A study published this week found that prestigious jobs were not linked to more well-being and that public-service work correlated with less alcohol consumption.
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/05/12/lawyers-with-lowest-pay-report-more-happiness/
Shouldn’t that be “Employed Lawyers With Lowest Pay Report More Happiness”? I cannot imagine unemployed lawyers (who have the lowest pay of $0) being very happy.
Maybe the happiest of the higher paid lawyers don’t respond to surveys …
Remember the surveys saying that people in Denmark are the happiest people? Having known a few Danes fairly well, I always thought that Danes would be the least likely people to complain or admit unhappiness to pollsters, and the study confirmed my hunch.
One thing the New York Times didn’t mention that is a big driver of unhappiness among litigators is the sheer contentiousness of the job. There is someone on the other side of the case whose job it is to examine your work with a fine-toothed comb and to find any mistake, no matter how minor, and blow it up all out of proportion. Plus, you end up spending enormous amounts of time with these opponents – often traveling around the country or world with them for endless depositions or court appearances or settlement conferences. Spending that much time with people with whom you have a naturally combative relationship can be difficult. Also, in complex litigation there are so many moving parts and so many complex judgments that have to be made on the fly and that are recorded in transcripts or confirming letters and memoranda that there is a lot of second guessing that goes on. Plus, there is just the sheer difficulty of the job and the expectation that you will be available 24/7.
I’ve generally liked my job during the course of a 20+ year career, but I’m in a bit of a low point right now, and would be much more likely to respond to a survey now than when things are going well.
On the plus side, it is work that is intellectually engaging at the highest level.
" public-service work correlated with less alcohol consumption."
-Who funded this study? It smells like government, that wants to nationalize all businesses so that everybody has a public-service work a.k.a government job. Then how is that Sorient Russia had probably the highest alcohol cnsumption in a world and probably still does. Everybdoy worked for government in Soviet Russia, everybody was in public service in the USSR. Or maybe it is simply possible that study will find whatever the funder wants it to find…just like many other studies and the most notorious of them all…guess…
How many lawyers do you know, Miami? “Public sector” or “public service” =/= “government”.
The study on which the NY Times blog was based was published in the George Washington University Law Review. Here it is:
http://www.gwlr.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/83-Geo-Wash-L-Rev-554.pdf
This is the talk of my office today. Attorneys who have left here to go in house or to government or non-profit positions are emailing here to tease the lawyers who are still here. It’s actually pretty funny.
“I’m happier than you but you could be happy if you use the firm’s tickets to take me to the Yankee game.”
Thanks, oldmom! Very interesting.
Thanks for linking to the study. I skimmed it, and is often the case, the media reports about the study exaggerate the results. The happiness levels are pretty consistent across all groups. I’m pretty skeptical about these kinds of surveys in any event.
I wish they had published the actual survey instrument used.
There’s another study that bears on the same issue and it has been written up as why do men say they work 80 hours. The gist is that at top consulting, etc. companies anyone who is honest about the demands of life is penalized: say you need time for a kid or other family obligation and you are viewed as a lesser worker and get paid less, promoted less, get worse assignments. Take time off for vacation and you’re praised. So how do workers do it? Many cheat. That’s right, they lie and groups of them lie for each other to give the firm the impression they are working many more hours than they are. One example is a guy who pretends to be visiting clients but is actually skiing and making calls in the morning and evening. Others include general lies about being out of the office for work when they’re actually at home or at a ball game, etc. And the real gist to me is that this kind of absurdity means companies encourage lying and cheating and withholding truth instead of honesty and forthrightness AND that this is a big reason why so much high end consulting and financial (and legal, etc.) work is garbage: they lie to and manipulate clients because they live in environments which promote and reward lying and manipulation. (I had these conversations inside a big consulting company. It went as you might expect.)
My point: there is so much crap - internal politics about work and pay and hours and responsibility along with external politics dealing with and managing/manipulating clients and potential clients - that you never feel you’re paid enough, that you always need more reward because you are having your soul beaten on daily.
one of my best friends quit the practice and is a long term high school math substitute. he couldn’t be happier
Lergnom, what you wrote about lawyers very much applies to my industry, especially to startups. Guys and gals would spend their long days alternating playing games on the computer with checking on reactions in the lab. The useful stuff they did could have been done in half of the time, but they had to be there on the premises so the boss would not think that they were slacking off. And of course, they were “working” 80-hr weeks.
But when you are billing by the hour, there are pressures to under-report your time, not over-report. Clients have budgets that are always too low and efficiency is highly prized. So lawyers can’t really get away with over billing their hours.
FYI, I had conversations with a professor who administered personality tests to a large number people at high end consulting companies. He told me they rank high on two metrics and low on another. Guess which? High on intellectual and low on empathy. And high on … manipulation. We agreed not only would the world be better if they hired a different personality type but so would the quality of the work. My observation is I repeatedly heard versions of “The client needs x but we’re going to say y”.
So my actual addition to this thread is that many of the people in such firms - law, etc. - are of a personality type that fits what they do but that isn’t the same as those who opt for a different life.
Or as The Economist rather stupidly put it: some degrees are worth much more than others. Yeah, if you value only money.
In 20 years of big law practice, I’ve never, ever, ever heard anyone say anything remotely close to “the client needs x but we are going to tell them y.” Never, ever. The lawyers In my firm and other firms with which I’ve had contact are highly attuned to the needs of the clients and dedicated to achieving results that are in the clients’ best interests.
That’s not to say that there haven’t been disagreements with certain members of management on certain issues that can raise thorny issues. I’ve been in numerous discussions regarding who the client actually is when the client is a corporate entity and where the interests of the client qua corporation may diverge from our main client contact in the legal department or where the entity’s interest may diverge from individual high ranking officers. Those are very difficult and agonizing situations, but I have never heard anyone say, “It is in the interest of the client to do x but we are going to tell them y.” It is just not true that that happens.
I think law differs from consulting because the client expects honesty on a case and it’s unethical (in many senses) for a lawyer to manipulate a client as a consultancy does. The entire engagement in law is predicated on the interests of the client, so yes there is a difference.
That said, I’ve been privy to big law firm political machinations from both sides. When I was young, I ended up in a ridiculous internal war because a large client preferred me. Lots of ridiculous meetings I had to attend that had nothing to do with me but everything to do with $$$$$$ and power inside the firm. (I bailed, btw.) I’ve also been on the other side as we were recruited by law firm after law firm wanting our business. Those internal issues can be a huge drag.
It matters in other professions too. My brother is a doctor and complains a lot about the hassles of managing his practice, dealing with HMO contracts and issues, dealing with hospital politics, etc. He of course doesn’t manipulate his clients (which is what a patient is). And my personal doctor tells me he’s never enjoyed work more because he sold his practice and no longer has any administrative or management responsibility. He’s told me how much that ate at him. My point is this regard is that so much of our misery is inflicted by other people and that misery can be soul sucking.
A friend used to be a high school teacher and football coach, then became an attorney, then worked his way up to becoming COO of businesses which he and others buy and sell. Definitely makes good money. He was happiest as a high school teacher and football coach. After he makes enough money to “retire,” will then go back to being a HS teacher and football coach.