Shedding additional light on earlier explorations in this forum of the subject of happiness is a new book written by Arthur Brooks that distills mountains of data on the subject.  For one thing, politics and happiness turn out to be clearly correlated.  But the correlation may not be what you think.

For starters, conservatives are happier than liberals.  Much happier.  And they have been for over 35 years.  Almost twice as many who describe themselves as "conservative" or "very conservative" say they are "very happy" (44%) as those who consider themselves "liberal" or "very liberal" (25%).  Brooks ascribes that result to three factors:  conservatives are twice as likely to be married, twice as likely to attend church every week, and more likely to have children.  They are NOT, however, richer than their more liberal, more miserable cohorts.

In fact, when the religious and political data are combined, a fascinating continuum of happiness appears.  Religious conservatives are ten times more likely to report being "very happy" than "not too happy" (50% to 5%).  Secular conservatives and religious liberals are about equally happy in the middle. And secular liberals are as likely to say they are "not too happy" as to say they are "very happy" (22% vs. 22%).  

In addition, extremists on both sides are happier than their more moderate cohorts.  Of those "extremely liberal," 35% say they are very happy (vs. 22% of the ordinary liberals) compared to 48% of extreme conservatives (vs. 43% of their less extreme brethren). Brooks attributes the extremists' happiness to their conviction that they are right, which, he notes, often leads them to conclude that the other side is not merely wrong, but evil.  Evidently two-thirds of America's far left and half of the far right say they dislike not only the other side's ideas, but also the people who hold them!

Brooks finds the determinant underlying happiness to be attitude.  Conservatives are more optimistic, believing that if you work hard and play by the rules, you can succeed.  Liberals, on the other hand, tend to focus on injustice and victimization, encouraging people to feel helpless and aggrieved.

So what does this mean for us hard-working lawyers?  The striking correlation is with the well-established personality trait that lawyers exhibit en masse:  pessimism, which, according to Brooks' analysis, should mean that we are also a less happy lot. 

And indeed we are.  It is now well-documented that lawyers are less happy in their work and their personal lives than nearly every other profession surveyed.

Maybe we should get hitched, join a church and start a brood? 

For a full book review of "Gross National Happiness," go to The Economist.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

What's the route to higher efficacy and productivity?  Might that be by staffing with "messy" groups?  So suggests a recent book entitled The Difference:  How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools and Societies by Scott E. Page, professor of complex systems, political science and economics at the University of Michigan. 

Using mathematical modeling, Dr. Page shows how variety in staffing produces organizational strength-- and bottom line results.  In his models, diverse groups of problem-solvers outperformed groups made up of similar individuals with high problem-solving ability.  The diverse groups got stuck less often that did the smart individuals, who tended to think similarly.

According to Dr. Page, different talents and perspectives, which he calls "tools," bring more and different ways of seeing a problem and result in faster/better ways of solving it.  Diverse cities are more productive, diverse boards of directors make better decisions, diverse companies are more innovative.  Interdisciplinary work is the biggest trend in scientific research, he says, and should be the route that business and the professions pursue.

So what does this have to do with lawyers?  Law departments that stretch across many countries are often diverse by necessity.  And by going global, many firms are diversifying by circumstance.  In both cases different cultural, personality and economic perspectives come into the mix.  While trying to preserve the benefits of diversity, these departments and firms are also confronted with the morass of confusion that many different people doing things differently can make.  Molding those differing perspectives into the "BigLaw" firm or department way of doing things--either purposefully, by circulating the administrative memo or lecturing the new recruits, or inadvertently, perhaps by unconsciously discouraging lawyers from ringing an alarm when they spot missteps, can leave you with unintended consequences. 

KPMG's program to test all US partners (see our KPMG Model Delivers Risk Management, Teamwork, Client Satisfaction and Diversity Too) and then use that information to balance various teams--marketing, client, industry and management, to name a few--is a shining example of the usefulness of diverse approaches to every type of issue facing professional services firms.  KPMG is affirmatively pursuing and integrating diversity in their business model to great benefit.

Finding the right balance to both capitalize on the benefits of diversity and to minimize the administrative and management fallout produced by those differences is a modern law firm's challenge.  There is every reason to believe that getting it right is worth the effort.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Is living a life filled with distrust and deception the price of achieving professional success?  As we head into another year, it is a query worth pursuing.

Steve Katz, adjunct professor at Northwestern University's Business Institutions Program, points out a bestseller published in 1998 that purportedly draws from centuries of powerful leaders (on the order of Machiavelli, Talleyrand, Bismarck, Catherine the Great, Mao, Kissinger, Haile Selassie, etc.) for the best strategies for achieving business success. 

The problem with The 48 Laws of Power by Robert Greene (designed by Joost Elffers) is that virtually every one of these "laws" are counter to most current notions of business ethics and best leadership practices, and in some cases contravene a number of other generally accepted precepts as well.  Which doesn't mean that there aren't plenty of people out there who nonetheless following these "laws."

Mastering one's emotions and perfecting the arts of deception and indirection are, the author asserts, the essential keys to success. Here are some examples:

•   Law 3:    Conceal your Intentions
•   Law 7:    Get others to do the work for you, but always take the credit
•   Law 11:  Keep people dependent on you
•   Law 21:  Play a sucker to catch a sucker-- seem dumber than your mark
•   Law 27:  Play on people's need to believe to create a cult-like following
•   Law 33:  Use each person's weakness as a thumbscrew you can turn to your advantage
•   Law 44:  Disarm and infuriate your enemies by mirroring their values and their actions

While mastering one's emotions is a worthy and productive goal that few fully attain, recent research shows that using that skill to suppress emotion at the workplace will not produce much success.  Lack of effective use and conveyance of emotion, particularly by the leader, is most likely to produce a working group that is not cohesive and not satisfied. 

Perfecting deception and indirection would hardly seem to be what would distinguish anyone from the crowd these days.  And in a post-Sarbanes Oxley world, wielding deception and indirection as tools of management could possibly lead to the wrong side of the bars .

What is not particularly surprising is that the books that Amazon.com identifies as most often bought along with 48 Laws of Power are Get Anyone to Do Anything; Never Feel Powerless Again by David J. Lieberman and The Mystery Method: How to Get Beautiful Women Into Bed by "Mystery" and "Lovedrop."  (Was that a collective rush to Amazon?)

The point is that these kinds of  "power" plays are most likely the province of people who feel they lack influence, allure, value.  The sorry result of resorting to these tactics is that, whatever success is achieved in the short run (and I'm not assuming there usually is much), in the long run not only is there no success, but the journey to that unsucessful end will have been quite an unpleasant one for both the "power player" and his/her team.   

A better stance would be to do the opposite of what each of these rules suggest: 

• Make your intentions clear
• Give credit to others even when you have done some of the work
• Provide the support that can set your team free
• Be a source of information and inspiration to those working with you
• Give others the gift that you believe in them
• Show how each person's strengths can help them and their team work better and happier
• Take a stand for your values and make sure your actions follow suit

So, let us take the opposite of another of these "power laws", Law 20 (which advises not to commit to anyone or anything), and commit to a new year of achieving the kind of power that results from using both emotions and intellect to effectively and honestly build trust and respect at work.

Happy new year!

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

A recent article in the New York Times on young 20-something Internet mega-millionaires quoted one as saying “You ask yourself, ‘Why am I not happier given how lucky I’ve been?’”

While we as lawyers, being supremely circumspect, would rarely verbalize this sort of “squishy” sentiment out in the open, given the levels of unhappiness in our profession, it is a question we should be asking ourselves. 

So here are some of the findings about "happiness," which has exploded as a subject of research over the last few years. Let’s start with the data on the current state of happiness in the US.

Recent surveys point to a relatively high “happiness quotient” these days:

·             86% of Americans are content with their jobs (General Social Survey)

·             76% are satisfied with their family income (Pew Research Center Survey)

·             62% expect their personal situation to get better over the next five years vs. only 7% who expect it to get worse

·             65% of Americans are satisfied over all with their own lives—one of the highest personal satisfaction rates in the world.

As the query of that Internet mega-millionaire illustrates, happiness is not correlated with financial resources or even political stability: countries like Nigeria, El Salvador, Columbia, Mexico and Puerto Rico (along with Switzerland, Denmark and Canada) register higher rates of happiness than the US in the World Values Survey. Other countries, such as Romania, Russia and other former Soviet countries, consistently score at the bottom.

This fairly rosy picture in the US becomes decidedly darker when we factor in the “happiness” data on lawyers:

·             Lawyers generally have one of the highest dissatisfaction rates with their work of all industries/professions, with 65% of young associates surveyed by the ABA last year intending to change professions within two years.

·             Lawyers also have the highest “personal distress” rates of any industry, exhibiting dramatically higher incidences of suicide, mental illness, divorce and substance abuse than other industries. 

Women lawyers seem particularly effected by these developments:

·             Fewer women are seeking law degrees: from 1963 through 2001 female enrollment at law schools climbed nearly every year, from 3.7% to a peak of over 50%; since 2002, however, the percentage of women in law schools has declined each year, currently down to 46%.

·             At a time of very high attorney turnover generally (over 20% leave their jobs every year), the highest drop-out-of-the-profession-entirely demographic is women.

·             In spite of many years of women in the "pipeline," only a small proportion of women stay to become partners in law firms (17%) or senior legal counsel in corporations (18%).

The message seems to be that, in spite of Americans' general glee, few lawyers are happy living the lawyer's life.

What Makes Us Happy?

As it turns out, over the last few years a wave of books on happiness, primarily written by academics, have been published. Among them are:

The Pursuit of Happiness, by David G. Myers

Happiness, The Nature and Nurture of Joy and Contentment by David Lykken

Happiness, A History by Darrin M. McMahon

Authentic Happiness by Martin Seligman

The Art of Happiness by the Dalai Lama and Dr. Howard C. Cutler

The Happiness Hypothesis by Jonathan Haidt

Stumbling on Happiness by Daniel Gilbert

Happier: Learn the Secrets of Daily Joy and Lasting Fulfillment by Tal Ben Shahar

Most of these books are based on David Lykken's findings that there is an individual “set point” of happiness to which most people revert, regardless of their life circumstances—illness, financial concerns, family problems. Lottery winners and paraplegics, those both accepted and rejected as partners or general counsel, all on average return to their baseline levels of happiness within a year.

If health and other circumstances don't impact our happiness, what does? Jonathan Haidt compares our emotional life in The Happiness Hypothesis to a small, conscious monkey riding a large, unconscious elephant: in many ways we are estranged from the great bulk of our own inner feelings. The running commentary in our minds about what we feel and why is often simply wrong, he contends. For example, research subjects unknowingly hypnotized to react in a specific way to a cue quickly come up with rational, and in their mind truthful, “explanations” of why they acted that way, even though those explanations are causally entirely beside the point: their reaction was programmed in their unconscious by the hypnosis. 

Not only are we not able to access a great part of our inner feelings, evidently we are not very good at analyzing the happiness data that we do have access to. Daniel Gilbert in Stumbling on Happiness explains that we are very bad at remembering what made us happy in the past and in predicting what will make us happy in the future, often overestimating the bang we will get and how long it will last. For example, people often list children as a source of happiness, yet the data indicates that children in fact are "extremely negative," "mildly negative" or have no effect on overall happiness. (More about this later.)

Could We Be Happier?

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

One of the requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley rules for publicly traded companies is that they demonstrate that they are promoting an "ethical culture" in the workplace.  What does that mean?

"The Manager's Book of Decencies:  How Small Gestures Build Great Companies" by Steve Harrison, chairman of Woodcliff Lake, N.J.-based Lee Hecht Harrison, the employee outplacement arm of Adecco Human Capital Solutions, a division of Adecco SA of Glattbrugg, Switzerland, is an attempt to answer that question.

Mr. Harrison's contends that an ethical culture is the result of many small, and sometimes large, gestures made over a long period of time, with the driving force coming from the top.

"Being decent isn't about being nice... or spending more money-- it's about treating people fairly," Harrison claims. He also believes that good role models at the top have certain common traits. Those Harrison acknowledges as outstanding role models are Colgate-Palmolive Co. chairman Reuben Mark, Nucor Corp.'s former CEO Kenneth Iverson (who died in 2002), Campbell Soup Co. president and CEO Douglas R. Conant, Southwest Airlines Co. chairman Herbert Kelleher, and Dial Corp.'s former president and CEO, Herbert Baum. 

These five leaders exhibit what Harrison calls a high level of "moral intelligence," which is marked by humility and honesty during both good times and bad.

If employers can pay attention to the issues that matter to their employees, "like finding some kind of fulfillment in the job they come in to day after day...then they're on their way to creating a culture of decency which is critical to attracting, retaining and engaging employees."

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Should lawyers “do the right thing” in addition to “being right”?  

A favorite cartoon depicts two lawyers at a desk evidently discussing strategy. One lawyer says to the other: “Is it right?… Is it fair?  Get a grip, Carlton—we’re a law firm!”

Integrity

In an interesting study issued recently, the Consortium for Research on Emotional Intelligence found that financial advisors who demonstrated high levels of “moral and emotional competency” nearly doubled the S&P 500 return on their client portfolios in the years 2001 through 2004, delivering an average return of 25%. 

Of the various attributes studied, integrity had the single strongest impact on client returns. “Results showed that Integrity was the key behavioral competency which predicted the most positive returns for clients." 

Integrity was defined as acting consistently with what one says is important, in other words “walking the talk.”  An example was an advisor willing to give up a lucrative client rather than compromise his/her principles, such as ultimately recommending that a client seek advice from another advisor because the advisor could not in good conscience implement a plan believed to put the client at significant financial risk.

Ethics

In the process of updating his 1996 book The Honest Hour: The Ethics of Time-Based Billing by Attorneys, William George Ross determined that lawyers in 2007 are significantly more likely than a decade ago to pad their bills with unnecessary hours or bill two clients for the same time. Almost 55% (up from 40%) of associates and partners surveyed report performing unnecessary work, and 35% (up from 23%) say they bill two clients for the same time. The number of lawyers who believe double billing is ethical also rose from 35% in 1996 to 48%, and more than two-thirds of lawyers say they have specific knowledge of bill-padding by others.   

Morals

In a May 2, 2007 Law.com article entitled “From Moral Partners to a Moral Firm”, Gregory S. Gallopoulos, the managing partner of Jenner & Block, suggests that the integrated enterprise model that many successful law firms are adopting now, in which strategy and vision belong to the entity as a whole rather than to individual partners, risks producing a vacuum in the area of firm morals. 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Firms of Endearment: How World-Class Companies Profit from Passion and Purpose
by Rajendra Sisodia, David Wolfe and Jagdish N. Sheth contends that companies with more emotionally intelligent employees have stronger bottom line performance than those who don't.  David Wolfe can be a controversial adviser, and some have suggested that being recognized as a good corporate citizen should be sufficient reward for conscientious organizations, without having to convince themselves that both their individual psyches are above par and that their bottom line improves as well.

Regardless of the sniping, the underlying research makes the FoE claims believable.  High EI clearly hits the bottom line. Ninety percent of top individual performers across industries have high EI whereas only 20% of low performers do. Those who raise their EI are roughly 25% more productive than before.   Insurance agents who score high on EI sell twice as much in policy premiums as agents who score lower. Managers at American Express Financial Advisors who complete a training program focusing on one's own and others' emotional reactions achieve significantly higher rates of growth in funds under management than their untrained peers.

Plus, data suggests that employees who are emotionally intelligent are more likely to access and profit from feedback, helping them achieve more over time.

So the logic of companies who have more emotionally intelligent employees out-performing their lower EI brethren (and sisters) certainly makes sense.

The application to law firms and law departments, where checking one's emotions at the door is standard procedure, is obvious-- more emotional intelligence--whether hired, trained, or promoted-- will not only improve culture but produce bottom-line results.

• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks

Carol S. Dweck, a Stanford University psychology professor, is the author of the recently published "Mindset: The New Psychology of Success," which documents how people with a "growth" mind-set who believe they can improve themselves out-perform those with a "fixed" mind-set who believe their capabilities are fixed.  "The growth mind-set person recognizes that you're not good at something before you're good at it," Dweck points out. 

In one instance, Dweck found that when people experience a blow to their self-esteem, those in a fixed mindset repair their self-image by trying to feel that they are better than others, which n a business setting might take the form of blaming or taking things out on a colleague. Those in a growth mindset recover their self-esteem by trying to improve themselves and correct their deficiencies.

While it's gratifying to see the impact of personal belief documented so clearly, parts of this thesis are hardly new-- optimists outperform pessimists across all industries and job descriptions (except in law), in part simply because they believe they are capable of effecting change.  And the success that this sense of empowerment generates in any arena leads to the expectation of and achievement of success in others.  Optimists are also more resilient--understanding that specific setbacks are just that, and not a referendum on their personal worth, which makes them more likely to persevere.

Which brings us to lawyers, the least optimistic of any career, for whom Dr. Seligman has documented that pessimism is in fact a career enhancer, and who consistently score low on resilience.  For lawyers, the new psychology of success begins with systematically training themselves to confine their pessimism to their legal analysis and to bolster their resilience and optimism in the rest of their lives, including management.

In any event, Dweck's overall assertion that rigid thinking benefits no one, least of all yourself, and that a change of mind is always possible, is welcome.

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

Two recent books highlight some of the challenges in building strong practices:  retaining and promoting women and balancing life and work.

Ending the Gauntlet: Removing Barriers to Women's Success in the Law (Thomson/Legalworks, 2006) by Lauren Stiller Rikleen, a partner at the Massachusetts law firm Bowditch & Dewey, reviews the lack of professional fulfillment and the unsustainable personal sacrifice that the current law firm structure engenders in its lawyers, and identifies how these struggles are even more acute for women trying to succeed. While Ms. Rikleen suggests that leaving behind the billable hour fee structure, improved mentoring and other changes within firms can start a transition, it is her opinion that clients and law schools are the ones who have the power to make radical changes in the legal profession and its treatment of lawyers, particularly women.

The ABA's "The Lawyer's Guide to Balancing Life & Work: Taking the Stress Out of Success" by George W. Kaufman (2006) explores the ways that legal practice supports or undermines all lawyers' quest for success, advocating a personal self-assessment to gauge expectations, values and goals and the use of an individual action plan to realize a future more attuned to those issues.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Two recently published books by female doctors highlight some of the differences between the genders in brain development and differentiation, and give insights as to how to best use our diverse legal talent pool.

The Female Brain by Dr. Louann Brizendine explores the differences in the way women process thoughts compared with the way men do.  For example, women use 20,000 words a day compared to 7,000 for men. Evidently everyone starts out with a female brain. Until eight (8) weeks after conception (when testosterone is introduced), all brains are female. When the testosterone surge arrives, cells in the communication and emotion centers are killed off and more cells in the sex and aggression centers are born. As a result, females can hear a broader range of sound frequency and tones in the human voice, are better able to observe facial and other emotional cues, and display greater interest in getting another’s attention.   Female newborns less than twenty-four hours old respond more to the distressed cries of another baby and to the human face than do male newborns. Four year olds that have the highest quality social relationships also registered the lowest doses of testosterone level in utero. Pre-adolescent girls take turns twenty times more often than boys. Girls use language to get consensus, influencing others without telling them directly what to do. They make joint decisions, often agreeing to others’ suggestions, or setting forth their ideas in a form of questions, such as “I’ll be the teacher, okay?” The disorders that inhibit people from picking up on social nuance, such as autism spectrum disorders and Asperger’s syndrome, are 8 times more common in boys than in girls.

Dr. Marianne J. Legato's new book, Why Men Never Remember and Women Never Forget (Rodale, 2005), points out some significant differences in the male and female brains:

·        Female brains produce a hormone called oxytocin that motivates making and preserving connections with other people.

·        Women have a higher rate of blood flow to their brains, making them potentially more efficient.

·        While men have on average 10% heavier brains, women have more gray matter in the frontal cortex of their brains than do men, which is the executive center of the brain and controls complex behaviors.

·        Women also have more connections between the two sides of their brains, allowing the processing of several different streams of information at once. This difference results both in more linear problem-solving approach in men, analyzing and solving one issue at a time, and increased multitasking in women, which some research suggests is less efficient than the linear route. 

·        The amygdala, the primitive part of the brain that responds quickly to stress, has extensive connections in women to the parts that control blood pressure and heart rate, while men have fewer connections, resulting in a greater ability in men to be untouched physiologically by stress.

·        The female brain has higher levels of the hormone estrogen than men, which prolongs the production of cortisol, so a women feels more stressed for a longer period of time than a man in the same situation, and estrogen also activates a larger field of neurons, giving women a more detailed and vivid memory of the stressful event.

·        Regarding communication, women have more gray matter in the left brain, which processes language, and women use both sides of their brains for speech, unlike men, who use only one. Women have more dopamine in the language parts of their brains than men do, allowing more fluid and efficient processing of language. In addition, women usually are much more able to reading subtle or nuanced expression, probably as an evolutionary aide to caring for pre-verbal infants. The net results give women a decidedly increased capacity for, and interest in, communicating. 

·        Higher levels of testosterone have been correlated with enhanced spatial imaging ability (such as manipulating three-dimensional concepts) but with a diminished ability for verbal expression.

·        Others' expectations play a big role in girls' performance. Girls told that the math test they are taking has a gender bias do much worse on the same test than if they are not told that.

·        There are some researchers who believe that the detachment and difficulties in communicating relating emotionally that autistics exhibit are the results of an "extreme male brain," potentially caused by exposure to high levels of testosterone in utero. There are much higher rates of autism among boys than girls.

·        Men's brains atrophy more with aging than do women's—it begins earlier and is more pronounced on the left, language-based side.

·        A study published in Science on what made working women happy reported that homework and commuting ranked the lowest, but watching TV alone ranked very high, above shopping and talking on the phone. Interestingly enough, taking care of children ranked below cooking and just above housework. The amount of sleeplessness and tight work deadlines decreased enjoyment of all pleasurable activities.

·        Women are more stressed than men. A major National Consumer's League study in 2003 found that younger people were more stressed than older generations, and women were significantly more stressed (84%) than men (76%). Men were worried about their work, women about their family, although women who work and have a family seem to get less stressed out when something goes wrong in either place. In addition, women are 2/3 more likely to be depressed than men.

·        Chronic anxiety is associated with reduced brain mass and impaired memory structures in the brain.

·        Stress enhances the speed at which male rats learn,  while female rats' ability was impaired. Nonetheless, women are more resilient after stress than men are: they recover more quickly and more fully, most often from bonding with others.

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

The Fifth International Positive Psychology Summit 2006 was held October 5-7 in Washington DC.  Dr. Martin Seligman, the Fox Leadership Professor of Psychology at the University of Pennsylvania, founded the school of Positive Psychology, which focuses on factors that make for professional and personal success, rather than following the traditional diagnostic model of addressing weaknesses.  There were a number of presentations of interest to lawyers.

Richard Florida, an economist, Hirst Professor in the School of Public Policy at George Mason University, author of the bestseller The Rise of the Creative Class (Basic Books, 2002) and The Flight of the Creative Class (HarperCollins, 2005), was the keynote speaker.  The dramatic results of his research found that highly talented people will overcome financial disincentives to join communities and businesses that promote subjective well-being, such as supporting diversity and encouraging tolerance.  His astonishing findings are that it is the people, the "soul of the city," that drives the production of jobs and financial success, rather than the other way around, as classic economics theory maintained.

These findings fit nicely with the results of David Maister's survey on the factors that drive financial success in personal services businesses.  Maister asked simply "Are employee attitudes correlated with financial success?"  In his book Practice What You Preach:  What Managers Must Do To Create A High-Achievement Culture, he expands on the results of that survey.  Not only is the answer "yes", but, more importantly, Maister found that it is attitudes that drive financial results and not the other way around.

The message for law firms and law departments is that, in a world of escalating pay raises but ever-increasing movement, the soul of the firm-- and how it influences employee attitudes and their sense of well-being-- cana be the key to achieving financial success.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks