The Motivation Quandary within Law Firms
We all know: Motivation within any organization is key. It’s the fuel that propels teams forward, drives ambition, and steers action. When it comes to law firms, motivation is especially important – without it, you wouldn’t survive. This profession demands rigorous intellect, unwavering commitment, and ethical fortitude. Being a successful lawyer requires a large and sustained dose of motivation. But what keeps coming up is that there seems to be a dearth of it. Partners speak about a lack of ownership and drive in the younger associate ranks. And this “malaise” extends to some senior attorneys too.
To take a closer look at this issue, we might start by considering how motivation predominantly works within law firms. Much like many other workplaces, law firms often take a carrot and stick approach. “Good performance” (think utilization, time recording, hours, billing, collections), if rewarded explicitly, is typically rewarded monetarily through compensation and bonuses, and under performance is sanctioned.
Is it possible that this approach to motivation is leading to the shortage of ownership and drive we’re seeing? Maybe. I say “maybe” because what’s important to note is that with this carrot and stick approach, motivation is extrinsic. And researchers have long questioned the efficacy of extrinsic motivation: How likely is it to consistently shape/guide behavior in the long-term?
In their 1990s study, economists Uri Gneezy and Aldo Rustichini highlighted the shortcomings of extrinsic motivators. They set out to understand how the introduction of a fine for parents arriving late to pick up their children from daycare would affect the parents’ behavior. The result? After the school established the new fines-based policy, late pickups increased.
What the study underlines is that human motivation is incredibly complex and that extrinsic motivators have limitations. In this situation, at the school, the introduction of the fine replaced the internal moral obligation that the parents already felt to arrive on time with a more transactional mindset. The researchers concluded that what was more effective in shaping behavior were intrinsic motivators, rather than extrinsic (i.e., financial) ones. The stick had not worked!
The question you may now be pondering is whether research has narrowed in on what can more effectively motivate individuals and shape/guide behavior. There is no single right answer. There’s no magic bullet. But we might look to David Pink’s motivation theory (in his book ‘Drive’) to unpack one alternative to extrinsic motivation.
That alternative is intrinsic motivation: The drive to do or accomplish something that emerges from one’s own personal desire or satisfaction. Pink argues that extrinsic motivation is ineffective for motivating people to do/perform well in tasks that aren’t mechanical or routine, i.e., those that require high-level thinking, creativity, and innovation.
When intrinsic motivators come into play, engagement becomes less about compliance – the “must do” - and more about discretionary effort – the “want to do”.
Pink splits the concept intrinsic motivation into three factors:
1. Autonomy is the power to decide, the power to shape your approach toward a certain project or task, using your own reasoning and judgment.
2. Mastery is about improving at something that matters to you.
3. Purpose is the way we can connect our own efforts to a broader mission or objectives.
So, with all that in mind, if we keep on using extrinsic motivators and keep on finding that they don’t work or are not sustainable longer-term, maybe, just maybe, it’s time to revisit how we motivate people?
