sep-2008 3:38 pm
"support" staff
Having worked at a senior level in HR in both magic circle and less sizeable firms for over 10 years, this survey is not surprising.
Career development is woefully lacking in the support areas where the reality is not "up or out "but out and up".
This leads to a high turnover with the associated costs and loss of intellectual capital which no organisation should want to happen in any part of the firm.
Although I worked very closely with the business units and sat on the management committee I felt that moving the firms in a progressive direction was like pushing water uphill.
Everything needed to be sold to the partnership and every investment opportunity was seemingly treated as if I was taking the food off the partners' children's plate. So I left to join a bank as the HR Director, where I am treated as an equal and expected to drive HR practices and thinking to ensure the bank meets its strategic targets which I help formulate.
There is no talk of fee generators and support, we are all bankers doing our bit to make the company successful. I wish I had made this move long ago.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment