| I agree that the survey used by Dr. Monahan definitely allows for the possibility of rationalizing behavior, but the use of this standard survey over lots of individuals allows comparisons of the data between lawyers and everyone else as well as comparisons between groups of lawyers. I really wish that Dr. Monahan had measured job satisfaction over time (as opposed to a one-time survey at 20 years after law school). If these satisfaction surveys were administered longitudinally, then we could compare the results of this study with the previous studies showing high dissatisfaction in lawyers. My understanding of prior studies, including most of those included in the meta-study, is that they were generally administered with much younger lawyers, so it is conceivable that lawyers are very unhappy as new lawyers and then they become happier later in life. In addition, the fact that Dr. Monahan studied individuals in their 40s may be a reflection of a different type of work culture than the one our generation will experience. This is consistent with the finding in the meta-study that job satisfaction in lawyers has declined over time. Since these lawyers were considerably older, then they may reflect a much higher job satisfaction than we will experience.
What do we do with this job satisfaction research? I don't think the answer is that we all become government lawyers. The goal is to determine what it is about these types of careers that provide higher satisfaction and try to figure out how to get those features into our own careers. I think the hours requirement is one factor that relates to job satisfaction. In addition, a concern over ethics most likely plays a role. If government lawyers don't need to worry about being disbarred for purposely losing their cases (as that NYTimes article suggests), then maybe there is an explanation for why they are happier than everyone else. |