Mark, a managing partner, was exhausted from fielding the daily complaints he’d been getting since the firm implemented its hybrid return-to-office (RTO) policy. Some partners viewed associates as complying with the policy’s letter but not its spirit: they griped that associates were not taking advantage of their in-office time. Other partners argued the firm’s refusal to allow all-remote work was harming their groups’ recruiting efforts. And, Mark knew many associates were saying, “Why should I come in if the partners are too busy for me anyway?” and “I’m more productive working from home – why bother?”
It’s a tough time to lead a law firm. The pandemic, plus demographic changes including generational values shifts, has led to previously unthinkable questioning of long standing professional norms.
How should firms respond?
In my experience, the “right” solution for each firm only emerges from a careful process. In a law firm partnership–where owners can leave at will and take clients with them–big decisions require leaders to build consensus on the organization’s values. That requires (a) shared data, and (b) validation and consideration of each owner’s unique interests.
1. Establish consensus on your firm’s organizational values.
A productive discussion requires partners and leaders to discern and communicate why returning to the office matters (or doesn’t). For example, if having associates in the office makes it easier for partners to do their work, spell out what that looks like. If associates miss out on crucial learning when working remotely, what specific gaps in their current learning exist? Is RTO the only way to close those gaps? Similar questions apply to the argument that more in-office time is the best or only way to preserve a firm’s culture.
Such questions will reveal that these conversations are a proxy for larger questions about organizational values: “What’s most important to us as a partnership – and how do we want to relate to our non-owner employees?”
Does your firm want to be relationship-focused and assume that each person who joins the firm might stay for the long-term? Is it willing to make concomitant investments of time, training and mentoring?
Or, does your firm want to be more transactional, where everyone knows the quid pro quo is a hefty paycheck in exchange for work assignments, with no expectations of long-term loyalty by either employee or firm?
These are the extremes. If your firm owners seek a middle ground, they must first get crystal clear – as a group – on its parameters. It’s not easy to craft a policy that satisfies everyone. But it’s not impossible.
2. Make sure everyone gets (and uses) the same credible data.
I find, when working with leaders and leadership teams, that the decision making process runs into trouble when individuals make different assumptions using different information.
It’s a mistake for leaders to assume that everyone is fully versed in the relevant data; staying on top of the daily information deluge is overwhelming for any busy lawyer. Give everyone a bullet point list of “stipulated facts”: reputable data, from credible sources, about employee expectations, industry trends, and the employee-employer balance of power.
Expect all partners to read it before the decision making process begins. If anyone challenges a data point, the onus is on that person to offer alternative data, with citations to their credible source.
How leaders can make it easier for everyone to accept the data:
(a) Anticipate and preempt challenges. Misconceptions abound about generational preferences and tolerances: consider sharing relevant articles that address the misconceptions head-on. Likewise, give partners credible information about the impact of RTO policies on certain cohorts of individuals in your firm: commute time for parents, for example, and the absence of microaggressions on racial minorities’ productivity and well-being. This will equip partners to reach their own informed conclusions about what is best for the firm.
If you anticipate resistance to using the full range of available data, consider offering voluntary, non-judgmental, private outlets to individuals to process it. Individuals are far more likely to update their long-held beliefs when they’re allowed to examine and test them in a non-judgmental safe environment.
(b) Remind everyone that accepting a data point is not the same thing as liking it. When a partner says, “When I was a young lawyer, I worked every weekend without complaining,” simply acknowledge this feeling. Then return to the agreed-upon data. What does the data reveal about the willingness of your firm’s current and future talent pool to do that? And what, if any, are the relevant factual distinctions between current associates’ experience and the experiences of lawyers who made partner two to three decades ago?
Lawyers are experts in distinguishing fact from opinion, and data from emotion. Leverage that valuable skill: it will help your partnership make better decisions as a collective.
3. Acknowledge the individual and potentially differing interests of partners.
A partner nearing retirement may want a more transactional firm (“Do my client’s work and I’ll pay you. That’s it.”). A younger partner, on the other hand, may be more willing to invest in training and mentoring of the up-and-comers as they know they’ll reap the benefits.
What’s a firm to do with that?
Own it. Deal explicitly with reality. Don’t shame the more senior partner for not being a “team player.” And, don’t let the more senior partner’s perspective be the tail that wags the dog by dictating firm policy or culture.
Instead, look for a creative way to compensate that person – money is the obvious one, but don’t neglect other options (e.g., prestigious title, public accolades for mentoring others) – to keep that person happy, while letting the next generation of firm owners build the incentives and culture that they believe will attract, retain and develop talent.
A good place for leaders to start is in private, face-saving discussions with individual partners.
When there is conflict, call it what it is: “We have divergent interests. We’re a partnership; let’s figure out how to honor as many of those divergent interests as we can by getting creative.”
The task ahead of Mark the managing partner is to hear and reflect back all points of view on the firm’s organizational values and on how the parameters of the firm’s decision reflects those values. That kind of strong leadership creates trust, transparency, loyalty, and, ultimately, buy-in.
Reprinted with permission from The American Lawyer. © 2023 ALM Media Properties, LLC.
Further duplication or distribution without permission is prohibited. All rights reserved.
