New York Lawyer
June 26, 2003

Q:
I write in response to the question that you answered on NYLawyer.com last week, June 19, 2003. I work long hours (2400 hours per year) and do quality work. As a result, people assign me more work and I work harder and harder. Truly, the reward for high quality and quantity work is just more work. There are a few associates in my firm that screw around, leave early and hand in poor quality work (murmured about at the proverbial water cooler), but they never get abused the way I do. Instead, they are allowed to continue to under-perform for years.

In your answer to last week's question, you called the writer a "maverick." You seem to romanticize this underachiever at the expense of the associates who carry their firms. As hard working associates at large NY law firms, we do not work the hours we do in order to make partner -- we fully expect that we will not make partner. We work the hours we do because that is what is demanded of us.

I have been at my firm for several years, and the entire time I have been here, there have always been these underachievers. These people never seem to work on difficult matters. They appear to never have pressing assignments that require them to stay late, work weekends, etc. The reason for this is obvious: those who show they can work hard and do quality work get "rewarded" with more work requiring later hours, while those who do not are truly "rewarded" with less work for the same pay and with no reduction in job security.

So, my question to you is, knowing how unlikely it is in a large NY law firm to make partner, why should I or my fellow associates continue to sacrifice our personal lives when it is only rewarded with more sacrifices? Why shouldn't we do as your prior questioner does and leave at 5:30 every day? Why shouldn't we all be "mavericks"?

Submit Your Question

Find More Answers

A:

Last week my reply to the "maverick" who doesn't care about making partner and therefore deliberately works less hours than his colleagues (part of the "obedient herd," as I wrote) drew some pained responses from hard workers who felt that I dissed them. They believe I didn't give the writer a hard enough time for his lackadaisical work standard, and in effect made the folks killing themselves look like poor saps who didn't know how to play the system like the writer did.

As another person wrote: "In my office, the one who was most hated was a selfish person who would always find ways to shuck helping out another associate (who is a person too) and would be all too happy to leave someone else `holding the bag.' I am surprised that you didn't mention that for a lot of us, we don't want to work late, we love our families too, etc., but sometimes have to get our hands dirty with boring and idiotic work just because there is an associate (a human being too), who may be buried and may need a hand, or a client (human being too), who is paying (often way too much) and may really need some help that extends beyond the 5 PM whistle."

I apologize for projecting any disdain for people who toil endlessly in law firms. That's not what I meant, and I should have been clearer. My disdain is reserved for poor management, which is amply illustrated in both this week's and last week's questions. The poor management takes two forms. First, unrealistically high expectations of performance are required, naturally leading to an environment that is ripe for resentment and consequent testing and cheating. While this doesn't excuse lax performance, it sure helps explain it. Second, those expectations are not enforced fairly and equitably. If there are people who work hard and perform well, only to get more work heaped on them, working side by side with people who are living the life of Reilly, the blame is less appropriately put on the slackers and more on supervisors, who either don't make expectations clear, or don't enforce those expectations of performance.

When that happens - and it happens in many, many offices across the land, not just in law firms - it creates seething resentment among the good soldiers who are laboring away, only to see others get away with murder. In fact, often people will feel the way this person does, "abused" by getting tons of work heaped on them while others dally. You say, "We work the hours that we do because it is demanded of us," but in fact, you report that your firm doesn't demand long hours from everyone. That's the problem.

I have never worked in or consulted with a workplace where there weren't acknowledged "deadwood" employees - people whom everyone knew didn't do much but who, for a variety of reasons, never seemed to be politely moved on. The explanations usually are: management doesn't have the guts to do the hard thing and face up to a non-performer; management is blithely unaware of the state of affairs; managers are friends/cozy with the ne'er-do-well, etc. Generally I am very critical of both the slackers and the supervisors who tolerate them.

In the case of many law firms, however, I believe the absurd billable hour requirements, coupled with an uneven and erratic management style, creates a pressure-cooker environment that inevitably produces cheaters and slackers. And when management doesn't enforce expectations, effectively abdicating their responsibilities, it's left up to associates to do so. They try to maintain informal pressures on everyone to work hard but they are helpless when someone decides not to. Your specific query - why shouldn't everyone be a "maverick" - is the sort of perhaps rhetorical question that this scenario inevitably spawns. Everyone can't be a maverick because then law firm leaders really would notice, but that one might even pose the question is an indicator of the resentment many feel. This all-too-common scenario requires consistent, thoughtful and equitable management so that expectations of performance are clear and enforced across the board.

Sincerely,
Holly English
Principal Consultant, Values at Work