Originally published in The Legal Intelligencer/law.com
Smart Strategy
In late 2022, the first Big Law firm imposed a stern return-to-office mandate, tying office attendance to compensation for associates. In the coming months, more than a half dozen large firms have followed suit, cracking down on largely ignored return-to-office policies in a stated attempt to curb dwindling engagement and reignite connection. Yet one can’t help but ponder: “In what instance has forcing an individual to engage in an activity compelled them to excitement for it?”
Myriad studies demonstrate flexible, hybrid work models increase productivity. When people work autonomously and on their own terms, they are more efficient and effective. Productivity, though, is only part of the equation. Other aspects of the work experience—mentorship, collaboration, relationship-building, professional development—may suffer in hybrid work environments. In requiring mandatory attendance, law firm leaders are signaling their commitment to these less quantifiable yet equally important facets of the business of law. Statements from firms cite their interest in promoting far-reaching benefits including collaboration, creativity, innovation and skills development.
A noble pursuit? Perhaps. And a strategic misstep that is entirely undermined by evidence to the contrary.
Gallup estimates low employee engagement cost $7.8 trillion in lost productivity in 2022—a whopping 11% of global GDP. Employees whose jobs can be done remotely (note: most knowledge workers including lawyers) mandated to attend the office are less engaged, not more. As Adam Grant eloquently stated in a recent post,
“Don’t mistake presence for performance. Showing up is not a sign of commitment or contribution. It’s an act of compliance.” —Adam Grant
So, if in-office mandates are not the answer, what is? As always, the first step to understanding the solution is to (re)define the problem. Law firm leaders are not dealing with artificial drops in productivity due to the hybrid work model—in fact, during fully remote years law firm billable hours and productivity skyrocketed. Instead, heads of firms are influenced primarily by three factors: the unknown—yes, fear of the unknown and the erroneous belief that if firms just go back to the way it was all will return to order; perceived lack of engagement and commitment to the firm; and a concerning (and real) gap in skill development.
Quashing Fear
Fear is a natural human emotion. It is a protective instinct developed eons ago that is essential to survival. It is also, in today’s modern world, a deterrent to change. Fear of the novel or different, though natural, is no longer founded. While the reflex to avoid approaching an unfamiliar animal may have saved the life of an early hominid, fear of experimenting with the hybrid work model does not, in fact, pose a threat to one’s life.
Many psychological factors are at play in leaders’ decisions to demand others to return to the office—confirmation bias (new information dismissed if it does not align with one’s beliefs); false consensus effect (others in the group feel and think similarly to oneself); status quo bias (self-explanatory) and even fixed mindsets (the best ways of being/working can not grow or evolve). There are also biases in the in-office environment that are largely ignored by return-to-office mandates such as proximity bias (favoring those with whom one comes into contact regularly) and in-group bias (favoring someone from one’s own group).
Awareness of these biases is half the battle—acknowledging one’s opinion may be influenced not by reality but rather by one’s own experience and cognitive prejudices is the first step to opening the door for facts and new ways of thinking. The next is to contemplate what mandatory office attendance is hoping to accomplish and how to achieve these goals in a more effective and impactful way. Typically, this effort is supported by data, research studies and experience rather than one’s limited worldview.
Enhancing Engagement and Commitment
Perhaps the primary factor spurring the frustration of law firm leaders is the perceived lack of engagement from lawyers and professionals across the firm. “People just aren’t showing up,” is a frequent refrain. This statement is often followed by personal commentary such as “they are less committed to the firm,” “they are not interested in socializing,” and “they just don’t want to invest the way we did.” In each of these instances, “they” implies another group—other generations (both younger AND older), Associates, partners who aren’t coming into the office, professionals at the firm.
While these interpretations are likely influenced by the biases above, the perception engagement has declined in recent years is not unfounded. The level of energy and enthusiasm for work has dropped since the onset of the pandemic, and research shows some level of in-office work can benefit engagement. Specifically, those who spend two to three days in the office have higher engagement than those who are either fully remote or in the office full-time.
Being present in the office, however, is notably less relevant than other factors. Autonomy, purpose, feeling valued, meaningful work, a sense of belonging, psychological safety, cohesiveness, connection, and more contribute to an individual’s level of engagement. None of these emanate solely from face-to-face interactions. Team collaboration, for example, can be highly effective with as little as 10% of members’ time spent together in person according to research. Relatedly, sheer attendance is not a good proxy for either engagement or commitment to an organization (hence the concept of “quiet quitting”).
Lackluster engagement, then, will be improved not by demanding presence but rather by cultivating cultures where these human skills—those that promote belonging, inclusion, autonomy, purpose—flourish. These constructive cultures emanate, in turn, from investments in training, policies and practices that promote engagement-inducing behaviors in the workplace and the ability to adapt these behaviors to flexible work models. That transition demands dedicated time, effort and investment. In-office mandates are the real-life equivalent of the fictitious “easy button” depicted in commercials.
Leaders and firms that embrace the underlying factors driving engagement rather than use superficial “build it and they will come” tactics will yield better results—the kind which, ultimately, will attract and retain talent wooed by innovative thinking, inherent trust in them as autonomous individuals and a shared sense of purpose. A sharp contrast, a friend recently quipped, from the type of talent attracted to cultures where adherence trumps independent thinking.
Safeguarding Professional Development
With the crux of the return-to-office debate centered around talent, one would suspect those earliest in their careers would be enthusiastic and engaged by the idea of in-office mandates to promote learning opportunities. However, in a 2021 poll on behalf of Bloomberg News, a notable 49% of millennials and Gen Z reported they would quit their jobs if remote work isn’t allowed. Bespoke surveys with more than a half dozen firms in the past year confirm these findings, with professional development and career advancement consistently being less important to Associates than feeling valued, flexibility and remote work opportunities. Newer generations, relatedly, do not believe in-person interactions are essential to building strong relationships or to learning. They are living proof.
How then, do law firms prepare the next generation? Part of the argument for in-office mandates harkens to how Associates and others were trained prior to the pandemic. Largely, early career lawyers learned from partners willing to invest the time, include them in client calls, invite them into their office to review materials, etc. The prevailing argument is this training no longer happens because partners and associates are not in the same location. The truth is this training no longer happens because partners and associates are not in the same mindset. None of the activities integral to learning—reviewing a document, giving feedback, joining a client call—are limited to an in-person environment. It is simply the way it was done before. Informal mentorship, likewise, developed through the establishment of interpersonal relationships—relationships which, especially for those of younger generations, can thrive without extensive in-person time investments. Successful law firms will tackle professional development challenges with new approaches and greater effort. They will deploy more formal, designed approaches to training and mentorship—methods which, research shows, are typically superior to the haphazard, opportunistic ones law firms have been using for decades (which often are inconsistent, inefficient and subject to personal preference and bias).
Making Hybrid Work
Transitioning the conversation from one of how do we return to the old to how do we adapt to the new is the only way forward. Get leaders started on making progress with a few practical tips:
Challenge assumptions—beware making determinations based solely on one’s experience. Seek out evidence, research and others’ perspectives to broaden thinking and devise new solutions to old problems.
Structure unstructured time for informal interactions—as one managing partner recently explained, her new version of “walking the halls” is making one-on-one phone calls to members of firm—partners, associates, professionals—simply to check-in and see how they are doing. Other leaders encourage personal shares and informal conversation at the beginning of virtual meetings, rather than jumping right into business. Encourage team members to spend time with one another (e.g., lunches and coffee dates) outside the office.
Force conflict—the absence of disagreement is not a sign of engagement or positive culture—quite the opposite. Lack of dissent can result from cultures where failure is not tolerated, leaders are not to be questioned or diversity of perspective is squelched. Conflict is normal and healthy. Train partners and managers to lead constructive dialogue and intentionally elicit disagreement to advance the team, enhance engagement and drive progress.
Making hybrid work will require a renewed commitment to people. Informal, unstructured systems supported solely by sharing space will give way to more equitable, inclusive models. These models will prove superior, at least that is what the data shows. They will also demand effort—time, energy and, yes, resources—on the part of leaders and firms to be most effective. Savvy firms will start today with dedicated steps to evaluate engagement, measure culture, promote feedback and advance understanding (for everyone at the firm) of what truly impacts engagement—and how to deliver it.