Work/Life Balance
Panelists Trade Barbs at Debate on Work Ethic of Millennial Generation
Posted May 22, 2009 7:35 AM CST
By Debra Cassens Weiss
Are members of the Millennial generation self-entitled and lazy? Or are they energetic, aware and forging a new path so they won’t have to sacrifice their families for a career?
The Wall Street Journal Law Blog highlights the debate—and the conflicts—that emerged at a panel discussion last month at InsideCounsel SuperConference in Chicago. The Millennials—also known as Generation Y—were born between the early 1980s and 2000, and many of them were latchkey kids, Adrian Dayton writes in an account of the session at the blog Marketing Strategy and the Law.
“Partners, you don’t understand us,” Dayton writes. “Let me tell you a little bit about our generation (both X and Y). We grew up in the suburbs. We came home from school to empty houses. You may have heard of us being referred to as the ‘latch-key’ generation. We had two cars, and in most cases money to buy all the food and clothes we needed. We would have traded it all just to have parents that were around more. We don’t want to make the same mistakes our parents made.
“We are not motivated by money. At least not as much as our parents were. The currency we are most interested in is lifestyle. Some of us are brilliant and hard working, but you have to dangle the right carrot in front of us.”
New York criminal defense lawyer Scott Greenfield offers another perspective. At his Simple Justice blog, he has coined a term for Millennials who aren’t given to hard work—the “Slackoisie.” On the panel, he made some harsh statements about these types of people. “Generation Y is entitled, lazy, selfish, tech savvy and incompetent,” he said. “Generation Y uses this term 'life-balance' as an excuse for their incompetence.”
Panel moderator Dan Hull took Greenfield’s side, according to Dayton. “I had a summer associate call me and ask me, ‘So that my girlfriend and I can coordinate our showers in the morning, can I schedule to come in at 9:30 instead of 8:30 to work?’ ” Hull said.
“I think the problem is that they don’t know how to work,” Hull said. “Our firm has hired 15 attorneys in the last few years from Generation Y, and not one of them is still working for us.”
- How B of A’s GC Got Fired: Leave Now, and Leave Your BlackBerry Behind
- Schools Ranked by 'Super Lawyers' Produced
- Law Firm Price Wars Break Out as Some Try ‘Loss Leader’ Bids for Work
- Five Questions for Law Firms Abandoning Lockstep Compensation
- Judge Jails 2 Attorneys for Contempt in 4 Days
- Reed Smith Will Ask Nonequity Partners to Pony Up Possibly 15% of Pay
- Court Deputy Ordered to Apologize or Face Jail After Taking Lawyer's Paperwork
- Skadden Jumps on the Bonus Bandwagon
- ABA Executive Director Resigns
- Nasty Attitude to Co-Worker, Naughty Word in E-Mail Cost 2 Their Jobs
Should Supreme Court Justices Be Able to Review News Accounts Before Publication?
Comments
George Patsourakos
May 22, 2009 9:37 AM CST
Most law school graduates today are not motivated to work hard in law firms, in contrast to previous generations of lawyers. The fact is that these new lawyers received everything they wanted while growing up—both of their parents tended to work—because they were provided with everything by their parents. As a result of this upbringing, most of these lawyers now want to receive a high salary, but they do not want to do the work required for receiving it.
Flag this comment
JN
May 22, 2009 9:46 AM CST
I think there’s an argument on either side - one pushing for a better balance of one’s work life with one’s family life (especially if you were raised by a nanny and know what work-a-holic family life can be like) and one that says, hey, if you want to vacation in Provence and Nice, drive a Mercedes, and rub elbows with the elite of any profession, you’re going to have to work for it - and sacrifice social/family life time. What’s more important? It’s your purely subjective choice.
Flag this comment
Gen-x
May 22, 2009 10:31 AM CST
Oh, and we weren’t latch-key kids. We were trusted to come home to an empty house and not do anything stupid until our parents got home. That usually consisted of eating a snack, doing our homework, and finishing our chores. We were also allowed to ride our bikes without helmets, walk to our friends’ houses without supervision, and play dodgeball in gym class.
Flag this comment
Chris
May 22, 2009 10:34 AM CST
I agree with #2. When people talk about work life balance, generally they aren’t expecting to be paid like someone who works 100 hours a week. It’s amazing that many big firms doing the mass layoffs haven’t figured out that if they dropped the billilble hour requirement AND the pay of their new attorney’s they’d probably have a happier and more productive group than the old fellas working 100 hour weeks and working on their 3rd heart attacks.
As a whole the millennials are a smarter and far more resorseful generation than the baby boomers (talk about a generation that got everything handed to them). While arguments can be made that both millennials and boomers received ample (or excessive) parental attention, the millennials enter a far more competitive globalized ecconomy than did the boomers. In my parents’ generation, having a college degree was enough. Today you need grad school just to be considered for many entry level positions. In addition, the millennial generation will ultimately have to (and to an extent already is) carry the HUGE boomer generation on our backs as we make up the difference between what THEY put in for social security and what THEY will ultimately consume. Boomers might counter with the concept of the boomerang generation returning home after college because they can’t make it, but at least there’s a stigma associated with that. There’s no stigma associated with a generation that will bankrupt social security for the next generation.
In short, boomers need to shut the hell up about the work ethic of millennals and embrace some concept of work life balance themselves.
Flag this comment
Tim
May 22, 2009 1:41 PM CST
Both sides of this debate need to shut the hell up. I’m sick of it.
You don’t like Millenials? Great. How far’s that going to get you in 10 years? Boomers don’t understand you? Well, why don’t you cry about it until you get fired?
Look, the bottom line is that neither of these factions understand the other side’s interests. And that has a lot more to do with pride than with being right or wrong. The boomers are upset because they worked through their youth, and don’t want to see another generation come along that doesn’t “have to” put in the same man hours to get ahead. Millenials are pissed because they were promised a phenomenal ROI on this law thing, and so far it’s looking like they got shafted by people their bosses’ age who made them leverage their futures on their educations and now want to pay them less to work more.
But the boomers need to understand that, in 10 years or less, these “slackoisie” aren’t just going to be your peons, they’re going to be your clients, and they’re not going to like your resentment. And millenials need to understand that their options are either to change the system from within, which means playing by the rules until you have the clout to change them, or change it from without, which means open your own shop and take the risks along with the benefits.
Your interests aren’t at odds, folks. If you’d just get past your own smugness you could really serve some clients. Too bad.
All these people need to go re-read Getting to Yes.
Flag this comment
Charis P
May 22, 2009 1:47 PM CST
Apparently at least some “millennials” are not smart enough to spell the word “resourceful.”
It’s simply not credible to claim that new associates would be happy to take a pay cut if the billable hour requirement were cut. Corporate associates at many firms already have reduced billable expectations simply because there is not enough work to meet prior billable hour demands, yet we’re still hearing a fair amount of bitching and whining about pay cuts to what were already over inflated salaries.
If big law firm associates really wanted lifestyle without a big salary they wouldn’t be at big law firms. They would be working in smaller firms with lower billable expectations or outside of the billable hour culture entirely by working in the public service sector.
Flag this comment
Scott Greenfield
May 22, 2009 3:07 PM CST
Much as I would like to, I cannot take credit for coining the term, “Slackoisie”. The word was created by J. Daniel Hull of the firm Hull McGuire and the blawg What about Clients? I am fortunate that Hull likes me enough to allow me to use his wonderful word.
Flag this comment
Dan Hull
May 22, 2009 6:37 PM CST
Scott: Thanks, sir. You ARE a stand-up guy. But why are the folks in the comments above in such a bad mood on a Friday before a long weekend? Forced to work 35 hours?
And re: “Getting to Yes”, please get the net.
“Yes” authors Fisher, Ury , and Patton would be mortified to learn their great book was being used to support overtures for mediocrity. How could anyone imply without the utmost shame that a do-or-die work ethic—which serves clients—should be be compromised? And during a recession? There are lots of things we can give and take on in life—but this subject is not one of them.
Employers: Get off your knees. The notion of Gen-Y power is a ruse. You hold the cards. Unless you own taco stands or fast food shops, or you are a trend-following coward, don’t settle with Gen-Y when they would hurt the workplace, clients or customers. Demand excellence on your terms. If you don’t get it, take out the garbage. Then put out a new call for resumes. Mail-it-in work cultures hurt everyone.
Flag this comment
Adrian Dayton
May 26, 2009 6:57 AM CST
We have no power, huh? We shall see.
Check out my reply to that here:
“Get Out of My Face: Why Generation Y Refuses to Put in Face Time.” http://adriandayton.com/blog
Flag this comment
Add a Comment
We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.
Commenting has expired on this post.