What is it with law firms and their focus on tenure* as the most important quality a legal secretary can have?

The vast majority of firms base their compensation packages solely on tenure. Sure, they go through the motions of an annual review, but everyone knows merit-based raises are rare in our field, and bonuses, if they’re given at all, are just one more entitlement based on how long you’ve been with the firm. Most firms’ compensation packages contain zero incentives to excel — to be more reliable, more accurate, or more efficient than anyone else.

Most vacancy announcements for legal secretarial positions include “good tenure” as one of maybe five or six requirements for consideration. I know of no other career where inertia is so highly prized.

A tenure-based compensation structure rewards sub-par work at a higher rate than it rewards excellence.

Idleness is the hallmark of underperformers. They spend more time on gossip, primping, and non-work-related Web surfing than do high-producers. Often, they arrive late, leave early, and take long lunches. They work inefficiently, produce less, and refuse to learn new technologies and processes.

Thus, underperformers are working less for the same pay. Their effective rate of compensation — whether calculated on an hourly basis or by the volume of output — is greater than that paid to high-producers who receive the same money for more work.

Underperforming legal secretaries get paid for work that other secretaries actually did.

But the worst is still to come. Lawyers quickly learn which secretaries are underperformers and which ones can always be counted on. Guess which secretaries get called on at deadline time or when accuracy is paramount — and which ones get left to their Web surfing?

Conscientious legal secretaries are frequently saddled with the work of their slacker peers, while the slackers get paid to do little or nothing. Perhaps it’s time for law firm personnel managers to cogitate on exactly why it is that good tenure is such an issue in legal secretary recruitment. There are many likely reasons, but lazy coworkers are definitely in the top four or five. It’s tough toiling away on work for your neighbor’s attorneys while listening to the “blip-blip” of that neighbor’s chat program, or her chuckles at the latest YouTube video. It’s enough to make anyone consider throwing tenure to the winds and looking for a better situation.

Having no insider information as to law firm human resource management, I’m at a loss to understand most firms’ staggeringly high tolerance levels for slacker secretaries. Firms that are quick to oust ineffective lawyers somehow don’t seem to notice support staff who fail to produce. I would very much like to hear others’ opinions and comments on this subject. Whether you’re a lawyer, in firm administration, or just a frustrated staffer, please share your experience by leaving a comment or by e-mailing me (address in the sidebar). I might quote your e-mail in the blog, but I’ll never identify you in any way.

*For the uninitiated, “tenure” in this context has nothing to do with academia or being protected from termination.  (Although slacker secretaries do sometimes seem “termination-proof” despite all they do and fail to do that should get them fired.) It’s a term often used by legal recruiters and personnel managers to describe longevity in one position.