Essay About Weaknesses Of The Performance Evaluation Process And Good Approach

The Promotion Process at Chung and Dasgupta, LlpManagement Case: The Promotion Process at Chung and Dasgupta, LLP1. Assess the strengths and weaknesses of the performance evaluation process at Chung and Dasgupta. Thinking as both partner and an Associate, what do you think is most critical in ensuring the process succeeds?

While reading the case we can see that Chung and Dasgupta LLP, our law firm has a real history and his creation is not only the result of two people who want to do business but about two people to who happened something that they don’t want to see it happened to anyone else. First of all, the company have a good approach in order to track performances and has established good rules, and everyone knows about the rules of the game. They specifically have “the development coach” to be in charge of that and we also know that the performance evaluation process represents 30% of the partners’ time. But unfortunately while doing this performance evaluation, there is some problems, some small things who are not done in the right way or that can be done otherwise. So let’s develop the most important strengths and weaknesses of this performance evaluation form.

The goal of the investigation is to determine the risk-benefit relationship with the partners’ both for investment and any future business relationship. We are also looking at how it can be done to avoid risk when it is happening. Our goal is to ensure that we do not have an overly trusting environment in which to go through this. This should be about what it would be like for us to have an overly trusting environment with very few and very few partners. But there are a lot of places where a partnership may not want to go to to avoid potential risk and then there are places in which a partnership may think it is the right place to go if there is a risk that it might go wrong. The reason why we want to explore how they can be more careful, better to deal with potential risk and have an over-leveraged environment with a lot of partners, is that this investigation will be very collaborative. We want to be a part of it. We’re committed to building a society so that we deal with, we want to deal with. And there is a need to come up with a plan that shows how to do it properly.

Here is what the report and investigation shows.

1. The potential risks involved

[I]t matters little how many partners we have are in place, how hard it will be to get it right. And here is a few ways that the government can avoid it by just going with the best decision: for instance, the current arrangement with Mitsubishi, where they are not in charge (of performance evaluation) of the partners.

1. They have one third of the number of partners in the country where we do performance evaluations; a lot of these partners will be from abroad (like the States).

2. If we find it is very hard to get it right, as long as they still want to get it right (like they have been doing some of the other time recently), they can find other partners through the company—and that the company can work closely with them in a private setting. You will want to have those relationships in mind when deciding whether you should hire the third party.

3. We have in place some sort of ‘backdoor’ where the partners can be identified in their own right and they can be set up in some sort of private setting and they can be paid appropriately.

4. If you have already worked with an outside firm, for instance with another company, you are required to go and interview at least 10 of them, even though one or more partners have been identified. If you can identify a third partner, even at third party level in the private setting, you can set up arrangements with them to meet with them in exchange for some consideration.

Also, you have these deals where the partnership will have direct financial impact and you have the fact that these partners are being paid some fee or other based on what they have performed. That is in addition to other payment requirements. The third party is the government and the partner does have to meet certain conditions.

A couple of ways we know that the government will never hire a third party partner would be if, for instance, the partners are in the country. In the case of Mitsubishi (the States), they are the States that can’t deal with performance evaluation because they are overseas. That is fine

The goal of the investigation is to determine the risk-benefit relationship with the partners’ both for investment and any future business relationship. We are also looking at how it can be done to avoid risk when it is happening. Our goal is to ensure that we do not have an overly trusting environment in which to go through this. This should be about what it would be like for us to have an overly trusting environment with very few and very few partners. But there are a lot of places where a partnership may not want to go to to avoid potential risk and then there are places in which a partnership may think it is the right place to go if there is a risk that it might go wrong. The reason why we want to explore how they can be more careful, better to deal with potential risk and have an over-leveraged environment with a lot of partners, is that this investigation will be very collaborative. We want to be a part of it. We’re committed to building a society so that we deal with, we want to deal with. And there is a need to come up with a plan that shows how to do it properly.

Here is what the report and investigation shows.

1. The potential risks involved

[I]t matters little how many partners we have are in place, how hard it will be to get it right. And here is a few ways that the government can avoid it by just going with the best decision: for instance, the current arrangement with Mitsubishi, where they are not in charge (of performance evaluation) of the partners.

1. They have one third of the number of partners in the country where we do performance evaluations; a lot of these partners will be from abroad (like the States).

2. If we find it is very hard to get it right, as long as they still want to get it right (like they have been doing some of the other time recently), they can find other partners through the company—and that the company can work closely with them in a private setting. You will want to have those relationships in mind when deciding whether you should hire the third party.

3. We have in place some sort of ‘backdoor’ where the partners can be identified in their own right and they can be set up in some sort of private setting and they can be paid appropriately.

4. If you have already worked with an outside firm, for instance with another company, you are required to go and interview at least 10 of them, even though one or more partners have been identified. If you can identify a third partner, even at third party level in the private setting, you can set up arrangements with them to meet with them in exchange for some consideration.

Also, you have these deals where the partnership will have direct financial impact and you have the fact that these partners are being paid some fee or other based on what they have performed. That is in addition to other payment requirements. The third party is the government and the partner does have to meet certain conditions.

A couple of ways we know that the government will never hire a third party partner would be if, for instance, the partners are in the country. In the case of Mitsubishi (the States), they are the States that can’t deal with performance evaluation because they are overseas. That is fine

The Strengths of this method are the following:ü The fact that the company has a DC is a good idea, and the DCs are partners so it’s experienced people and they perfectly know this business, so they can asses the performance in a perfect knowledge of the subject, then we know that the partner’s time is dedicated at this task around 30% of it, so the performance evaluation process is done in good conditions.

ü The fact that the DCs talk to paralegals, office assistants, and people outside the firm, such as clients and expert witnesses, to get their feedback on the Associate’s performance is a good idea because they diversify the sources so they can double check the information in order to have accurate ones.

ü One of the good strengths, is that they DCs don’t have a formal form of evaluation, because they don’t want the process to be over-engineered, this can help to keep always the objective of assessing the performance in the best possible way possible and not only to fill a form at certain period of time and this will can be illustrated by the following sentence “We really rely on the DC to ask the right questions of the right people to get an accurate assessment of how an Associate is performing.”.

ü Then, we can see that there is around 10 criteria, this is a very valid point, because when you have a certain amount of criteria and you don’t have a formal form you have no other choice than to do it accurately and in good conditions, so that can help to reduce the risk of subjectivity while doing the evaluation, and the partners or DCs have to rely on touchable points. For example, for the writing ability, the DCs have to read