Perhaps you’ve heard psychologists talk about how people are bad at knowing what makes them happy. If only I could get that new pair of sneakers, I would be happy. Or if I land that dream internship, that will surely make me happy. If I win the lottery, so on and so forth. While these things might give us a jolt of momentary joy, it has been proven that it does not contribute to long lasting, sustainable happiness or well-being.
Kennon Sheldon (Missouri) – a psychologist – and Lawrence Krieger (Florida State) – a lawyer – have teamed up and co-authored serval interesting articles that strengthen this argument, but more specifically with regards to law students and lawyers. In their articles, “What Makes Lawyers Happy? A Data-Driven Prescription to Redefine Professional Success” and “Understanding the Negative Effects of Legal Education on Law Students: A Longitudinal Test of Self-Determination Theory”, Sheldon and Krieger make the case that what makes lawyers happy is not working at a prestigious firm, having a high salary, or the chances of making partner. Rather, what contributes to sustainable happiness and well-being for a lawyer is whether they have autonomy over their work, whether they can relate to the causes that they are advocating for, and whether they have the competences that make them conduct their job effectively. What makes a difference, therefore, is choosing to do the kind of work that internally motivates the lawyer.
So in sum, autonomy, relatedness, competence and inner motivation are factors that have higher positive correlations with a lawyer’s happiness and well-being as opposed to prestige, high salary, and other external factors, which do not. Bearing this in mind, law schools should be providing an environment that supports or enables the student’s autonomy to help them determine what it is that they would like to do, and offer lessons accordingly to build their competences so that they can be successful in that field. However, in their article on legal education, Sheldon and Krieger make the argument that law school creates an environment that is hostile to these endeavors. We are all influenced – whether we like it or not – by various external pressures, need to conform, and indoctrination from our parents, friends and community to be successful and to achieve a certain level of status. Law school and law students who – relatively speaking – are quite competitive against one another add extra layers of stress and expectations.
Law school takes a group of privileged students who have done well enough to be pursuing a legal career and puts them in a competitive grind. While I think this rigorous process builds character and trains them for their future, I also believe that there is also a need for law schools to better facilitate their students’ autonomy, relatedness, competence, and inner motivation. Sheldon and Krieger give an example of how a student who entered law school with idealistic motivations to change the world was corrupted by their own success and the environment. Because the student was doing so well, their values shifted to more selfish desires to maintain that status and that ultimately lead the student to go work for big brand firm offering a high salary because that was the most prestigious and prominent path that others expected this student to take, even though it conflicted with the student's initial idealism.
I am happy to report that I have seen many exceptions to this example, where students with strong sense of belief and purpose go through their legal education uncorrupted and go on to pursue a their dream careers. However, I have also seen just as many students (and practitioners) who are feeling lost or have strayed far away from their initial dreams. Regardless of which category you fall into, perhaps it would be a fruitful exercise on this Blue Monday to have a fresh rethink about why you are doing the things you are doing and ask yourself, what would actually make me happy, knowing that money or reputation isn’t really the answer.