What Do Generation Y Attitudes Mean for the Legal Partnership Track?
Part 1: With today’s associates more likely than ever to switch jobs – and willing to question the benefits of the partnership track – Craig Hoyland explores how law firms can retain the next generation of leaders.
A millennial is typically classed as anyone born between 1980 and 1994. Therefore, in the legal profession this group includes both the junior partners and senior associates who are now close to or about to make the step up to partner, which is easier said than done in the current climate.
More alarmingly however is the number of millennials who are increasingly questioning whether it’s worth them going down the partnership track at all.
For most lawyers in practice, making partner was, and for some still is, the ultimate goal, but the path is longer than it used to be, as much as ten or 11-plus years post qualification in some cases, when the norm used to be around five or six years.
From the outside, it might look like some firms will lose this talent to in-house roles and thus create a long-term issue with succession planning and to some extent that’s true, but most associates would still prefer partnership, it’s just a question of at what cost.
Those who cite an interest in being an in-house lawyer are too often focussed on what they want to move away from, rather than what they trying to work toward. Too many assumptions are often made about how different life is outside of private practice when sometimes the answer is just that they’re simply working at the wrong law firm.
There are a lot of well-known generalisations made about millennials and for the most part they’re true. The differences are notably centred on culture and environment above all else – around the need for flexible working and a work-life balance; to be treated as an individual yet be part of a collaborative team; to be offered continued learning and career advancement; to be able to make a meaningful difference. Millennials will always prefer to be part of a meritocracy and so their progression should not have anything to do with rank, age, or length of service.
Take flexible working, for example. We’re often approached by associates citing that they don’t live to work and want their weekends and the occasional evening back, and no amount of money will change that. There’s no doubt the attitude to flexible working has vastly improved and the majority, but not all firms offer it to varying degrees.
However, who wants to be the associate who is deemed to not be spending enough time in the office?
Some associates are concerned that this will affect their prospects versus someone who is more visible, yet millennials want to be judged on results, not just time spent in the office.This is a conundrum that law firms and associates alike are wrestling with – and, as I will explore in part 2, this is an issue that boils down to loyalty and transparency.