The reasons that I struggle with the Bazley report
Ihave just finished reading the independent report into sexual harassment and bullying at Russell McVeagh. It offers a unique insight into the inner workings of a large law firm, and leaves me with the impression it is narcissistic, depraved and, frankly, more than a little sick.
Dame Margaret Bazley writes with clarity, and even dry humour. “The role of the firm’s Ethics Committee does not appear to be well understood.” You don’t say.
There are also moments of pathos. After reading how junior and support staff were yelled at, belittled and bullied by arrogant senior partners who “forget they are dealing with humans”, I found myself strangely moved by this sentence: “Many juniors displayed remarkable empathy for the pressure partners are under”.
I felt tears well. Altruism and self-sacrifice from those who are most vulnerable reminds us of what it means to be decent and good. But I also felt angry.
So, these lowly minions in the law firm pecking order, forgave their captors — sorry, bosses — and excused their cruelty because their aggressors were feeling, uh, stressed. This from people regularly expected to work 14-hour days, who were “shushed” by HR when they tried to talk about being groped.
Is there such a thing as Law Firm Stockholm Syndrome? The recurrent maladaptive interpersonal patterns described in this report would suggest so. (Stockholm Syndrome is the name for the strong emotional ties that develop when one person intermittently harasses, beats, threatens, abuses, or intimidates the other.)
In my opinion it’s hard to escape the conclusion junior staff are enmeshed in an abusive relationship with their overlord partners. And yet the report’s recommendation is for those with little power to stick with this toxic marriage but in essence have a more exhaustive list of house rules stuck to the fridge. Yeah, that’ll work.
Despite my respect for Bazley’s mana and the fastidious way she has gone about this work, researching it with input from 250 people, I think her report has serious flaws. Thinking you can change a culture deeply rooted in power and domination by telling people to simply behave better, seems like magical thinking.
Most of her recommendations involve concocting more rules, procedures and protocols for everything from drinking to dating. Yet, the firm — it’s a law firm, rules are its currency — already had procedures and protocols. That didn’t prevent disgusting behaviour or poorly handled complaints about it.
I suspect Bazley admits as much when she suggests that in order to change the culture where some junior staff feel obliged to work through the night, the firm should pay overtime. This seems an admission that when you’re serious about change you need a different reward structure, not just a more detailed manual.
And here is another important note.
I appreciate Bazley pointing out that culture change of the kind she advocates can take maybe 10 years to bring about. But, if she is shrewd enough to see that real change is a slow and arduous process, could she perhaps have pointed out that offering three (three!) free sessions of counselling might be useless?
As someone who has been in twice weekly therapy for four years, and has undergone my own kind of culture transformation, it bothers me that people are getting set up for failure when they expect they are going to get anything of much value in three sessions. You are unlikely to bring about lasting or meaningful change in that time.
I was also puzzled that Bazley didn’t delve into the real-life implications of how staff might go about taking up this meagre offer of counselling. How confidential is that process? From what I gather, in high-stress professions there is plenty of talk of counselling support, but there can still be a stigma and a black mark next to your name if you acknowledge needing it. Even when it’s there, few people dare use it.
Perhaps, most importantly, the very qualities which Bazley is suggesting should be manifested by senior partners (“excellent people management”) are unlikely to co-exist with the qualities of being
the kind of
S