When X meets Y: How to keep Generation Y satisfied at work
Flexible, flighty, entitled and in a rush to succeed – keeping Generation Y happy is not an easy task.
August 02, 2015 at 11:03 PM
3 minute read
Flexible, flighty, entitled and in a rush to succeed – keeping Generation Y happy is not an easy task.
If stereotypes are to be believed this praise-hungry generation of lawyers want to have it all: the most interesting work for the best clients, a rapid promotion path – and all on their very flexible terms. And if they can't get these things at their current firm then why wouldn't they go somewhere else?
Put like that it's hard to see why their more cynical Generation X managers would not have been pushing for many of the same things – once they'd overcome their disenfranchised alienation and seen the benefits of working as part of a collaborative team.
At every level of management, law firms are grappling with how to satisfy this next generation of heavy hitters. The good news – according to research by Legal Week Intelligence – is that on many levels they are succeeding. While there is still dissatisfaction with some aspects of working life, there is arguably less than in many other professions.
And, with the exception of bonuses (and let's be honest, how often is anyone satisfied with their bonus or salary?), at least 60% of the 2,000-plus respondents to the survey were satisfied that the most important criteria to them – from treatment by partners, to reputation and quality of work – were being met.
But there is still room for improvement when it comes to the softer areas that are so important to this generation. Feeling valued is the most important criteria for these lawyers, on par with the quality of work, with recognition and praise not far behind, closely followed by work/life balance and being given proper feedback. On all of these measures there is a significant gap between expectations and how well firms are delivering. So it is here that firms need to rethink their processes if they want to hold on to talent.
It is not just staid law firms that need to move with the times. This week's issue is the last print edition of Legal Week. In line with the changing habits of our Generation X and Y readers and the baby boomers to have survived lockstep culls, all of our articles will now be online only. The type and quality of our content will not be affected – so your decision is simply whether you choose to read our journalism on your desktop, your mobile device or via our new continuous app, Legal Week Live.
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 AllMcDermott Hits Paul Hastings In London Again As Macfarlanes Also Swoops For Talent
2 minute readRe-Examining Values: Greenberg Traurig's Executive Chairman on the Lessons of the Pandemic
4 minute readDiversity Commitments Feel Hollow When Firms Cosy Up to Oppressive Regimes
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Dechert partners Andrew J. Levander, Angela M. Liu and Neil A. Steiner have stepped in to defend Arbor Realty Trust and certain executives in a pending securities class action. The complaint, filed July 31 in New York Eastern District Court by Levi & Korsinsky, contends that the defendants concealed a 'toxic' mobile home portfolio, vastly overstated collateral in regards to the company's loans and failed to disclose an investigation of the company by the FBI. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Pamela K. Chen, is 1:24-cv-05347, Martin v. Arbor Realty Trust, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Arthur G. Jakoby, Ryan Feeney and Maxim M.L. Nowak from Herrick Feinstein have stepped in to defend Charles Dilluvio and Seacor Capital in a pending securities lawsuit. The complaint, filed Sept. 30 in New York Southern District Court by the Securities and Exchange Commission, accuses the defendants of using consulting agreements, attorney opinion letters and other mechanisms to skirt regulations limiting stock sales by affiliate companies and allowing the defendants to unlawfully profit from sales of Enzolytics stock. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Andrew L. Carter Jr., is 1:24-cv-07362, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Zhabilov et al.
Who Got The Work
Clark Hill members Vincent Roskovensky and Kevin B. Watson have entered appearances for Architectural Steel and Associated Products in a pending environmental lawsuit. The complaint, filed Aug. 27 in Pennsylvania Eastern District Court by Brodsky & Smith on behalf of Hung Trinh, accuses the defendant of discharging polluted stormwater from its steel facility without a permit in violation of the Clean Water Act. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Gerald J. Pappert, is 2:24-cv-04490, Trinh v. Architectural Steel And Associated Products, Inc.
Who Got The Work
Michael R. Yellin of Cole Schotz has entered an appearance for S2 d/b/a the Shoe Surgeon, Dominic Chambrone a/k/a Dominic Ciambrone and other defendants in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed July 15 in New York Southern District Court by DLA Piper on behalf of Nike, seeks to enjoin Ciambrone and the other defendants in their attempts to build an 'entire multifaceted' retail empire through their unauthorized use of Nike’s trademark rights. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, is 1:24-cv-05307, Nike Inc. v. S2, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Sullivan & Cromwell partner Adam S. Paris has entered an appearance for Orthofix Medical in a pending securities class action arising from a proposed acquisition of SeaSpine by Orthofix. The suit, filed Sept. 6 in California Southern District Court, by Girard Sharp and the Hall Firm, contends that the offering materials and related oral communications contained untrue statements of material fact. According to the complaint, the defendants made a series of misrepresentations about Orthofix’s disclosure controls and internal controls over financial reporting and ethical compliance. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Linda Lopez, is 3:24-cv-01593, O'Hara v. Orthofix Medical Inc. et al.
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