Work-Life Policies Abound. Who Has the Nerve to Use Them?
Assigning blame for the lack of work-life balance in Big Law isn't an easy task.
May 28, 2019 at 08:00 PM
4 minute read
Professionals in the service sector are silly. And masochistic.
How else to explain why so many of them insist on working themselves to exhaustion, even when they have options that will ease their lives? According to a new study in the Harvard Business Review, employees at management consulting firms spurned workplace flexibility policies. Even though that sector offers some of the most generous work-life balance options in the workplace, most consultants are reluctant to take advantage of them.
The reason: They're chicken. They fear that using programs such as paid leave, reduced schedules and sabbaticals will make them look less committed to work, write the study's authors, Alison Wynn of Stanford University's Clayman Institute for Gender Research and Aliya Hamid Rao of Singapore Management University. (They interviewed 50 management consultants in the United States.)
Employees gave various explanations for not using the programs: They felt that work-life balance policies are unrealistic for high-stress jobs; they prided themselves on managing work-home conflicts on their own; they framed making work-life decisions as choices; and they emphasized they could always quit.
What malarkey that they think they're in control.
“The problem is that this perception of greater control didn't seem to alleviate their work-life conflicts,” the authors write. They cite the example of a consultant who opted not to take a leave to see her dying father because of client demands. “She continues to carry intense regret about the outcome but emphasizes that the decision was her own choice, which gives her a sense of agency rather than victimization,” the authors write.
Do lawyers in Big Law make similar decisions? Quite possibly.
“The emphasis on billable hours and client satisfaction seems applicable to both law and management consulting,” Wynn says, adding that this “can translate into a cultural norm of intensive hours as a way of demonstrating appropriate commitment to clients.” And “because quality in these fields can be difficult to measure, firms rely on proxies such as long working hours as a measure of quality.”
So is it the fault of the employee or the institution that these programs are underutilized? While the report laments employees' reluctance to partake in work-life policy, Wynn says corporate culture usually doesn't help. She advocates that firms turn down the dial on glorifying overwork and rid billable hours.
But lawyers and clients need to change their mindsets too—and that's not easy when the go-go culture is so ingrained.
“It is entirely inwardly focused pressure we put on ourselves,” says a partner at an Am Law 100 firm with three small kids who's always worked full-steam. She says the concern for her about taking flex-time or part-time isn't the stigma, but how it would affect her relationship with clients.
“When building business, you try to instill in clients the need for your counsel,” she explains.
“While no one is indispensable, you have to make your clients feel as though you bring something of value to them that others don't. The only way you do that is by bringing that value consistently. If you are not there for them, they can get someone else who will be.” So the culture of firms and companies needs fixing. And the attitude of lawyers needs adjustment too. Easy-peasy.
More challenging, in my opinion, is training the client. I mean, do you want to be the one to tell clients that they set unreasonable deadlines and that your life is important too?
Contact Vivia Chen at [email protected] or @lawcareerist.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllActions Speak Louder Than Words: Law Firms Shrink From 'Performative' Statements
6 minute readNorton Rose Lawyers Accused of Accessing Confidential Material in Internal IT Probe
3 minute read'It's Not About Speed': Forging Strong Legal Department-Law Firm Relationships Starts With Humility, Trust
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Elon Musk Names Microsoft, Calif. AG to Amended OpenAI Suit
- 2Trump’s Plan to Purge Democracy
- 3Baltimore City Govt., After Winning Opioid Jury Trial, Preparing to Demand an Additional $11B for Abatement Costs
- 4X Joins Legal Attack on California's New Deepfakes Law
- 5Monsanto Wins Latest Philadelphia Roundup Trial
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250