Emma Clake is a PhD Candidate at the University of Canterbury and talks about the impact of psychological safety on lawyer wellbeing and its relationship to turnover in legal practice.
Although I didn’t realise it at the time, I first experienced psychological safety when I was 14 years old. I was in year ten, and was failing mathematics. I always felt so stupid not being able to figure out the answer – I decided I was a complete failure. My mother asked her friend Shirley, a teacher from another school, if she would tutor me. My progress improved surprisingly quickly. Shirley encouraged me to see that getting the final answer wrong doesn’t mean I’m a complete failure, after all I was getting most of the preliminary calculations correct! Shirley helped me to feel safe about experimentation and learning, which bolstered my confidence and enhanced the belief in my ability to figure out the correct answer. I now realise that Shirley wasn’t just teaching me how to do mathematics, she was enabling me to feel psychologically safe. By the end of year 12, I was among the top students in my class and went on to study statistics and calculus at university.
Amy Edmondson (2004) defined psychological safety as a belief that team members hold regarding the respect and trust they have for each other, affecting their willingness to take intellectual risks, and speak up about issues and mistakes without fear of negative repercussions to themselves or their career1. From 2021 to 2022, as part of my PhD research I conducted surveys with 89 lawyers at two timepoints and interviewed 35 law practitioners (21 lawyers and 14 partners) across New Zealand who had previously or are currently working in law firms. My objective was to examine leadership behaviours, psychological safety and employee wellbeing in legal practice, and to identify factors that lead to employees’ decisions to leave. Early in my interviews, I found that some female lawyers had resigned from their firms, leading to discussions about their decisions. Interestingly, all participants who had resigned or were considering leaving were women. I also uncovered insights influencing male lawyers too.
High turnover of junior lawyers working in the legal profession, particularly among women, has been reported internationally and in New Zealand for over a decade. Lawyers are unlikely to want to share their true reasons for leaving or their desire to leave due to poor psychological safety which my first study indicated is present in some NZ law firms2.
Stress and poor wellbeing have also been extensively reported within the legal profession, likely playing a role in high turnover rates. Employee retention should be a high priority for law firms due to the cost of recruiting and training, sometimes exceeding 200% of an employee’s annual salary3.
Formal hierarchical work environments are obstructive for some lawyers as they can generate fear, and create a barrier that discourages employees from speaking to their leader about issues and sources of work pressure. Many lawyers described scenarios when they felt unable to ‘be themselves’ at work, the apprehension they felt about challenging a senior member in the law firm’s hierarchy, and when taking intellectual risks. These encounters led to a large number of female employees feeling unable to be open and honest about problems that were impacting their work. They either resigned or were contemplating leaving because they believed that expressing themselves openly in the workplace carried substantial risks. These lawyers also believed that it was necessary to not disclose their real reasons for leaving, in order to protect their career prospects.
Stress and poor wellbeing have also been extensively reported within the legal profession, likely playing a role in high turnover rates. Employee retention should be a high priority for law firms due to the cost of recruiting and training, sometimes exceeding 200% of an employee’s annual salary
Alongside hierarchical structures, billable units were identified as one of the main sources of work pressure and a factor contributing to longer working hours. Employees explained that billable units placed enormous pressure on them and in some cases, this led to feeling overworked and stressed. Many female employees interviewed argued that poor work life balance stems from the billable units system and was one of their primary reasons for leaving or for considering leaving. I argue that the billable units system is biased as it rewards those who work and bill longer hours, and disadvantages those who work part-time or who have commitments outside of work such as child care obligations4. My research supports previous findings that show when employees are provided with flexible working arrangements, women tend to use this resource to achieve better work life balance, whereas men tend to increase their work commitment, enabling them to work longer hours5. When law firms measure performance using billable units, and provide employees with flexible work options, this reinforces a stereotypical pattern of work6. As the billable hours system incentivises long hours, this behaviour is rewarded with promotions and bonuses. Men have a comparative advantage because they are able to use time to create more value and are able to complete work at a lower opportunity cost than women.
I also discovered gender differences in the allocation and access to resources at work such as autonomy, leader support and a culture of learning. Resources help lawyers to cope with stress in high-demand environments. Half the leaders in my research evaluated the ability of employees to cope in stressful situations as something that is managed by the individual and considered that “some people are just better [at coping]”. One interpretation of this is that employees who were perceived by their leaders as more adept at coping may have had access to particular resources that facilitated better time management, enabling them to cope with stressful situations. Alternatively, perhaps these employees had the ability to distinguish the availability of resources and could easily access them, thereby enhancing their engagement at work, and were more effective at handling stress. Imbalances in the distribution of unpaid work in the home expose women to additional stress in paid employment7 as they have less time available to complete their work. Male participants said they had considered leaving but stayed due to high pay, feeling trapped in their job as primary breadwinners. Male lawyers also feel more cultural and societal pressures than women to stay working in legal practice and could face social disapproval if they decide to leave8.
Emma and her husband Andy skiingLaw firms need to reflect societal diversity to stay effective and economically relevant. Achieving a shift in organisational culture in order to build a psychologically safe climate and achieve greater gender diversity requires leadership committed to effecting change over an extended period of time. This is particularly important for law firms and all organisations that operate under a formal hierarchical structure, where employees may not feel safe voicing their concerns.
Emma Clarke is a PhD Candidate at the University of Canterbury. Emma is conducting multidisciplinary research across the Schools of Psychology, Business and Law. Her aim is to improve understanding of how law firm leaders and organisations can build psychological safety in high-demand work environments, in order to improve employee wellbeing and reduce turnover. Her PhD will be completed in June 2024.
For further information contact emma.clarke@pg.canterbury.ac.nz