The TMGT effect – how firms risk overdoing a good thing

Taking good management ideas too far represents a genuine threat to the performance of law firms and can have negative effects on employees, writes Ronwyn North.

The TMGT effect – the acronym stands for ‘too much of a good thing’ – has been the subject of considerable academic research. The phenomenon suggests that more is not always better, and it can even be harmful.

In what ways, however, could an excess of seemingly good management practices be disadvantageous to your law firm? Well, just as people can harm themselves by over-exercising or over-eating in their daily lives, the TMGT effect is acknowledged in management and business circles, too. Excellent ideas or operational initiatives may be enthusiastically adopted, but have unintended or harmful consequences when taken to extremes. Managing the risk of the TMGT effect requires that people know that the risk exists of overdoing it; they understand in a general sense how much is too much; they recognise the point when ‘good’ is about to tip into ‘excess’; and they have the will or capacity to pull back or stop.

This can be easier said than done. Here are a few examples of the TMGT effect in law practices which illustrate how overdoing it can have negative impacts on clients, staff or the firm – and how managers can respond.

1. Too much internal knowledge-sharing via document management systems

The good thing:  Document management systems allow knowledge-sharing across a law practice and can contribute to greater productivity and leveraging of intellectual capital. A DMS provides the capability to access and contribute to documents, folders and group records anytime, anywhere and by anyone in ways not possible with a traditional paper-based, author-centred system. Systems that operate on the highest levels of open access are called ‘optimistic’ systems; the philosophy is that ‘we trust everyone’ and limiting access should be the exception, not the rule.

TMGT: Knowledge-sharing and open access to data have led to heightened concerns about client confidentiality, information barriers, privacy, insider trading and the theft or misuse of law firm intellectual property such as precedents and clients lists. In particular, today’s information-security-conscious clients are demanding that their confidential information be locked down on a ‘need to know’ basis. Staff, too, want to be sure that personnel records are safe from prying eyes.

The fix: The solution is a DMS based on ‘need to know’ access. It is a more ‘pessimistic’, or limited-access, system whereby the default approach is to deny access unless and until permissions are granted. Of course, moving from more open to more restricted access has its challenges. Everyone wants, or says they want, improved information security (another good thing) but no one is happy when there is urgent work to do and the people deployed to do it are locked out of the system because they lack the right permissions. In a ‘need to know system’, managing a regime of permissions can be complex. People belong to multiple groups, work across multiple locations and time zones and come and go or move around in a variety of temporary or permanent positions. Making the system work requires good information governance and security policies and adequate IT resources. A tip from the experts is to make sure the IT help desk has a good escalation process for those times when a person of influence in the firm says “I want access and I want it now”.

2. Too much open plan

The good thing:  Compared with everyone having his or her own office, the open-plan environment can reduce occupancy costs and increase employee engagement and productivity courtesy of easier collaboration, communication and supervision.

TMGT:  Employers may be fans of open-plan offices because of the apparent cost savings, but many employees and clients have reservations. Emerging research indicates that employers can overestimate the positive impacts and underestimate the negative impacts of open plan on employee productivity and wellbeing. In fact, one study estimates that employees are only one-third as productive in open spaces compared with quiet rooms. This is due to noise and other distractions, along with the considerable time that is wasted looking for spaces to hold meetings and confidential conversations. In terms of wellbeing, some people report feeling more anxious or on edge about the lack of privacy in open-plan offices, while they also worry about the prospect of continual ‘surveillance’. Another study, reported in the Harvard Business Review, says the “collaborative push may be too much of a good thing. Increasingly, people are rediscovering the value of quiet and focus and asking for spaces where they can concentrate”.

To further complicate matters, those aforementioned security-conscious clients are also raising concerns, with many insisting their work be conducted in confidential, secure spaces accessible only to those designated to do the client work.

The fix: The TMGT effect can be offset or prevented through better office design featuring more (and a greater variety of) private spaces, meeting rooms and work zones that are appropriate for certain tasks and work-flows. However, to state the obvious, optimal office design comes at cost and may be more expensive than sticking with the traditional layout.

3. Too many BYO devices

The good thing: Employees using their personal devices – phones, tablets or laptops – for work will in most cases save the law practice money. Furthermore, the concept increases employee convenience and satisfaction because they have their own choice of familiar devices.

TMGT:  The bring-your-own-device, or BYOD, trend may suit your employees, but once again many firms overestimate the positives and underestimate the negatives that come with the reduced control of devices. The number of devices connected to law-practice systems is rapidly increasing and every device adds to the IT management load. Since devices are not ‘standard issue’, the sheer variety of personal devices adds a layer of IT complexity and cost.

In addition, BYO devices can create information security headaches, including: employees and their family members sharing passwords and the use of the device; a lack of timely security updates or patches; and problems wiping or retrieving data when devices are lost, stolen or replaced (or when employees leave the firm). Add to this the potential for disputes about who is entitled to BYOD and who pays for what and it is no wonder some firms are moving to curtail BYOD.

The fix:  Some firms favour standard-issue devices and do not permit BYOD, or they permit personal devices as an exception and then only under strict conditions. In developing a BYOD policy, make the business case by being clear about what you are doing and why, what you expect to gain, how much it will cost or save you, and the trade-offs and risks that need to be managed. Do not simply assume that you can meet the expectations of stakeholders such as security-conscious clients and gadget-savvy staff; do some thorough checks first.

4. Too much work flexibility    

The good thing: Long hours in the office have long been the enemy of work-life balance. Past generations of lawyers may have been willing to put up with this unsatisfactory and unhealthy situation for the sake of their careers, but current and future generations won’t stand for it. Technology now makes it possible to work anywhere, any time and law firms that adopt flexible work practices will be rewarded with employees who are more engaged, productive and loyal.

TMGT: Studies of workplace flexibility produce mixed results, with some evidence now emerging about disadvantages when workers have too much flexibility. The fear among employers that flexible workers will abuse the ‘privilege’ and slack off appears to be unfounded. Indeed, studies show that workers who have the choice of flexibility often devote even more of their unpaid discretionary time to work than those with less control over their work arrangements.

Herein lays the problem, however. Some flexi workers never switch off from work. More flexible hours or more time working from home does not improve work-life balance and, in some cases, can make it worse. Recent studies show that some workers are ‘always on’ due to the real or imagined expectations of clients or employers that they must be available around the clock. Not being able to fully disconnect from work sets up ‘anticipatory stress’ and increases the likelihood of exhaustion, poor performance and burnout.

The fix: Flexible working does not mean a complete absence of structure or a lack of accountability. Boundaries and performance expectations need to be clear and realistic. It seems that the workers who benefit most from flexible work practices are those who can segment their lives by keeping work and non-work activities separate and who stay connected to the workplace and workmates, not just the work. Creative approaches are needed to herd the new breed of flexible cats – new approaches to remote supervision and mentoring, to team contact and communication, and to opportunities to contribute remotely to the life of the law practice.

By now you will probably appreciate that the TMGT effect could apply to other aspects of law practice management – for example, too much automation or social media and not enough of the personal touch; too much client focus and not enough push-back on unrealistic demands or expectations; and too much stability and not enough courage to take a chance on change.

The message is that the art and science of good management is not about uncritically adopting the latest management fad or practices and hoping they turn out to be good things. Realising the benefits of the good things requires effective consideration of the needs and preferences of stakeholders, sound policy development, planning and risk management and, most importantly, continual monitoring of what is happening inside and outside of the law practice. You must be able to pick the turning point when something goes from being a good thing to being overdone.

Safe practice!

Ronwyn North is the managing director of Streeton Consulting and a qualified lawyer who specialises in consulting to the legal profession on practice management issues, including risk management. She can be contacted at rjnorth@streetonconsulting.com.au.

A list of references for this article is available from the author at rjnorth@streetonconsulting.com.au