Lawyers are a unique group, which has deserved the attention of psychologists due to their deficit in the quality of professional life, apparently related to their forced pessimism. "I have studied about 30 different professions to see the relationship between optimism and success, and there is only one in which pessimists are more successful: lawyers," says Martin Seligman. Indeed, with few exceptions and even earning a lot of money, they do not seem to obtain enough satisfaction from their own activity, nor to cultivate personal faculties and strengths that are very rewarding and significant in other jobs.
The reflection that follows may perhaps prove useful to lawyers themselves, but also to other professions that share some of the characteristics of this group. The reader will agree on the need to increase our effectiveness and satisfaction at work, but from this isagological idea I will immediately focus on the professional profile chosen here, to formulate new reflections.
Interested in the quality of life in professional performance, I spoke years ago with positive psychology, promoted by well-known experts such as Martin Seligman and Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi.
I was sure, after many years working in a large company, that we could all be more effective and happy, and that, in the satisfaction surveys of people (or work environment), cardinal aspects were not addressed.
Indeed, I was surprised myself by responding favorably to the questionnaire items in the 80s and 90s, and I said to myself: “Wow, why don't you ask me the questions that I would answer negatively?
It was years ago reading the promoters of the Positive Psychology Movement that I stopped to reflect on what seemed to me to be cardinal keys to professional satisfaction; I am referring to autothelia - dedication to the task for herself, and not so much for her business results - and optimism.
We are undoubtedly happier being able to be optimistic with foundation, and attending as much or more to the positive than to the negative; and we enjoy homework more if we find meaning in it. There are typically autotelic tasks (design or teaching, for example) and other more exothelical ones (logistics management or routines, among many others), but it also depends all on ourselves, sometimes to a great extent; and there are, of course and on the other hand, more optimistic and happy people, and others with a marked pessimistic profile (who, by the way, tend to be viewed with qualms or caution in companies).
I have had, and I will now refer to the group that is the object of these reflections, a direct or indirect relationship with different lawyers, and it seems to me a somewhat colder world than others, without prejudice to the cordiality in the forms; It also seems to me that when talking to them, they generally have a mind on judicial mechanics, while commenting on the facts of the corresponding case.
This is obviously the way it should be, without a doubt, but the truth is that the acute prevention of the lawyers before possible complications - their pessimism, as Seligman describes it - caught my attention, which I soon related to something I had read about it. However, I also met years ago an unusually optimistic lawyer to the satisfaction of his clients (who nevertheless lost, to a general surprise, the case to which I am referring: perhaps the excess of confidence he showed did not escape even the judge himself).
I also have a family experience in a case in which optimism failed, but I think there is no need to dwell on this; In short, my own experience moves me to agree with the existing studies: the effectiveness of the lawyer seems to be related to his pessimism, prudence or prevention, that is, with the immediate and due contemplation of difficulties and obstacles in the cases that arise.
I do not rule out that there is also some cure in health or preparation for the client for what may happen, but undoubtedly lawyers have to be attentive to the difficulties of each case and focus on them. This permanent orientation to the negative must of course affect their quality of professional life, but there are more aspects to analyze.
As a modest observer and lifelong learner, I have also been interested in the profiles of other groups: that of hairdressers (my mother and my aunts were hairdressers), that of nursing, that of scientists and, in general, the casuistry of expert workers who they work as employees. I am not thinking about that of the possible professional deformation but, above all, in what is more related to the effectiveness and professional satisfaction. Ahead.
The professional satisfaction of lawyers
We can certainly all experience professional activity as a “job” (to earn money and live), as a “career” (to acquire prestige, power, etc.), or as a “vocation” (because that is what we like to do), and the legal profession can be reached for various reasons; among them, the discarding of other alternatives when choosing, the family tradition or the aforementioned vocation. But, even if it had been arrived in a vocational way, in the end the lawyer, like any other professional, may live his profession as a career, and perhaps even as a mere job.
We could indeed say something similar, for example, of the doctor, or even of the religious of any cult, without prejudice to their contribution to society. Even if an activity is reached out of an authentic vocation, it must not be ruled out that some percentage of individuals later choose to pursue a career, and go, so to speak, modifying the meaning of what they do.
But let me also emphasize here that we can find a vocation in workers to whom we do not usually attribute it: remember the history of those stonemasons, one of whom was proud to be building a temple for his god; Or think of some people in charge of cleaning, who anticipate the needs and assign all the meaning to their truly essential activity.
By insisting on it, the family doctor can see himself safeguarding the health and well-being of his patients or, more coldly, filling prescriptions; Happily the former seems to be the norm. Yes, we are agreeing that we are happier when we cultivate a vocation, and of course doing things, on a day-to-day basis, that we like to do. And we are also happier having desirable and positive things in our consciousness, instead of negative problems and issues: of Platitude. Let's keep going.
Says Seligman in Authentic Happiness: "Lawyers are trained to be aggressive, judgmental, intellectual, analytical, and unaffectionate, which has predictable emotional consequences: depression, anxiety, and anger." Lawyers are among the highest paid professionals, but the author also tells us that they suffer from depression with a statistic that is three times the average, and that they have the highest divorce rate.
They are apparently disproportionately unhappy and in poor health. Although its study is limited to American professionals, it is certainly possible to extrapolate to other countries to some extent. But why is this happening? Based on its conclusions and other reflections collected, we can perhaps agree here that lawyers:
They must be pessimistic, and this is their most prudent attitude; They must anticipate all sorts of tricks and possible negative incidents in their cases.
Dependent on rules and procedures, they have very narrow decision margins in their exercise.
Also due to functional mechanics, they could be losing information that would provide meaning, light and certainties.
They are surrounded by conflict and tension, and to a much lesser extent by positive emotions that, if they occur, are short-lived.
An important part of their activity takes place (typically isolated) by consulting information and preparing texts adjusted to established formats.
They endure an excessive delay in the resolution of their cases, and have to be dedicated to several concurrent ones, perhaps diverse and complex.
They belong to a world subjected to the dynamic victory-defeat, which entails a sensitive emotional erosion.
They work within the unique framework of dignities and hierarchies of Justice, therefore subject to the applicative criteria of the judges.
In other words, they are aware that Justice does not work so much to do justice as to apply the laws.
Of course, it would not be possible to generalize so much, considering the possible deployment within the group and the fact that each individual is unique; But these (and perhaps other) elements seem to condition, to a greater or lesser extent, their performance and limit their professional satisfaction. And it should also be noted that they may be affecting the cultivation of their personal faculties and strengths, until they end up imposing a characteristic personality; I mean, as the reader will suppose, that a lawyer could be of integrity, impartial, fair, empathetic, optimistic or compassionate nature, but be nevertheless forced in his profession to act on the edge of ethics, or from partial positions, or perhaps defending the strong against the weak, or forgetting about favorable expectations. (I have deleted, as unnecessary, a paragraph with various examples).
Yes, it may be thought that professionalism demands things like these; but, likewise, that a sensible emotional (and even cognitive) cost to pay is perceived here, if the lawyer avoids, as he does, debasing himself. Nor is it in any way gratuitous to speak here of psychic fatigue and burnout, although it is not, of course, anything exclusive to this group.
There is a relationship - synergy, one might say -, of course, between professional satisfaction and the deployment of personal values, faculties and strengths, and we could ask ourselves what endogenous elements catalyze the quality of work life. What, in short, can lawyers and other professionals do to improve your professional satisfaction? Although I have not yet advanced in this analysis, I submit the following for the reader's consideration:
- Review your personal goals and values. No, not like this: Really review your personal goals and values. Identify and cultivate your intrapersonal strengths. Manage your attention and awareness. Cultivate, where possible, the win-win principle. Without indulging, savor your accomplishments. Make the best use of your choice.
Yes, it would be a certain reengineering of ourselves, so necessary in so many cases: indeed we have to secure the foundations and review a good part of our structure. By raising these proposals (from which a broad development is derived) thinking about the specific group that occupies me, I have ended up in perception: that bottleneck that limits us all, that makes us see the same in different ways stuff.
Lawyers' perception of realities
Human beings have a partial (due to incomplete and subjective) vision of realities and that complicates our professional effectiveness (and even the quality of life at work).
We are limited by different filters-obstacles, as neuroscience explains the functioning of the brain from that of the senses; But I would point out, from the outset, that not all information reaches the senses, nor is that which arrives rigorous and pertinent: this fact constitutes a great exogenous filter. And I would also remember now that, after the filters, the attention chooses the information that goes to the consciousness and sends the rest to the unconscious.
Each of us makes a particular use of your attention. Actually, when we talk about different personality types, we are often referring to how we use attention; whether we distinguish the important from the superfluous; whether we look at the details or are panoramic; whether we look at the positive or the negative…
In the practice of law for human beings -very trained, but with the limitations of the species-, the perception of realities is logically conditioned by:
Basically having the client version and the information published.
The particular management of attention and consciousness.
The trend and need to conform to the format of legal descriptions.
Their own mental schemes, which affect all professionals.
The presence of stereotypes in the parties involved.
The detail in the study-analysis of all the information.
The success in the meanings, connections, inferences, analogies and synthesis.
Inquiring ability, which, however, is generally very satisfactory.
Occasional or ingrained feelings, visible or underlying, around the elements of the case.
So there may be some relevant information that has escaped us into the unconscious, requiring intuitive phenomenology to emerge in a timely and valuable way.
Lawyers, unconscious and intuition
We have just referred to the unconscious. The lawyer seems to have to forget or ignore the dictates of his unconscious self, his principles, his values, and even his feelings or his holistic and systemic thinking; He becomes a mechanical expert on the law and the functioning of the Justice, but he is not an engineer who must improve the designs (that is, the rules, the procedures…). If there are workers and managers who can sometimes feel under the sword of Damocles, the lawyer tends to move more frequently between a rock and a hard place.
We would be shocked if a lawyer went out of the way. As an anecdote, I heard and I do not forget, a lawyer address the judge using the term "sir", and he was immediately corrected by that one: your honor! I mean that, to the extent that there is adherence to the norm, there may be some functional atrophy of the right brain.
This kind of reinforcement (by use) of the dominance of the left cerebral hemisphere, does, yes, leave in the background the functions of the right, one of which is intuition: the true jewel in the crown among our mental resources. Simplifying things, its value - that of intuition - resides in the use of unconscious knowledge; In the first approximation, reason uses conscious knowledge, and intuition, the unconscious (among other possible sources). But it is that we have much more unconscious knowledge than conscious, so that intuition is an invaluable asset for all professionals. The unconscious is much more than what we call experience: it is everything learned (and inherited) without passing -because the attention so decided- through consciousness.
Scientific advancement has very often occurred thanks to the best possible synergy between intention, attention, and intuition. This is sometimes fused, associated, or combined with insight, chance, abductive inference, abstraction…; but the intuitive faculty also contributes decisively to innovation in companies and to one's own productivity. In the case of the lawyer, it is not only that he may be being unintuitive (which, in reality, happens to almost all professionals), but that his intuition could be focused mainly on the possible emergence of difficulties and obstacles, while the rest of professionals use it for the emergence of solutions and initiatives, which contributes to their happiness. I will insist on this.
The connection between consciousness and the unconscious is proportional to its cultivation. The deepening of a problem, the concern about something, opens an incubation process that closes with a solution (aha!) That ends up appearing in consciousness, perhaps when we least expect it; little by little, everything works more fluidly and the solutions appear more easily: we are becoming more intuitive. By now, the reader may be thinking that intuitive phenomenology is very complex and plural, but if a synthesis were possible, let's say that a problem, challenge, concern arises in the consciousness, and the unconscious provides us, sooner or later, a solution: what happiness.
In the legal profession, it seems rather that conscience determines the treatment of the case, how it must be presented, what steps must be taken, the applicable solution: this must be done, the other must be done… However, the lawyer has a partial version of reality and lack, for example, data to prevent the reaction of the other party (or the judge) His conscious and unconscious intelligence, being as solid as we can imagine, is limited by incomplete information on the case, so that your possible intuition, in addition to focusing primarily on identifying difficulties that may arise, is probably restricted.
The more information the lawyer receives, the more intuitive, effective and happy he can end up being. Intuitive, effective and happy, because new ways to achieve your goals, or new goals to achieve, may arise for you, both from reason and intuition; intuitive, effective and happy, because you can anticipate complications, reduce uncertainties, find meaning, make connections, better direct inquiries and make stronger claims.
Ending
Lawyers develop a social function of cardinal importance, and perhaps for this reason they also attract the attention of experts; When reading about the subject, myself, usually focused on the relations between managers and workers, I dared to add to what has already been written some daring reflections of a consultant.
I believe, in short, that the lawyer, in addition to the serious problem of psychic entropy and functional dependence, works with often partial realities; and that this, in addition to being related to the above (dissatisfaction), limits the use of their conscious and unconscious intellectual potential, that is, their intelligence and intuition. Protected by the quantity and quality of the information handled, the lawyer would have to transform pessimism and uncertainty into anticipation and anticipation; but he would also perhaps have to contemplate a reengineering of his professional practice, sacrificing some economic benefits in pursuit, and in favor of, of inner peace.
Note that, in the previous paragraph, with some intention, I have referred to the lawyer as a stereotype, and it may be that a professional of the legal profession, if anyone has read this far, has felt excessively blurred. Two notes: let's all be careful with stereotypes, but let's practice the Delphic mandate to know ourselves well. But also, before finishing we must underline the professionalism of the group: despite the difficulties encountered, lawyers get us out of many troubles and contribute to the well-being of their clients. Coexistence requires the Law, and its application must have, among other essential agents, lawyers.
I do not allow myself to draw conclusions. With these last paragraphs I just do this: finish. My reflections had no other intention than to encourage those of the reader. Thanks for getting here. Don't forget: be effective and happy in your work. Give yourselves to your activity, as far as you can, realistic optimism and autotelic charge.
