Perhaps one of the enticements of Biglaw is that it is not totally community-less. There is a community at a firm -- united by prestige, money, and esprit de corps. Maybe also the opportunity to do work that really affects the world -- a form of power.
Arnold seems relevant here. On p. 25 he identifies four factors necessary for an organization to survive:
- A creed or set of socially unifying rituals
- Attitudes which give social prestige to people who subordinate themselves to the group
- Institutional habits to manage cooperation
- A tradition that gives validation to the creed
Arnold says: "Granted these essentials, we find successful organizations. Without them, organization can be maintained only by force, and force cannot continue long because it is too exhausting. A number of individuals cannot be found successively to represent the hard-boiled qualities necessary for such organizations."
Assuming that Arnold's criteria hold true to some extent (they seem arbitrary to me -- or perhaps could be simplified to "a creed which helps individuals submit to the group"), then how do law firms, as organizational communities, fit in?
They certainly have survived, and are probably considered successful. Is it because their creeds are strong enough to offer a sense of community to some people? Or is it because they actually do have enough hard-boiled individuals (a succession of managing partners) to succeed absent a unifying creed? Corporations and law firms that are nominally united by a pursuit of wealth still seem to be able to develop institutional cultures and a sense of community.
Of course, surviving and existing are completely different things than being an ideal environment for a young lawyer to work in...
-- GavinSnyder - 10 Feb 2009
|