POLL - Are associates being told to come into the office for valid business reasons, or for partner egos? Forum

[motojir]

What do you think?

I suspect it's the latter. Partners love to feel like the boss. They love to have associates smile, kiss their ass, and treat them like royalty.

[thisismytlsuername]

This is the weirdest false dichotomy I've ever seen

[motojir]

This is the weirdest false dichotomy I've ever seen

Elaborate?

[jimmythecatdied6]

This is the weirdest false dichotomy I've ever seen

... but there are three options????!!!!

[motojir]

Not sure if I want to open a can of worms and discuss the fancy lunches the attractive female associates were invited to, by partners trying to fuck them. This was pre-#MeToo so I'm not sure if it still happens.

It's one of many reasons why a 40+ year old partner with a wife and kids at home would want to get out of the house - reasons that have nothing to do with client service.

[Anonymous User]

It's neither, this is a bad poll question. It's not an ego thing, and I frankly don't see why anyone would think it is. They want to be able to see peons working for them and cackle about how they control their lives? They measure their self worth by the number of cars in the parking garage? I just don't see it.

That said, it's also not a valid business reason, or at least not a well grounded one. If you just look at business metrics, there is of course a strong case for never going back permanently, or at least maintaining an extremely flexible work from home option.

The reason I think a lot of partners want to go back into the office is the same reason partners back in the day used the library to do their legal research instead of Lexis and Westlaw, insist on calling people rather than email or teams, or do all their editing on paper rather than redline: it's what they are used to, and they've been successful working that way. From their perspective, it's brought them sucess so far, so why should they want to change it? Which makes complete sense, but is neither a larger business reason nor "ego."

[motojir]

It's neither, this is a bad poll question. It's not an ego thing, and I frankly don't see why anyone would think it is. They want to be able to see peons working for them and cackle about how they control their lives? They measure their self worth by the number of cars in the parking garage? I just don't see it.

That said, it's also not a valid business reason, or at least not a well grounded one. If you just look at business metrics, there is of course a strong case for never going back permanently, or at least maintaining an extremely flexible work from home option.

The reason I think a lot of partners want to go back into the office is the same reason partners back in the day used the library to do their legal research instead of Lexis and Westlaw, insist on calling people rather than email or teams, or do all their editing on paper rather than redline: it's what they are used to, and they've been successful working that way. From their perspective, it's brought them sucess so far, so why should they want to change it? Which makes complete sense, but is neither a larger business reason nor "ego."

so tl/dr - you're saying it's fear of change. OK that's another possibility.

[Anonymous User]

It's neither, this is a bad poll question. It's not an ego thing, and I frankly don't see why anyone would think it is. They want to be able to see peons working for them and cackle about how they control their lives? They measure their self worth by the number of cars in the parking garage? I just don't see it.

That said, it's also not a valid business reason, or at least not a well grounded one. If you just look at business metrics, there is of course a strong case for never going back permanently, or at least maintaining an extremely flexible work from home option.

The reason I think a lot of partners want to go back into the office is the same reason partners back in the day used the library to do their legal research instead of Lexis and Westlaw, insist on calling people rather than email or teams, or do all their editing on paper rather than redline: it's what they are used to, and they've been successful working that way. From their perspective, it's brought them sucess so far, so why should they want to change it? Which makes complete sense, but is neither a larger business reason nor "ego."

how is it not ego-motivated to be stuck in your old, conservative ways due to having a fossilized mentality, despite associates making abundant and reasonable requests?

[Anonymous User]

As far as "business purpose", hard to argue that profits will suffer because of WFH given the case study last year, but I think it does make a difference for junior associates, especially those just starting, to be able to meet in person and go over redlines, chit chat and find mentors organically, etc. Also, culture probably is much more consistent and enforceable if everyone is in the same office. The more senior you are, the less this matters since you're already experienced and have a network.

As far as ego, I can understand partners/senior associates wanting to maintain their sense of "professional prestige" that comes with working in a corner office in a high rise, wearing office attire, making juniors come to your office for meetings, etc. Reckon you feel a lot more important than if you were in your sweats at home, hammering away in your home office, with your spouse telling you to do things and kids yelling in the background. I'd think this sense applies less the more junior you are (who cares where you're doing diligence, a cramped office or your cramped apartment), but this "prestige" aspect is definitely an intangible but non-negligible component to why people grind to be a fancy BL lawyer.

None of this may trump the freedom of working from home, but I can see the appeal to partners for things to go back to the way they were.

[Anonymous User]

As far as "business purpose", hard to argue that profits will suffer because of WFH given the case study last year.

Link to this study?

[cisscum]

Male partners 100% want to come in to see female associates. No matter how "lib" and woke BIGLAW partners claim to be, all heterosexual men are the same

[ExpOriental]

This is the weirdest false dichotomy I've ever seen

Elaborate?

Because you have one absurdly broad category ("valid business reasons," which could be almost anything, including the other category), and one hyper-specific category that is very obviously designed to cater to the sensibilities of TLS posters.

What you're actually posting is just "I think the only reason to bring people back to the office is to preserve partners' egos," but you've chosen to articulate it as a poll for reasons that escape me.

Not that you actually needed someone to explain any of this to you; it's abundantly clear that you're just shitposting and asked for elaboration in bad faith.

Relatedly, as someone who wants WFH flexibility moving forward, I don't think whiny rhetoric as exemplified by this thread is particularly helpful. Even as someone who is ostensibly on the same side, I do not want to be lumped in with anyone who centers their discussion around "partner egos." There are legitimate, earnestly held perspectives on both sides, and the best path forward is some compromise that takes that into account.

[motojir]

This is the weirdest false dichotomy I've ever seen

Elaborate?

Because you have one absurdly broad category ("valid business reasons," which could be almost anything, including the other category), and one hyper-specific category that is very obviously designed to cater to the sensibilities of TLS posters.

What you're actually posting is just "I think the only reason to bring people back to the office is to preserve partners' egos," but you've chosen to articulate it as a poll for reasons that escape me.

Not that you actually needed someone to explain any of this to you; it's abundantly clear that you're just shitposting and asked for elaboration in bad faith.

Relatedly, as someone who wants WFH flexibility moving forward, I don't think whiny rhetoric as exemplified by this thread is particularly helpful. Even as someone who is ostensibly on the same side, I do not want to be lumped in with anyone who centers their discussion around "partner egos." There are legitimate, earnestly held perspectives on both sides, and the best path forward is some compromise that takes that into account.

I read this post three times and, unlike the poll, there's not an ounce of meaning or substance to it. Nothing there. Just a bitter, angry little dork posting empty rants on the internet.

[ExpOriental]

This is the weirdest false dichotomy I've ever seen

Elaborate?

Because you have one absurdly broad category ("valid business reasons," which could be almost anything, including the other category), and one hyper-specific category that is very obviously designed to cater to the sensibilities of TLS posters.

What you're actually posting is just "I think the only reason to bring people back to the office is to preserve partners' egos," but you've chosen to articulate it as a poll for reasons that escape me.

Not that you actually needed someone to explain any of this to you; it's abundantly clear that you're just shitposting and asked for elaboration in bad faith.

Relatedly, as someone who wants WFH flexibility moving forward, I don't think whiny rhetoric as exemplified by this thread is particularly helpful. Even as someone who is ostensibly on the same side, I do not want to be lumped in with anyone who centers their discussion around "partner egos." There are legitimate, earnestly held perspectives on both sides, and the best path forward is some compromise that takes that into account.

I read this post three times and, unlike the poll, there's not an ounce of meaning or substance to it. Nothing there. Just a bitter, angry little dork posting empty rants on the internet.

It's remarkable that you thought it was worth deleting your prior response, which was actually (marginally) less pathetic, to replace it with this one.

[cisscum]

This is the weirdest false dichotomy I've ever seen

Elaborate?

Because you have one absurdly broad category ("valid business reasons," which could be almost anything, including the other category), and one hyper-specific category that is very obviously designed to cater to the sensibilities of TLS posters.

What you're actually posting is just "I think the only reason to bring people back to the office is to preserve partners' egos," but you've chosen to articulate it as a poll for reasons that escape me.

Not that you actually needed someone to explain any of this to you; it's abundantly clear that you're just shitposting and asked for elaboration in bad faith.

Relatedly, as someone who wants WFH flexibility moving forward, I don't think whiny rhetoric as exemplified by this thread is particularly helpful. Even as someone who is ostensibly on the same side, I do not want to be lumped in with anyone who centers their discussion around "partner egos." There are legitimate, earnestly held perspectives on both sides, and the best path forward is some compromise that takes that into account.

I read this post three times and, unlike the poll, there's not an ounce of meaning or substance to it. Nothing there. Just a bitter, angry little dork posting empty rants on the internet.

It's remarkable that you thought it was worth deleting your prior response, which was actually (marginally) less pathetic, to replace it with this one.

Pathetic is coming in here to lick partner ass (pro tip: they already have all the leverage and don’t need your help)

[ExpOriental]

This is the weirdest false dichotomy I've ever seen

Elaborate?

Because you have one absurdly broad category ("valid business reasons," which could be almost anything, including the other category), and one hyper-specific category that is very obviously designed to cater to the sensibilities of TLS posters.

What you're actually posting is just "I think the only reason to bring people back to the office is to preserve partners' egos," but you've chosen to articulate it as a poll for reasons that escape me.

Not that you actually needed someone to explain any of this to you; it's abundantly clear that you're just shitposting and asked for elaboration in bad faith.

Relatedly, as someone who wants WFH flexibility moving forward, I don't think whiny rhetoric as exemplified by this thread is particularly helpful. Even as someone who is ostensibly on the same side, I do not want to be lumped in with anyone who centers their discussion around "partner egos." There are legitimate, earnestly held perspectives on both sides, and the best path forward is some compromise that takes that into account.

I read this post three times and, unlike the poll, there's not an ounce of meaning or substance to it. Nothing there. Just a bitter, angry little dork posting empty rants on the internet.

It's remarkable that you thought it was worth deleting your prior response, which was actually (marginally) less pathetic, to replace it with this one.

Pathetic is coming in here to lick partner ass (pro tip: they already have all the leverage and don’t need your help)

TIL not being a whiny dipshit = "licking partner ass"

Very brave use of anon though

[Anonymous User]

As far as "business purpose", hard to argue that profits will suffer because of WFH given the case study last year, but I think it does make a difference for junior associates, especially those just starting, to be able to meet in person and go over redlines, chit chat and find mentors organically, etc. Also, culture probably is much more consistent and enforceable if everyone is in the same office. The more senior you are, the less this matters since you're already experienced and have a network.

As far as ego, I can understand partners/senior associates wanting to maintain their sense of "professional prestige" that comes with working in a corner office in a high rise, wearing office attire, making juniors come to your office for meetings, etc. Reckon you feel a lot more important than if you were in your sweats at home, hammering away in your home office, with your spouse telling you to do things and kids yelling in the background. I'd think this sense applies less the more junior you are (who cares where you're doing diligence, a cramped office or your cramped apartment), but this "prestige" aspect is definitely an intangible but non-negligible component to why people grind to be a fancy BL lawyer.

None of this may trump the freedom of working from home, but I can see the appeal to partners for things to go back to the way they were.

Adding to this - it matters for senior/midlevel associates to come back as well. Juniors typically receive that mentorship, advice and practical knowledge of going over things in person from midlevels/seniors - not partners. If all the midlevels/seniors are WFH and the juniors are in office, the juniors are still missing out on that development.

Nonetheless, my firm just treats ppl like adults and trusts you to be in office or not depending on your needs. It was that way before the pandemic, and I don't think it will change.

[Anonymous User]

.

[Anonymous User]

.

[cavalier1138]

Locking this topic for fairly obvious reasons. Feel free to actually discuss remote work vs. return-to-office policies like adults in other threads.