44 ASIAN LEGAL BUSINESS – AUGUST 2024 WWW.LEGALBUSINESSONLINE.COM THE BACK PAGE RTO POLICIES STRIKE A BALANCE BETWEEN EMPLOYEE AND LAW FIRM NEEDS BY ISAAC BROOKS Return-to-office mandates and hybrid work schedules are front-of-mind issues for many professionals. Employers and their employees alike have differing priorities and goals, making for quite a bit of debate about what is the best way to approach office attendance policies. Two recent studies offered interesting — and seemingly contrasting — views. While Thomson Reuters Institute’s recent 2024 Law Firm Office Attendance Policies Report found that many legal professionals are enthusiastically embracing the return to office, another study by the University of Pittsburgh — a meta-analysis of other organisations’ surveys and reports — reported negative effects to the point where it recommended that employers may wish to re-evaluate their return-tooffice policies. What accounts for this seeming disparity? Some of the variance between the two reports’ findings may be due to differences between the work environments of law firms and S&P 500 companies. With most law firms being partnerships, partners are not only owners and managers but also function as employees at the same time, perhaps making them more attuned to frontline working conditions than managers in other industries. Also, with the increased attention being paid in recent years to lawyer well-being, including mental health and preventing burnout, law firm leaders may be making a concerted effort to create office attendance policies that align with balancing employees’ desires. At the same time, both reports point to some key elements that may influence whether new office attendance policies succeed for any organisation. The differences may lie in how and why RT and attendance policies are implemented. Where differences may lie The Thomson Reuters Institute report surveyed legal professionals in law firms and found “startling enthusiasm” for their respective firms’ office attendance policies. An overwhelming 86 percent were either satisfied or at least neutral, leaving barely one in ten legal professionals who said they were dissatisfied with their working arrangements. Much of this is due to the surprising amount of flexibility in office attendance that many law firms have offered their lawyers. On the other hand, the study by the University of Pittsburghfound a significant decline in employee satisfaction in companies that instituted return-to-office mandates. A common thread between both reports’ findings is that an organisation’s intentions, motivations and goals in pursuing return-to-office policies may be an important factor. The University of Pittsburgh report contends that many managers are using return-to-office mandates to regain control over employees, and they blame employees as a scapegoat for bad business or stock performance. While the Thomson Reuters Institute report does not go that far, it does say that firms were hoping to see higher productivity and increased collaboration. Both reports conclude that anticipated results — such as improved performance, productivity, and collaboration — generally have not materialised as a result of returning to an office building. However, there is obviously a major difference between hoping to see improved performance and blaming returning employees for poor business performance. While law firms may not have seen the hoped-for gains, their positive intentions for greater collaboration, as compared with using returnto-office mandates as a blame-shifting excuse, may have contributed to the high overall satisfaction level among legal professionals. Importance of flexibility The flexibility or rigidity of return-tooffice policies also may play a key role. The Thomson Reuters Institute report found legal professionals who were dissatisfied were most commonly in firms with less flexible policies. Further, they were in the office more than the average respondent, which may also be a result of less flexible policies. Overall, 64 percent of legal professionals said their firm’s overall policy is flexible, allowing them to largely choose which days they are in the office. This likely contributes to the high satisfaction levels as well. (One other factor is important to note: Many lawyers and paralegals rely on mentorship and collaboration for their work and for career development, both of which likely benefit from physical proximity with senior lawyers, practice group leaders, and partners.) The University of Pittsburgh report similarly found that several studies of corporations tended to find both improved performance and increased employee satisfaction in cases in which the company offered greater flexibility in employees’ work-from-home and hybrid workplace arrangements. Isaac Brooks is a senior analyst focusing on Financial Insights, the legal industry’s financial benchmarking program, and other Thought Leadership analytics for Thomson Reuters. He has been a major contributor to the Law Firm Financial Index, as well as the annual US and Australian versions of the State of the Legal Market report in recent years. Asian Legal Business is seeking thought-provoking opinion pieces from readers on subjects ranging from Asia’s legal industry to law firm management, technology and others. Email ranajit.dam@tr.com for submission guidelines.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjA0NzE4Mw==