I suppose that one day the work-from-home dilemma will be resolved. We will look back at the current debates as we now look back at the quaint agonising over the Y2K bug at the change of the millennium.
There was a recent report about a law firm potentially restricting the bonuses of junior lawyers who do not attend the office for a prescribed amount of time each week. On the other hand, another survey found that firms’ lack of flexibility on working from home makes it more difficult to hire talent. So which way should law firms jump?
WFH covers several types of activity which demand different treatment.
Solitary confinement
First, there is the work on a computer, undertaken in solitude, whether in an office or at home. My work is almost entirely like that. I work from home all the time for a small organisation in which each member of staff – there are only four – works in a different country. And the organisation functions efficiently and successfully.
I can understand that there may be different considerations for a larger operation; and different considerations, too, for junior lawyers who need to learn from senior colleagues, or who need to be brought into a firm-wide culture at the start of their employment. (I am always surprised that junior lawyers do not want to come into the office more often, because it used to be that social life revolved around outings with colleagues after work.)
In all these discussions, office considerations alone seem to feature. But when deciding the balance between home and office, climate consequences should also come into it.
There is plenty of research about the impact of home working on carbon emissions. Not surprisingly, the data presents a complex picture, but in general WFH reduces emissions. Much depends on individual circumstances.
Group think
When I have discussed the issue recently, it has arisen around the climate consequences of meetings from home, which is the second part of the working package. Remote meetings certainly reduce carbon footprint (even if they have their own footprint through electricity and data centres and all else that goes into Zoom or Teams). But the focus and cohesion of the group suffer. There needs to be a balance.
The focus suffers because, if we are honest, concentration levels are not the same. During an in-person meeting, a minimum of courtesy requires us to stay attentive. During a remote meeting, particularly if the camera is off, we do not even have to stay in the room. Moreover, the screen is tiring and alienating – unlike real human company, which keeps our nerve endings engaged.
Group cohesion is just as important. For instance, the small jokes before the meeting starts, and the discussions during tea breaks, bind us into a common identity. That does not happen in the virtual space, or, to the limited extent that it may, does not have the same binding effect.
What I most missed during the pandemic was in-person group bonding, which is essential for my mental health. Once the pandemic was over, I was quite content to continue working from home on my solitary work, but I made a resolution to attend as many group meetings as I could in person. Not only does it make me happier, but I focus more on the issues.
I would differentiate international meetings (flights) from domestic meetings (train), but only because of climate consequences. All the benefits of in-person meetings apply to international meetings, of course, but they should be remote on more occasions for sustainability reasons.
Training
And then we come to training. The divide is not so stark here, because attention levels were already falling off before webinars were a thing. I remember speaking to large in-person groups about the latest developments in X or Y, and more than half the heads would be bowed over a mobile phone, catching up on emails or reading the weather report. Full focus was already lost. We have to accept that for some time now technology has allowed people to do what they want wherever they are. Despite this, in-person training appears to be the most effective.
On the other hand, although webinars where the audience is not visible are a qualitative step further away from group focus, they do permit training which would before not have been feasible. I am involved in training at a European level. Hundreds of lawyers come together through their computers for two hours at a time to learn about a new topic from European Commission officials and other experts. It would be neither cost-effective nor sustainable to do so in person.
So where does all this lead? First, work from home has various elements which need to be treated separately. Second, climate should come into the equation.
Jonathan Goldsmith is Law Society Council member for EU & International, chair of the Law Society’s Policy & Regulatory Affairs Committee and a member of its board. All views expressed are personal and are not made in his capacity as a Law Society Council member, nor on behalf of the Law Society
5 Readers' comments