Change? It’s just not practical

Clearly defined processes combined with a more open-minded approach to technology can help law firms with their change management processes, says Jack Shepherd, legal practice lead at iManage.

In a recent catch up with Law.com Ed Estrada, consultant, adjunct professor at Cornell Tech expressed that “resistance to technology takes many forms”. It’s a very human behaviour to find any means possible to resist change. Whether that’s the resistance to invest, change behaviour, or even eliminate behavioural habits that get in the way of progress. As I’ve mentioned in a previous blog, Lawyers will never adopt something new unless they can see that the value it offers outweighs the burden of changing their ways of (not) working in the first place.

I recently attended the Briefing Knowledge Leaders event, where Dr Pippa Lally (a psychologist, with no legal experience) talked about habit forming and habit breaking. She identified some great practical tips on how to instigate change: one, people are persuaded more by loss aversion than gaining benefits; two, people are biased towards immediate, rather than future benefits; three, people are more likely to change if social norms are established; and, four, people are more likely to change if friction is introduced around existing habits and working practices.

In an industry that’s conventionally tied to the billable hour, time spent adopting new technology is never going to be practical, but it’s something that law firms must do to remain competitive. Estrada goes on to say that “many firms are still operating as if competition is limited to other law firms.” Technology is readily enabling in-house departments to perform functions normally shipped to outside counsel. Imagine being left behind – by your competition and your clients alike.

Lost in translation

To facilitate any meaningful change, there is a real need to document and follow defined processes, because technology and change does not exist in a vacuum – it manifests in the things people do day-in day-out. Defining processes will help minimise the risk of misinterpretation. As well as it being human nature for people to avoid change, we must also remember that judgement tends to be subjective. The need for subjectivity can often clash with the need to follow objectively defined processes.

Take this fascinating study featured in Artificial Lawyer – if a lawyer were to tell you that you have a ‘likely’ chance of being successful in a dispute, what probability would you assign to that statement? In the study, conducted by the UK Government in 2020, some assigned a 60-75% chance while others believed it was an 85-100% – something to keep in mind when trying to maintain important relationships with clients.

Can we have a little chat?

Having switched from an organisation that was 98% email-based for communications to one that is 80% instant messaging-based, I can confirm that having some things in email and some

things in instant messaging apps does not cause me the headaches that I thought it would.

I don’t get why people get so hung up on the “what do I do in email and what do I do in instant messenger?” question. Nobody asked before – “when do I phone people? when do I see them in person and when do I send an email?” Different formats of communication have existed for as long as the legal profession itself and have their specific use cases.

Other retorts I hear from knowledge workers include things like – “our communication style is too formal for chat.” Not true. People regularly send emails less than a minute apart, then they overlap because they are sending them at the same time. They are chatting. Just in email, the wrong tool for the job.

To help maintain a culture of collaboration while working remotely, take the iManage quiz to find out if your organization is following instant messaging best practices.