I just read an interview with Dan Ariely, professor of economics at MIT, in which he tells of a curious experiment. Two groups of people are invited to build robots with lego pieces, paying them a small amount for each one. They can quit whenever they want. After building several robots, one of the groups hates the task they are doing and the other does not. They both build robots for money and get paid the same.
What is the difference? In the first group, when someone finishes a robot, they ask if they want to make another one, and if they do, they put the robot they built in a box and give them another box with more parts. However, in the other group, when they are asked if they want to make another one and they answer affirmatively, they disassemble the robot in front of them so that they can build it again with the same pieces.
The conclusion he draws from the experiment is to understand that you have to add meaning to people’s work to increase their motivation. Certain tasks in law firms can seem meaningless and lead to demotivation of the person performing them.
On numerous occasions I come across law firms that assign irrelevant tasks to their lawyers “so that they are not idle” during periods of low activity. Before ordering this type of task, imagine how they disassemble the robot in front of your eyes so that you can reassemble it.