Annual Performance Reviews – love or hate ’em ?


The time between Thanksgiving and the Holiday Season break is most typically when companies review their employees performance. Most everyone has their views on Annual Performance Reviews since we are all involved either as a reviewer or reviewee. I created the following poll on LinkedIn to gauge what people thought about the annual review process – take a look here. I was very surprised by the results.

The post today is not a lesson in Human Resource Management, but I do often think about how people in Compliance, Legal and Information Security are really reviewed in terms of their job performance. In sales its easy – how much did you sell?

The conversation for a Compliance Officer or a Chief Security Officer is more complicated – how many FCPA infractions did you investigate or how many security breaches did you uncover? These roles are about protection and prevention and for the most part the teams operate in stealth mode and are seen to be doing their best work when nothing bad is happening. So a good performance review is about “nothing bad happened or nothing bad was uncovered”. Right? Wrong!

The best Compliance or Security Officers are actually “looking for bad stuff”, they are not sitting back complacently believing that their fort is secure. The very fact that “bad stuff has not happened” is the very reason to look harder. They are pre-emptive or pro-active and their mantra is to “find bad stuff before it happens”. Lofty aspirations, perhaps?

So shouldn’t performance be [at least partly] measured on vigilance and awareness rather than simply policies, processes and how well a team reacts to bad stuff as and when it happens?

Believe it or not we come across the “don’t tell me what I don’t want to know” attitude everyday. Catelas has an ability to look inside the business and monitor, yes monitor, how business gets done. Or more accurately we visualize the communications patterns of a company to understand “who knows who” and “how well”. For compliance and security groups we are used as a monitoring solution to better understand company relationships – who in my company has relationships with X, where you can fill in the blank X to be competitor, press, government official, etc.

But my point is that for many companies we often have to water down the “monitoring” term because our audience (the Compliance or Security Officer) does not want to look deeper than the job dictates. They are not interested in pro-actively seeking out potentially bad stuff for fear of finding something. Sure I understand that these teams are max’ed out or are operating within the Risk Profile of their company, etc, but in this age of Whistle-blowers and Self-Reporting, I honestly believe that the CCO in particular needs to step out of his or her comfort zone and start being more proactive. Blind ignorance is no longer an excuse.

What do you think?

“When Preservation Requests Are Wielded as Weapons” by Craig Ball


My blog today comes directly from a post Craig Ball wrote this week for LawTechNews here. When Craig puts pen to paper it is definitely worth reading. Here is an excerpt that caught my attention:-

“The rallying cry is that plaintiffs have begun to “weaponize” preservation. That is, plaintiffs are demanding preservation of electronically stored information with such breadth that corporations are settling just to avoid the cost of finding and protecting their own discoverable data.”

Craig goes on to say… Corporate counsel vilify preservation: “The plaintiffs demand that we preserve everything, and we’re spending millions doing so.” If plaintiffs’ settlement demands don’t establish the value of their claims, why should plaintiffs’ preservation demands set the bar for preservation?

He underlines his point with…  “typically, plaintiffs’ actions mirror the same fear and lack of sophistication that spur defendants to over-preserve. Uncertain where relevant evidence resides, plaintiffs demand preservation of every place it might be. Equally uncertain and irrationally afraid of the outlier jurist, defendants say “okay” when they should say “no way.”

This irrational fear is craziness. It is time to stand up and be counted. It all comes down to preserving what is reasonable and having a defensible methodology to demonstrate reasonableness.

The problem is we are dealing with unknowns – we are not certain who is involved or where the evidence might be found, so we take the cautious route of over-preserving… at Catelas we are paving the way in providing attorneys the help they need to say NO WAY! We are using technology to help attorneys present a diligent, comprehensive way to better define the scope of preservation. Invariably this means a rational (and defendable) way of saying “NO, your preservation demands are waaaayyyyy to broad…. and this is why…”

Take a look here if you are interested in learning more about how we do it.