Despite good intentions, balanced hours and flexible work arrangements programs in most firms are still ad hoc affairs, more policy and theory than concrete, measurement-driven,
tangible processes.

On the one hand, most legal employers (95% of those firms that get surveyed) have adopted some kind of policy offering part-time schedules and or other alternatives to a flat-out 24/7 type of commitment to the office. However, usability is low - about 3 percent, and lower for partners only. The main reason given for this is that the vast majority of lawyers believe working alternative schedules will harm their careers. On the other hand, families and personal lives are often hurt the way things are. Many lawyers - men and women - would respond with familiarity to a six year old son's announcement that "When I grow up, I want to be a client."

Even Marina Park, managing partner at Pillsbury Winthrop, who became a partner on an 80 percent schedule before returning, as managing partner, to full-time, said, " I am working a flex schedule that allows me to hang on by my fingernails." (That occurring with a very supportive husband.) From her vantage point as managing partner she said of firms in general, "It's not as though the firm is losing money having people on a part-time schedule. Why not allow them that alternative?" [Above quotes from "Women Lawyers in Balancing Act" by Kristina Horton-Flaherty, California Bar Journal, February 2002]

The key to resolving these frustrations all around is a change of perceptions, and this is necessary because the mainstream perceptions about workplace flexibility are, in general, erroneous. Statistics and anecdotes have been cited in articles, web sites, books, and public presentations. It is time to move from policy and lip service on policy to a concrete, measurable implementation process with a foundation of explicit business plans for the flexible work arrangements, mutual understanding of work expectations using an insightful assessment tool, and agreed upon evaluation criteria.

ESTABLISHING TRUST AND CREDIBILITY

Flexibility should be viewed as broader than reduced or balanced hours. While many people think that obstacles to flexible work arrangements center on costs and difficulty of management, these are not the real issues getting in the way of successful alternative work schedules. Trust, stigma, unfamiliarity, and resistance to change are the main ones at almost all firms. Surfacing and articulating these issues and discussing them forthrightly is a vital first step to successful work/life balance. That starts the conversation at its core. Talking through objections,.having those objections challenged, allowing an exchange of views so that the issues can be fully aired out will help to clear the underbrush away so that the landscape is clearer and the real problems are starkly revealed.

For instance, some people maintain that "flexibility can never work around here" because of scheduling or client demands. In fact their real (unspoken) gripe is that people working reduced hours, job sharing, or telecommuting are breaking the long-time contract of 24/7, in-the-office dedication to lawyering. They feel that it just doesn't seem right or fair that some people work long hours and are always available, while others are not. This view can be challenged - noting effects on families, disproportionate effects on women, changing societal trends, family-friendly clients who prefer like-minded law firms, etc. - but only if the view is surfaced and discussed honestly.

Another vital point is to plan flexible schedules carefully. This is not just with respect to the agreed salary, bonus, benefits, work hours and locations and the like. Talking through the arrangement in advance with a facilitator enables potential problems to be anticipated (such as child care or elder care problems, how to contact the person in an emergency, handling work spilling over to other lawyers). Not only can this process result in practical answers and pinpoint remaining problem areas that need to be addressed, but it can also model the way forward for the participants. It will encourage open communication rather than silent resentment over unaddressed problems - the great killer of flexible work arrangements.

To make headway on these deep-rooted issues, it is necessary to establish a common language among the various parties involved. It is usually a mistake to assume that all people have the same motivations, needs, expectations, means of satisfaction and definitions of success. Similarly each person does not necessarily hear and interpret the same message in the same way.

Assessment Tools

Professionals feel more comfortable with concrete evidence or at least tangible assessments and reports than abstractions and policies. It increases the credibility, and the measurement factors enable evaluation of results.

There are two assessment tools we use to lay the foundation for a common language. One is a personal profile that identifies: personal behavior style; the strengths and weaknesses of the style; how to read others to identify their styles; and how to modify behavior to build rapport with them. Having the flexible work arrangements candidate, supervisor and work team complete this profile and interpreting it with them will provide a common language and a means of building and deepening trust.

The second tool is a profile of work expectations. With it, individuals identify and rank the importance to them of 10 types of expectations in addition to compensation in ways that people ordinarily can't articulate. Having this type of profile completed, analyzed and interpreted not only for the FWA candidates, but also by their practice heads, supervisors and teammates lays the foundation for clarification of mutual expectations, open dialogue, adjustment of expectations, if necessary, and increased accountability. It also helps to ease the acceptance and approval process for a viable business plan by the FWA candidate.

Business Plans

Another critical tool is a business plan from each FWA candidate. The business plan can be developed as a natural outgrowth of the dialogue among the parties (FWA candidate, supervisor, team members) with a facilitator. These are almost never required but should be.

The business plan should cover all the aspects of the proposed arrangement, not merely hours, commitments, place of work and compensation. Again this provides a concrete document spelling out all points of agreement between the individual, supervisor and practice head an the work team. It would cover roles and responsibilities to a work team, management issues, and record keeping. In addition, how the individual and the arrangement is to be evaluated would be spelled out in the business plan. These specifics take the arrangement from an ad hoc, subjective leap of faith to a road map for building trust and enabling measurement. For management in particular, the firm can track the costs associated with flexible schedules, rate of turnover, and revenue generated by all participants, to assess the financial viability of flexibility


SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR LAW FIRMS?

Many corporations have made significant strides in instituting viable flexible work arrangements with positive results for job satisfaction, retention and productivity. Are law firms so different that they can't adapt their practices? Just as an example, looking only at those people classified in professional specialties in the workforce as a whole, 15 percent worked part time (Bureau of Labor Statistics 1999) as compared with 3 percent in law firms (National Association of Law Placement, 2000). Three large accounting firms - Ernst & Young, Pricewaterhouse Coopers, and Deloitte & Touche - have significant programs which have greatly increased retention of women (the original purpose) and now have broadened to include utilization by men as well. They have been cited repeatedly by Fortune and Working Mother Magazines as among the best places to work, gaining public relations value as well as recruiting/retention success.

Among the accomplishments: they have reduced non-essential travel, have a database profiling actual flexibility solutions, and are focusing on enriching the work experience while people are with the firm. Also they are building life-long relationships with alumni toward developing future business with them and increasing the "boomerang" effect, enticing valued employees back if they leave the firm. From the client perspective, according to Allison Shipley, a personal financial services principal at PricewaterhouseCoopers, "Both my clients and the firm require flexibility in coordinating work - the mutual respect and cooperating that exist today foster an energized and creative work environment that, in my opinion, is a winning combination for our firm and our clients."

One of four factors determining partners' compensation at Ernst & Young is how they manage the people who report to them. This keeps the focus on treating people well, which is measured in periodic internal surveys and retention rates. Some of the firms hold workshops (required attendance) that change the language of success and definition of commitment away from primarily "face-time."

Much of the stigma is gone in those firms. Are law firms so different? Arguments are made in firms year after year that flexibility only can work with certain people at certain levels in certain types of practices. This is not necessarily true if the arrangement and administration is structured right. Research findings support this. For example:

Clients are dealing with a variety of flexible working arrangements (hours, locations, staffing) in their own businesses and are finding ways to deal with people's childcare, elder care and other needs much more willingly than law firms are. They are much more flexible, understanding, and encouraging, especially when "solo work" (not requiring face-to-face meetings) is done.

And there are many examples where careful organizing of flexible arrangements has resulted in success for the firm as well as the individual:

(Note: Several examples above were cited in the PAR Report, "Balanced Hours" May 2001 by Joan Williams and Cynthia Thomas Calvert.)

These examples and many others demonstrate that law firms can resolve the perceived obstacles to flexibility and manage work expectations if the will is present. There is an inevitability to the shift toward flexibility. Eventually firms and legal departments will be pushed toward it by their clients and the demands of their valued professionals. Those are important stakeholders to satisfy. Flexibility can be a significant part of an organization's brand. Doing it sooner rather than later establishes an advantageous position. This article has laid out the steps and tools to accomplish it.

© Phyllis Weiss Haserot and Holly English 2002.

This article was published in Of Counsel, Vol. 21, No. 7, July 2002.