Law Firm Dress Code: Study Shows Formal Clothing Increases Creativity

Law firms tread a fine line between the traditional and the innovative.

You want to be a pioneer in law and policy, but have a predicable, steady-hand in practice.

However, amid talk of flexible schedules and alternative workplace management, long gone is the image of the three-piece suited lawyer behind a mahogany desk in offices with nautical décor. These days, a lawyer is only as good as his or her computer screen or case management software.

Founding partner at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan says he’s convinced that “sartorial freedom helps nurture legal genius” (via the careerist):

“What we [litigators] do is an exercise in creativity. You have a set of facts and the law–and you have to be creative with the two. Dressing casually improves our creativity.”

Urquhart believes that casual dressing helps break down barriers, so that young associates are “more likely to speak up” and “not be so intimidated by the trappings of power.”

“The only dress code we have is that you to have something between your feet and the carpet—and that’s because our insurance company requires it!”

But, before your firm succumbs completely to avant-garde open-plan workspaces or flip-flop Friday, consider a new study in the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science, titled “The Cognitive Consequences of Formal Clothing.

In it, scientists found that when people felt more formally dressed as compared to their surrounding peers, they tended to think more creatively. In fact, one might glean from this article that traditional attire led to more innovative work, not alternative dress codes.

Offices around the world have been touting “casual Fridays” in an attempt to appeal to a younger generation. It has been assumed by employers and academics alike that the more comfortable the employee, the more productive they will be.

But, in a series of controlled experiments, scientists have now found that it is formal dress—as opposed to more casual attire—that makes people more likely to think of themselves as competent and rational.

In addition, people who felt more formally dressed than the people around them were more likely to think abstractly, “by that we mean, basically, holistic or big-picture thinking—so not focusing on the details but seeing bigger ideas, seeing how things connect from a more high-level perspective,” explained Michael Slepian, first author on the paper.

For example, in the experiment (via CNN):

“Slepian asked college students to come to the lab with two sets of clothing: an outfit they’d wear to a job interview, and an outfit they’d wear to class. (These were college students, so even the formal clothing they brought wasn’t too fancy—more like business casual, Slepian said—while the casual outfits tended toward shorts and flip-flops.) Some of the students were told to change into their interview clothes, and others were told to change into their casual ones. Both groups then answered two questionnaires, the first one asking them to rate how formally dressed they felt in comparison to the other students. The second was meant to determine their cognitive-processing style, asking them whether a given item fit within a particular category. For example, abstract thinkers—again, these are people who are more focused on the broader, bigger picture—would be more likely to answer that, sure, a camel could belong under the ‘vehicle’ category; concrete thinkers, on the other hand, would disagree, sticking to a stricter definition of the category.”

In law firm management, the ability to have big-picture thinking is crucial to firm leaders and case managers.

It’s not just that formally dressed employees are more creative, they also command more respect by their counterparts. Not only do you have more faith in yourself, others take note of your serious attire and have more confidence in you, as well.

In this particular experiment, a viable alternative explanation is that the novelty of dressing up—if it’s not something you are used to—contributes to these cognitive consequences of clothing. Even still, this argument stays in favor of Fancy Friday, rather than a casual one, for law firm environments.

So, for those more junior associates, it seems to ring true that you must dress for the job you want (and probably also the job you already have).

Law firms looking to get creative should focus on compensation, not clothing. Get some tips from C4CM’s webinar on Wednesday, June 24, 2015: “Re-inventing Associate Compensation: Pay Structures that Incentivize, Reward & Retain Non-Partner Track Attorneys.

During this interactive session, expert faculty will examine key factors in attracting, retaining and compensating career associates with an eye towards loyalty, fairness, and firm profitability. Plus, they’ll delve into examples of bonus programs for these non-traditional associates, and how to figure in merit, productivity and creativity into their compensation. You will also learn how to:

  • Use creativity, rather than conformity as a criteria for non-salary rewards
  • Utilize proven methods leading firms are using to create firm-building bonus structures for these associates
  • Build associate loyalty and reduce turnover
  • Increase associate awareness of firm business when they are not tasked as rainmakers
  • Evaluate career associate performance in addition to hours

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

New Supreme Court Ruling On Free Speech & Social Media: What Your Law Firm Should Know

Among the myriad possibilities that the Internet age brought to Americans—such as online shopping and instant GPS location—came an equal number of threats to our sanity and security—like cyber attacks and online bullying.

Courts are still reviewing the legal status of the digital businesses that may or may not add value to society, like Airbnb and Uber, or conflict with First Amendment Rights. But yesterday, in an 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court made strides to rule on free speech and social media.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor or a Pennsylvania man who posted violent messages on Facebook and was convicted under a federal statute. The man, Anthony Elonis, testified that some of his violent posts on Facebook were partly inspired by rap star Eminem and posted as a therapeutic response to cope with depression.

Elonis’ lawyer emphasized, “The First Amendment’s basic command is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds it offensive or disagreeable,” according to CNN.

The Supreme Court agreed with Elonis. The Court decided that intent must be firmly established before a person can be criminally prosecuted for words they post online, whether or not the average person may perceive these words as threatening.

“Wrongdoing must be conscious to be criminal,” Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. wrote for the seven-member majority.

“Our holding makes clear that negligence is not sufficient to support a conviction,” continued Chief Justice John Roberts Jr.

Although the Court decided that the legal standard to convict Elonis was too low, they did not tackle the larger constitutional issue at hand: what is the proper standard?

“There’s one way to love you but a thousand ways to kill you,” Elonis wrote in one post, according to the New York Times.

“Enough elementary schools in a ten mile radius to initiate the most heinous school shooting ever imagined,” he wrote in another.

At what point can online messages constitute a real, tangible, and prosecutable threat?

Has the Internet become a field of free-reign when it comes to expression? How can lawyers establish intent based purely on statements expressed via social media?

At the same time, had the Supreme Court upheld Elonis’ previous conviction (for which he was jailed 44 months), suddenly Americans would be held accountable to a criminal degree for every statement they make online—even when the posts are simply meant to vent, not threaten.

Justice Thomas, however, would have upheld Mr. Elonis’s conviction. In a minority opinion (via NYT), he said:

“This failure to decide [by the majority] throws everyone from appellate judges to everyday Facebook users into a state of uncertainty.”

That it does.

In today’s Facebook world, lawyers have an obligation to perform research on social media sites during investigations. And, knowing where the line is drawn is crucial to keeping out of ethical trouble.

Even when it’s not the primary source of prosecution, like in Elonis’ case, social media profiles are a potential treasure trove of information in litigation.

But using social networking can ensnare attorneys in ethical traps in two different ways: (1) when accessing information in someone else’s profile, and (2) when an attorney’s own profile information might be used against them.

So, how can you effectively use social networks to gather information to gain a legal edge while ethically keeping out of trouble, particularly in light of this SCOTUS ruling?

Take the Center For Competitive Management (C4CM)’s comprehensive webinar, “Using Social Media in Legal Investigations: Traversing the Ethical Minefield,” which explores key strategies to improve your legal investigation on social media while keeping yourself safe from legal and ethical pitfalls.

This webinar, along with other online training resources, can be found online here.

The Supreme Court may not want to address the larger ethical issue at hand with social media and free speech, but your law firm can.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

The Beatles: A Business Model For Managing Difficult People at Work To Increase Productivity

“My model for business is The Beatles. They were four guys who kept each other’s kind of negative tendencies in check. They balanced each other, and the total was greater than the sum of the parts. That’s how I see business: Great things in business are never done by one person, they’re done by a team of people,” said Steve Jobs.

Law firms are a team. Law firm success is a team effort. But–occassionally–there is a weak link: the annoying coworker. Your law firm’s ability to keep those negative tendencies of coworkers in check can become your firm’s competitive edge.

In a recent OfficeTeam survey, workers were asked, “In your opinion, which of the following is the most annoying workplace break room behavior?” Workers overwhelmingly stated, “making a mess for others to clean up.” In fact, that was 44 percent of respondents’ major complaint about colleagues’ behavior.

Neck-in-neck for second and third place come “stealing a coworker’s food” and “leaving expired/spoiled food in the refrigerator.”

But the break room is not the only source of people’s workplace pet peeves.

LinkedIn asked over 17,000 professionals “what’s your pet peeve,” and the survey found that break room faux pas, like leaving expired produce in the fridge, ranked only third.

It was the Negative Nelly’s of the world that came in second, and—drum-roll please—“people not taking ownership for their actions” came in first place among coworker pet peeves.

Interestingly, in fourth and fifth place were “starting meetings late or going long,” and “people who don’t respond to emails.” So while you may be annoyed by the constant build up of work-related emails in your inbox, you can find comfort in knowing that your counterparts are equally annoyed that you haven’t yet addressed them.

Certain employees require more “managing” than others. You know the type…the bully, gossip, whiner, slacker. And although they run the gamut from whiners and bullies to pot-stirrers and pessimists, all these irritating folks can be considered “Difficult Employees.”

Unfortunately, one of the most challenging parts of being a leader is dealing with these challenging employees. Yet tolerating these “thorns in your side” is definitely not the best solution. Because even just one difficult employee adds frustration and stress, and it can spread like wildfire attacking productivity and morale.

The biggest mistake your law firm can is not having a written, consistent policy or set of procedures for how to deal with difficult employees.

For example, create a checklist for how your prefer managers to address—first verbal, and then written warnings—difficult employees.  Make a template with objective, not emotional language for your law firm managers to use when written warnings are required.

Circulate these policies to your employees so that both sides understand the consequences for bad attitudes and behaviors in the office.

Also, don’t forget to be an advocate for your employees. Negative Nelly’s (the ones annoying your fellow coworkers) may have personal issues that are affecting their day-to-day work habits. It’s called presenteeism. Employees show up to work in body, but not spirit. It’s important to get at the root of the issue and care for, not criticize, these employees.

Presenteeism—which is defined as the practice of coming to work despite illness, injury or other distress, often resulting in reduced productivity—has been estimated to cost over $150 billion dollars per year, according to an HBR study. And a study by Statistics Canada alleges that lost productivity from presenteeism may be 7.5 times greater than productivity loss from absenteeism.

What can your firm do? Discover powerful tools for dealing with difficult employees and managing conflict by utilizing the 15 cornerstones for handling constructive confrontations in The Center For Competitive Management’s webinar: “Managing the Most Difficult People at Work: 15 Cornerstones for Handling Constructive Confrontations,” online Friday, June 5, 2015 from 11:00AM to 12:15PM EST.

Loaded with practical solutions for managing challenging situations, this power-packed webinar delivers specific strategies for nipping conflict in the bud so you can get your team thinking positively and working toward results, including how to:

  • Handle the tough conversations that employees hate and managers fear
  • Trust that the employee also wants harmony and honest feedback
  • Be alert to rewards that an employee might receive for unacceptable behavior
  • Protect the self-esteem of employees regardless of how you personally feel about them
  • Confidently address employees with an “attitude” problem
  • Handle employees who lose their cool without taking their reactions personally
  • Make honesty non-threatening regardless of the nature of the problem
  • Give critical feedback without bruising egos and causing defensiveness
  • Know what to do with difficult employees when nothing works

This content-rich webinar is loaded with practical tips for providing responsible feedback. If you’ve already tried ignoring the problem with no success, or you’re determined to sharpen your communication skills before you tackle the next tough situation, this webinar is for you.

After all, we only all “get by with a little help from our friends” (and coworkers!).

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Why The Apple Watch (& Time Management At Your Law Firm) Works Best In Pairs

So it’s here: The Apple Watch. What’s the verdict?

“It’s a gorgeous piece of hardware with a clever and simple user interface and some fine built-in functions. It already has more than 4,000 third party apps. I will probably buy one,” writes Walt Mossberg after wearing a demo Apple Watch for more than one month.

“But it’s a fledgling product whose optimal utility lies mostly ahead of it as new watch software is developed. I got the strong feeling that third-party app developers taking their first swing at the thing simply hadn’t yet figured out how best to write software for it—especially since Apple, for now, is requiring that watch apps basically be adjuncts of iPhone apps.”

Because, after all, the best hardware comes with a variety of well-written, complimentary software.

It’s why, for example, in law firm management the best time savers are not thanks to Timex, rather thanks to coupling incentive pay plans with supporting innovative work practices.

Why? According to experts, the secret to project management has nothing to do with time at all. In fact, most managers speed past deadlines.

Forget the schedule. Key filing or court deadlines aside, it’s more important to be goal- and product-oriented than time-oriented.

“Why don’t more project managers sound an alarm when they’re going to blow past their deadlines?” ask Joe Knight, Roger Thomas, and Brad Angus for the Harvard Business Review Blog.

“Because most of them have no earthly idea when they’ll finish the job. They don’t even think it’s possible to know. Too many variables. Too much that’s out of their control.”

It’s true, law firm managers should focus more on what keeps the client informed and happy rather than exactly how long it took you to get there. Unfortunately, the billable hour and client satisfaction are inextricably linked in legal services industry.

For some companies, the Harvard Business Review advice may be sound. “If your customer doesn’t think you’re late, then you’re not late,” it states.

But, if the equity partner thinks you’re late, then you’re late. And, if the judge thinks you’re late, then you’re really, really late.

So, is time management a strategic variable that law firm managers can manipulate at all?

It turns out, a not-so-recent study from 1997 shows that innovative employment practices—incentive pay, flexible job assignments, and higher job security—increase employee productivity. Although employees may be in a time crunch to write that legal brief, those who work for firms providing non-traditional working hours or environments to do so are more efficient and effective at their job.

The study published in the American Economic Review by Ichniowski et al. investigated the productivity effects of innovative employment practices using data from a sample of 36 homogeneous steel production lines owned by 17 companies.

“The productivity regressions demonstrate that lines using a set of innovative work practices, which include incentive pay, teams, flexible job assignments, employment security, and training, achieve substantially higher levels of productivity than do lines with the more traditional approach, which includes narrow job definitions, strict work rules, and hourly pay with close supervision,” write the authors.

In addition, these innovative employment practices tend to be complements. Essentially, optimal incentive structures—like higher employment security but lower salaries, or higher training couple with incentive pay—come in pairs.

“That is, workers’ performance is substantially better under incentive pay plans that are coupled with supporting innovative work practices—such as flexible job design, employee participation in problem-solving, teams, training to provide workers with multiple skills, extensive screening and communication and employment security—than it is under more traditional work practices.”

So, if your law firm can’t pull back on its billable hours or push forward its many deadlines, at least it can manage the time of and human resource policy for its employees.

Consider implementing flexible scheduling, work-from-home policies, or other innovative management practices. Give your employees the opportunity to diversify their workload or work on a variety of departmental teams.

That doesn’t mean your attorneys won’t appreciate the Apple Watch as a firm gift during the holidays. In fact, as Mossberg continues to tout Apple’s genius: “While testing the watch, I was able to try it during a faux check-in at a W hotel in Washington, D.C. As I walked in, my room number appeared on the watch, and I was able to breeze by the front desk, go right to the room and use the watch as a key.” Undoubtedly your traveling lawyers will still benefit from quick-fix gadgets.

But, in the end, the more choices you offer your employees, the more hours they will bill—and happily—for your firm.

Not sure where to start? Check out ideas for innovative management practices for law firms here.

Reference: Ichniowski, C., Shaw, K., & Prennushi, G. 1997. The effects of human resource management practices on productivity: A study of steel finishing lines. American Economic Review, 87: 291-313.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Don’t Sweat It! How A Hoodie Company Uses Proper Planning To Drive Success

“There is really no comparison between American Giant’s hoodie and the competition,” wrote Farhad Manjoo wrote in Slate about American Giant, a San Francisco-based apparel startup that had perfected the hooded sweatshirt.

“When you wear this hoodie, you’ll wonder why all other clothes aren’t made this well.”

You would think that American Giant would be over the moon after being the underdog among apparel companies. Levi’s, J.Crew, and Banana Republic are among the big names in competition with such a little California brand.

Instead of becoming their big break, however, the Slate article almost broke the company apart.

After such rave reviews, Americans flocked to the web to order an American Giant hoodie. In just 36 hours after the story broke, American Giant’s founder, Bayard Winthrop, said the company had sold out of everything—its entire stock.

Backordered since December, the sweatshirt brand was really starting to sweat. But American Giant insisted that this was no supply-chain problem. Instead, it was a confidence problem. There’s a big financial commitment to assuming that orders will be consistently high one season to the next.

So, while Slate popularized the hoodie in December, who knew what next year’s fads would bring?

“The bottom line, for us, is that this wasn’t about the failure of the supply chain,” Winthrop said to Manioo in a follow-up piece.

“It was about planning. And if we plan correctly from now on, we should never be in that situation again.”

This means adequately predicting demand for your product and anticipating potential problems associated with it.

Law firms may not be distributing garments, but they do distribute counsel.

And high-quality counsel depends on the seasonal demand for legal services. It’s important that your law firm understand the dynamics of its community—the demands for divorce lawyers, patent attorneys, or estate planners–as well as possible new legal services trends.

Whether your firm offers general services or is specialized, it’s important to plan ahead for new legal tools, technology, or practices. Take, for example, the newer practice of fixed fees, as opposed to billable rates.

Do you know the rationale for putting fixed fees in an operating account versus a trust account? Should you keep track of your time even if not required for a fee petition just to substantiate that your flat fee is “reasonable”?

Before moving to fixed fee rates, your firm must answer these questions and more. Identifying the right price for your services shouldn’t be a “best guess” in these tumultuous times.

Although attorneys may operate best in a time crunch or high-stakes litigation in the courtroom, law firms operate best with proper planning for business cycles and fads.

Anticipate client needs and anlayse the pros and cons of your alternative billing arrangements (among other trends) before putting them into practice.

If you are a business or law firm, benefit from C4CM’s audio course, “GC’s Guide to Value, AFA’s, and Flat Fees- Getting the Most Bang for Your Legal Buck”. You’ll discover:

  • Strategies to overcome the challenges companies face in an environment where both sides are being pressured to reduce costs,
  • Specific ways to curb legal bills and build more transparency into the fee process, and
  • Methods to mold flat and value-based alterative fee structures, and key considerations/clauses to include.

Success can come in the form of new clients or new demand for your legal expertize. However, without proper planning, policies, and best practices, you may become a victim of your own success.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

What’s The Most Confusing U.S. Code? How Law Firms Can Make Simple Rules For Complex Legal Work

Nobody would dare to call our laws simple. But exactly how complicated are they?

In a working paper titled “Measuring the Complexity of the Law: The United States Code”, Daniel Katz and Michael Bommarito of Michigan State University attempt to measure exactly that, reports Wired magazine.

It may seem impossible—in the least, it’s daunting—the idea of quantitatively measuring the complexity of the United States Code, especially coming up with a metric for exactly how hard it is to understand the law.

As lawyers know, the U.S. Code is essentially the collection of all federal laws, and consists of 51 Titles, or sections, that each deal with different topics, some of the most well-known including, Title 11 for bankruptcy, Title 26 for the tax code, and Title 39 deals for the postal service.

The authors used two metrics, rule search and rule assimilation to measure the complexity of law. Respectively, the terms answer: “How complex is the task of determining the rule or set of rules applicable to the conduct in question?” and “How complex is the process of assimilating the information content of a body of legal rules?”

What were their findings? After ranking the codes according to rule search and rule assimilation, as well as other metrics, the study found Title 42 (Public Health and Welfare) to be the most complex and interconnected of the U.S. Codes. Unsurprisingly, this Code tied with Title 26, or the Internal Revenue Code, which is especially frustrating to Americans this month.

It comes down to some simple rules to define a complex world. The same could be said of your law office management.

Although building a mission statement and outlining your ideal corporate culture is important, a short set of simple rules may help your firm implement its more complex business strategy.

A new book titled Simple Rules by Donald Sull and Kathleen Eisenhardt lays out an old concept. A concept that Sull and Eisenhardt presented in the Harvard Business Review (HBR) back in 2001. “Successful companies shape their high-level strategies by relying not on complicated frameworks but on simple rules of thumb,” wrote the authors in HBR in 2012.

“Managers in these organizations translate corporate objectives into a few straightforward guidelines that help employees make on-the-spot decisions and adapt to constantly shifting environments, while keeping the big picture in mind.”

A strategy must be remembered and understood to be adopted by associates.

So to create, capture, and sustain economic value, law firms should consider distilling their strategy into a few, simple rules.

The book uses the example of a Brazilian freight train, America Latina Logistica, company that was rapidly losing money. It implemented the following simple rules:

  • remove obstacles to growing revenues,
  • minimize up-front expenditure,
  • provide benefits immediately (rather than paying off in the long term), and
  • reuse existing resources.

And the company communicated these simple rules to its employees.

Upon hearing these simple rules and—consequently—understanding them, an employee spoke up to management and proposed a very simple idea that cost the company nothing—upgrade the size of its fuel tanks so the refueling process would take less time.

When your employees understand the prioritizes of the firm, they are better able to contribute to its growth.

In law, it’s easy for associates to get bogged down in the details, the complexity of it all. Make it simple. Distill your message into short, specific, and memorable rules like (1) Always conduct client meetings in-person; (2) ensure one senior partner is present in all client meetings; (3) cross-sell services; and (4) ask for referrals at the end of meetings so the client remembers to do so as he or she walks out of the room.

This very crude version of a strategy prioritizes certain behavior, is easy to remember, and applicable to a very specific situation—client meetings.

Read more in Simple Rules, which comes out April 21.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Drug Testing In The Workplace? The Tradeoff Between Employee Productivity, Firm Cost & Future Lawsuits

It’s been a quarter of a century since the federal Drug-Free Workplace Act was passed, which created requirements for federal government workers and contractors. Today, more than a third of private employers have drug-testing policies, reports NPR. However, with marijuana now legal in two states and approved for medical use in nearly half, what is the future for U.S. drug policies?

Lara Makinen, legislative affairs director in Colorado for the Society for Human Resource Management, says employers are getting a very mixed message.

“We’re being told, ‘Keep your policy as it is, but proceed with caution, because if people are fired…” said Makinen to NPR.

“We probably will see lawsuits.'”

But lawsuits aren’t new to the drug-testing industry.

In 2011, a federal judge issued a temporary injunction against the enforcement of a divisive Florida law that requires “suspicionless drug testing” for all welfare applicants before distributing benefits.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed on behalf of a single father in Orlando a lawsuit that alleges Florida’s law violates Fourth Amendment rights for safeguard against unreasonable search and seizure.

Enacted in May 2011, the new law applies to any adult applying to the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. Those who qualify for assistance are reimbursed for the test in their welfare benefits.

Florida Gov. Rick Scott was one of the law’s biggest advocates, claiming the law would evoke “personal accountability.” Scott also said it would be “unfair for Florida taxpayers to subsidize drug addiction,” quotes John Couwels in an article for CNN.

Governments are not alone in believing individuals should be held personally accountable for abusing illicit drugs, which is why polls show over half of employers in America (57%) still conduct drug tests. Some agencies report this number is on the rise.

Obviously, law firms, like all businesses, aspire for a drug-free workplace. But they also aspire for a productive one. And, it turns out, whether because they represent a level of distrust on the part of the firm or because employees dislike the violation of their privacy, drug testing decreases productivity in the workplace.

A recent study investigated 63 “hightech” firms in the computer equipment and data processing and found that drug testing had “reduced rather than enhanced productivity,” reports the ACLU. Firms with pre-employment testing, versus those with no drug testing at all, scored 16 percent lower on productivity measures. Firms with both pre-employment and random testing were 29 percent less productive than those companies without drug tests.

In addition, drug testing is expensive.

In 1990, the federal government spent $11.7 million to test selected workers in 38 federal agencies. However, of the roughly 29,000 tests taken, only 153 (.5%) were positive for illicit substances. The cost of finding a single drug user—and in this case, over half were moderate, occasional users of marijuana—amounted to $77,000, according to the ACLU. Not to mention, among these employees, there’s always a risk of a false positive.

These reasons might explain why the percentage of employers with testing programs has dropped steadily over time, from 81 percent in 1996 to 62 percent in 2004, according to the American Management Association, cited by TIME. The trend is expected to continue.

Drug testing is no guarantee that you’ll actually catch a drug user.

In Colorado, for example, which has legalized pot, the standard urine test most commonly used in employer drug testing measures the presence of THC—a psychoactive compound in marijuana. But this compound stays in the body for days, weeks, and sometimes longer. So a positive marijuana test may not, necessarily, mean the person taking the test is high on the job. It may not even mean the user has taken the drug recently. Read more about this type of situation on NPR’s story, “Colorado Case Puts Workplace Drug Policies To The Test.”

In the end, if your firm has concerns, there are myriad other more effective and less invasive means to encourage a drug-free workplace:

Substance Abuse Programs And Counseling. Make sure substance abuse, mental health, and counseling programs programs are covered by employer-paid medical insurance. When an employee requests a mental health holiday, accept it.

Preventative and remedial measures to permanently eliminate addiction is far better for the firm and its associate than just identifying such a person, and putting them out on the street.

Comprehensive Reference Checks. In-depth reference checks of potential future employees are equally effective as drug testing. It’s more than likely that a previous employer has noticed patterns of abuse, or has an opinion regarding that employee’s professional conduct. Ask to speak with the employee’s former supervisor, as opposed to the Human Resources representative. Don’t be afraid to ask blunt (but not discriminatory) questions.

Workplace Training and Employee Investment. Enroll your law firm partners and administrators in programs geared toward the identification of drug users in the workplace. These programs also teach remedial actions to confront and appropriately advise these users.

In addition, instead of corporate retreats or costly drug tests, spend money on employee wellness programs—including fitness programs, healthy meals, or in-house massages.

Reducing stress in the office will keep your employees from self-medicating during those long work hours and client meetings. Plus, it sends the opposite message, from mistrust, as with drug tests, to one of support and advocacy.

Learn how to transform your tired, disengaged workforce into a motivated team of top-notch employees — in any economic climate. By participating in C4CM’s in-depth audio conference “10 Critical Methods to Increase Employee Engagement and Improve Job Satisfaction.”

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized