Here on Adam Smith, Esq., we’ve never devoted a lot of ink to work/life balance issues or, for that matter, to lawyers’ happiness with their jobs, stress levels, rates of depression/alcohol abuse/divorce (all of which, as is well-known, we over-index on), or similar issues. We haven’t avoided them because they’re “soft” issues or because we’re not expert in them, although the latter is surely true and the former characterization (“soft”) has always struck us as a pejorative resorted to when the accuser cannot actually come up with something concrete that would stick.
Be that as it may, it seems accepted wisdom that lawyers are unhappier with their work than the average Joe Six-Pack. Perhaps, on further review, there’s something and not nothing here.
These thoughts are prompted by a report coming out of Britain that the Office of National Statistics is going to start collecting data on the nation’s happiness levels. Reactions ranged from “not possible” to “cheap fad” to “none of your business” to the fear that, if the numbers are disappointing, can socially mandated cognitive behavioral therapy and Prozac be far behind?
The missing link is that work, its amount, quality, and simply the fact of having work, is the single biggest determinant of measured happiness.
To be sure, happiness heads straight south upon events such as divorce, death of a loved one, or diagnosis with an incurable and evil disease: But it actually tends to rebound to the pre-tragedy level in surprisingly short order. But dissatisfaction in one’s career is more typically a chronic condition, which one never “gets used to.”
Unemployment in particular, to cite the extreme example of career distress, and to bring latecomers to the research up to date, produces psychic wounds entirely out of proportion to the income loss. We actually adapt very well to gains and losses in income in isolation; lottery winners, for example, quickly “revert to the mean” in happiness after a brief euphoria over their gains, a euphoria which is usually measured in weeks or a few months, and never years. Conversely, the recently retired never pine for the lost income; if they pine over anything, they pine for the loss of work per se (without regard to compensation; you get the impression many would go back to work for free if they could). It’s not the loss of income, it’s the unemployment itself that slays people.
This brings us back to Britain.
The odd site “Open Democracy” (UK-based) has opined that the newly elevated importance of workplace happiness may prompt a party–the Labour Party, most obviously–to mount a campaign based on appealing to citizens as producers and not as consumers.
And the relevance to law-land?
For decades, we have relied on compensation: First-year starting salaries, PPP, and all that follows on from that, to make our firms attractive to talent. What if a subset of firms set up to distinguish themselves on a different dimension: That of enticing lawyers who wanted to be happy “producing” and not “consuming.” Lawyers who, in other words, actually liked what they do at the office.
Partially in response to the recession, a little over a year ago McKinsey published Motivating People: Getting Beyond Money,which presented research demonstrating that non-cash motivators were at least as effective or more so than the highest-rated financial incentives. Specifically:
In case you can’t read this, here’s the summary of what it conveys:
- The most highly-ranked financial incentives, performance-based cash bonuses, were ranked extremely or very effective by 60% of respondents and used always or most of the time by 68%
- The lowest-ranked financial incentive, stock options, was deemed effective by 35% and used frequently by 24%
- But the highest ranked nonfinancial incentive, praise and commendation from an immediate manager, was deemed effective by 67% and used frequently by 63%
- Whereas the lowest ranked nonfinancial incentive, opportunities to lead projects or task forces, was still deemed effective by 62% and used frequently by 54%.
We all pay lip service to getting our lawyers and staff engaged and inspired. Maybe we should try using more tools than just the paycheck to get there.
I wonder what type of talent that model might attract.
