Professional schools as incubators for workplace bullying

It has long been my belief that the seeds of workplace bullying are planted in professional schools that prepare people to enter occupations such as law and medicine.

You start with ambitious young people who (1) are used to being heralded as academic stars; (2) do not have a lot of life experience; and (3) tend to be driven, Type A achievers. You then put them in high-pressured educational environments that emphasize technical knowledge and skills and a lot of “left-brain” logical thinking. These degree programs don’t place a lot of emphasis on interpersonal skills and the development of emotional intelligence.

You then unleash them unto the world of work. Uh oh.

Med school

Dr. Pauline Chen, in a New York Times blog piece that already has attracted hundreds of comments (link here), writes about a resident doctor who terrified the medical students with his explosive behavior:

Powerfully built and with the face of a boxer, he cast a bone-chilling shadow wherever he went in the hospital.

At least that is what my medical school classmates and I thought whenever we passed by a certain resident, or doctor-in-training, just a few years older than we were.

With the wisdom of hindsight, I now see that the young man was a brilliant and promising young doctor who took his patients’ conditions to heart but who also possessed a temper so explosive that medical students dreaded working with him. He had called various classmates “stupid” and “useless” and could erupt with little warning in the middle of hospital halls. Like frightened little mice, we endured the treatment as an inevitable part of medical training, fearful that doing otherwise could result in a career-destroying evaluation or grade.

Chen goes on to discuss studies documenting high levels of abuse directed at medical students, as well as efforts that have been undertaken by some medical schools to change their educational environments — with often disappointing results.

Law school

Lest I be accused of tossing bricks from my glass house, let me quickly acknowledge that law schools are no better at educating their students to be socially intelligent practitioners. Even in the face of pressures being exerted by accreditors and leaders of the Bar to do a better job of preparing students for actual practice, law schools overwhelmingly emphasize the study of judicial decisions, statutes, and regulations.

To the extent that lawyering skills become a part of the law school curriculum through simulation courses, clinical programs, and externships, much of the focus remains on advocacy as the dominant interpersonal skill. Client counseling and personal communications are considered “soft” skills that do not get a lot of attention.

Consequently, a lot of lawyers who possess the intelligence to earn a law degree and pass a bar exam come up short on interpersonal skills. It shouldn’t surprise anyone that the legal profession is home to a lot of workplace bullying. Too many lawyers are wired to act aggressively in any interpersonal situation, including dealing with colleagues and clients. Some cross the line and are downright abusive.

Start early

The cues for what constitutes appropriate behavior often are communicated initially in these professional schools. Doctors and lawyers in training may have no idea how to conduct themselves as practitioners, other than being influenced by a lot of unfortunate “role models” on television. If we want to prevent workplace bullying, the training schools for these professions are the first and perhaps best places to start.

***

Hat tip to Dr. Loraleigh Keashly (Wayne State U.) for the New York Times article.

Healthy vs. dysfunctional organizations

With some 800+ articles posted to this blog since late 2008, I’ve been periodically collecting pieces on related topics for your reading pleasure. Here are eight posts from 2011 and 2010 that address various aspects of organizational behavior:

1. What workplace bullying teaches us about the integrity of American employers (2011) — An employer’s response to psychological abuse of its workers says a lot about its core ethics.

2. Confidential settlements in employment cases: Poof, as if nothing happened (2011) — Gag clauses in settlements of employment cases often shield the worst employers from closer scrutiny.

3. How lousy organizations treat institutional history (2011) — Not all organizations treat their past alike.

4. “Strategic planning”: All too often, a time-sucking bridge to nowhere (2011) — In bad organizations, a drawn-out strategic planning process helps to justify and promote more dysfunction.

5. When bad employers retain thuggish employment lawyers (2011) — The worst employers often hire the least-wonderful employment attorneys.

6. How well does your organization respond to employee feedback and criticism? (2011) — The question says it all.

7. Do organizations suppress our empathy? (2010) — On organizational “heart quality.”

8. Is your workplace psychologically and ethically healthy? (2010) — A great list of questions that yield insights into the culture of your workplace.

Can workplaces be joyful?

Another big global law firm — in this case New York-based Dewey & LeBoeuf, with 1,300 lawyers around the world — is facing extinction, a victim of its own ambitions and, perhaps, some of the very avarice that has fueled the economic meltdown. Google the firm’s name and you’ll come up with plenty of articles offering anticipatory obits.

A brief passage in one piece especially caught my eye. Peter Lattman, writing for the New York Times, quoted a Dewey employee about what it’s like to be there right now:

“Law firms aren’t very joyful places even when things are going well,” said the Dewey employee, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. “How would I describe the atmosphere now? The first word that comes to mind is funereal.”

How interesting: Even when the money is rolling in, these law firms “aren’t very joyful places.” To anyone familiar with the world of what prestige-obsessed lawyers and law students love to call “BigLaw,” this isn’t a surprising characterization.

Hard work

Think what you will of lawyers and the legal profession, but practicing law is hard work, and doing it well requires plenty of time, intellect, and attention to detail. Important rights and obligations often are at stake. So I understand if the typical BigLaw office lacks the atmosphere of a Broadway musical or a World Series champion ticker tape parade.

Nevertheless, something is wrong when smart, talented people who have so many occupational choices find themselves coalesced in such joyless places to earn a living. The sad story of Dewey and, quite likely, other corporate law firms on the brink, is that they haven’t learned any of the deeper, quality-of-work-life lessons coming out of what we’ve been through during the past four years.

The NWI Eightfold Path

Dear Reader, I ask your indulgence. Let’s steer away from the joyless world of the typical corporate law firm and imagine what workplaces could be like. Three years ago, I offered what I call the New Workplace Institute’s “Eightfold Path” to a psychologically healthy workplace. Here it is, once again, for your consideration.

Drawing on relational-cultural theory, organizational justice, and therapeutic jurisprudence, I suggest asking these eight questions to determine whether or not a workplace is psychologically healthy, productive, and socially responsible toward its own workers:

  1. Is there a sense of zest, “buzz,” and opportunity in the workplace?
  2. Do employees feel they are valued and treated with respect and dignity?
  3. Is the organizational culture friendly, inclusive, and supportive?
  4. Is organizational decision making fair, transparent, and evenhanded?
  5. Are diversities of all types welcomed and accepted?
  6. Does the organization face tough questions concerning employee relations?
  7. Are allegations of mistreatment of employees handled fairly and honestly, even when the alleged wrongdoers are in positions of power?
  8. Are compensation and reward systems fair and transparent?

“Radical middle” views of law, psychology, and the legal profession

Mark Satin is a noted political writer and lawyer, a one-time 60s activist whose worldview now resides in what he calls the “radical middle.” Mark’s Radical Middle newsletter (1999-2009) and book (2004) (pictured above) have been informed by perspectives and positions such as such as these:

  • One-world citizenship.  A commitment to overarching human values and to a cosmopolitan identity as world citizens.
  • Business and law.  A recognition that what’s going on in certain boardrooms and law offices today may be more important — and more promising — than what’s going on in the traditional political arena.
  • Consciousness.  A recognition that values, virtues, attitudes, religion, and culture may have more to do with individual happiness — and social progress — than economic growth.
  • One-world compassion.  A refusal to accept that the well-being of people in Rumania or Nigeria or Malaysia is any less important than the well-being of people in Arizona.
  • Ambition, achievement and service.  In the Sixties it was a badge of honor to drop out.  The strategy backfired.  Today most socially committed young people are rushing to become doctors, lawyers, businesspeople, social workers, academics, and that is — or can be — a good thing.

Relevant articles

Here are six of Mark’s extended newsletter commentaries on topics especially relevant to this blog:

Personal side

Some 20 years ago, when I was a young instructor in the first-year Lawyering Skills program at New York University, Mark’s name popped up on my class list. I had been a subscriber to his previous newsletter, New Options, and soon would learn that he closed it down and decided to pursue a law degree.

We became friends and stayed in touch after I moved to Boston to accept a tenure-track appointment at Suffolk University Law School. Eventually I would join the board of the non-profit organization he established to host the Radical Middle newsletter. After a few years, we had a friendly parting of the ways when I felt that my political views were further left to the middle ground he was defining.

Fast forward to today: Although I identify myself as a liberal, Mark’s ideas have had a strong impact on me, to the point where I’m as comfortable in his defined radical middle as I am in the heart of mainstream liberalism. I am in agreement with him more often than not, and in any event I respect the voice he brings to our political and social discourse. Mark is working on a memoir these days, and I look forward to its publication.

Therapeutic jurisprudence in San Juan

I had the privilege of spending three days in San Juan, Puerto Rico, participating in a workshop sponsored by the International Network on Therapeutic Jurisprudence and the University of Puerto Rico (UPR) School of Law. In addition to being treated to the lovely weather and island hospitality, I enjoyed hours of engaging conversations with a marvelous group of scholars and legal educators from around the world.

As I’ve written on numerous occasions, therapeutic jurisprudence (TJ) is a theoretical framework that examines the therapeutic and anti-therapeutic properties of the law, legal practice, and legal education. As I see it, TJ’s implicit policy objective is that our laws and legal systems should promote psychologically healthy outcomes whenever feasible. Several years ago I discovered the TJ community as a result of the work I’ve been doing on workplace bullying and employment law & policy generally, and I have found it to be a humane and open-minded “home” for my research, writing, and public education activities.

The workshop was hosted by TJ co-founder and UPR law professor David Wexler, who invited a small group of law professors and scholars from around the world to share their work and ideas in a more informal, workshop-style setting.

Our discussions covered a span of rich and interesting topics. They included criminal justice, sexual violence, personal injury law, family law, legal education, legal scholarship, mental health law, employment law, and human rights.

As I listened to my colleagues and participated in the discussion, I realized how TJ resonates with me in ways that no other legal theory can match. After all, shouldn’t the law and lawyers aspire to prevent disputes, resolve disputes fairly and with minimal rancor, encourage healthy and harmonious relationships in society, and provide people with peace of mind?

In addition to David Wexler and other colleagues from UPR, participants included (in random order) Shelley Kierstead (Canada), Martine Herzog-Evans (France), Erin Mackay (Australia), Daniel Pulcherio Fensterseifer (Brazil), Doron Shultziner (Israel), Hadar Dancig-Rosenberg (Israel), Arno Akkermans (Netherlands), Luz Mary Parra Nino (Columbia), Susan Daicoff (U.S.), Masha Antokolskaia (Netherlands), Michael Jones (U.S.), and Michael Perlin (U.S.).

Also, many thanks to the faculty, administration, staff, and students of the University of Puerto Rico School of Law — especially Dean Vivian Neptune Rivera, Professor Ana Cristina Gómez Pérez, and law student/conference assistant Samira Yassin Hernández — for extending such a warm welcome.

***

Related post

New podcast: Therapeutic jurisprudence and employment law

TJ website

International Network on Therapeutic Jurisprudence

In memoriam: Michael Rothenberg, public interest lawyer

Michael Rothenberg

Michael Rothenberg, a remarkably accomplished public interest lawyer in New York City, a devoted father and husband, and a generous colleague and friend, died two weeks ago at the age of 47. Michael lost his battle with depression.

On this blog, I sometimes pose the question: What will be your body of work? In other words, in taking stock of our lives, what have we experienced, what have we given, what have we contributed to the world?

In his all-too-short life, Michael’s body of work was abundant, giving, and meaningful.

Michael’s signature professional success came in his work as Executive Director of New York Lawyers for the Public Interest, a pioneering public interest law firm that uses impact litigation and community organizing to better the lives of everyday residents of the city.

But this is only part of his story. For more, please check out this short podcast, free of charge, from the New Workplace Institute podcast series page.

Federal judge Richard Cebull: Hey, my e-mail might’ve been racist, but I’m not

Warning: If you’re ever a plaintiff in a racial discrimination claim, and you see that the, umm, Honorable Richard Cebull is presiding over your case, you might want to ask for a different judge.

As reported by Yahoo! News (here):

A senior US judge has apologized after sending an email containing a racist joke about President Barack Obama that equated African Americans with dogs, a newspaper reported.

Richard Cebull, chief US district judge in the state of Montana, said he sent the email to a small group of friends because he is opposed to Obama. He acknowledged it was racist, but denied being racist himself.

…Cebull, who was nominated by former president George W. Bush and has served as chief judge for the District of Montana since 2008, sent the message from his court email address on February 20, the Great Falls Tribune reported.

The judge admitted that he sent the email to six “old buddies,” the paper reported.

More seriously

Beyond the incredulity of his explanation, there are serious judicial implications about his worldview.

First, he should not be presiding over any discrimination claims, period. In fact, he should not be allowed to preside over any proceeding that includes African-American parties, lawyers, or witnesses.

Second, all past cases involving the judge that included African American parties, lawyers, or witnesses must be reexamined for evidence of judicial bias.

Wrapped in the flag

If you go to this article in the Billings Gazette, you’ll see a photo of Judge Cebull presiding over his courtroom, with an American flag draped over the bench. I guess he’s just an old fashioned patriot.

As far as I’m concerned, he should do the patriotic thing and resign his position.

***

Update 3/4/12 — Amanda Bronstad reports for the National Law Journal (here):

Richard Cebull, chief judge of the U.S. District Court in Montana, has initiated a disciplinary investigation into his own behavior after acknowledging he sent a racist e-mail to friends and family about President Obama.

Bronstad further reports on a growing number of public interest and civil rights groups calling for Cebull’s resignation or removal from the bench.

Career inspirations, 1991: “Hackers” and “Wishcraft”

Twenty years ago, I found myself yearning to do something different with my work life. I had been practicing as a public interest lawyer since graduating from law school, and although I liked certain aspects of the work, I didn’t see myself as being a litigation attorney for the rest of my career.

Two pro bono activities sparked my thinking. As a Legal Aid lawyer in New York City, I had been elected a shop steward (i.e., union rep) to the Association of Legal Aid Attorneys, the union for staff attorneys. The experience served as my discovery of the labor movement and worker advocacy, and it had a formative effect on me. We did and said many rash things as union activists, but the union enabled us to bargain for better pay and provided us with a platform for raising social justice issues.

In addition, I was serving as board chair of the Public Interest Law Foundation (PILF) based at my law school alma mater, New York University. PILF awarded seed-money grants to fledgling public interest law projects, drawn from funds raised from students, alumni/ae, and area law firms. I enjoyed the combination of working with the law student officers of the foundation and blending the tasks of fundraising and grant making. I also learned a heckuva lot about non-profit management and administration.

The needed nudge

However, I was hesitant to move outside of my comfort zone in terms of employment, and I feared that I would have to “start over” if I strayed too far from my credentials as a public interest litigator.

Hackers

It was around that time that I encountered two books that encouraged me to think more expansively about my career. One was Steven Levy’s Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution (1984; now in a 25th anniversary 2010 edition). What a great book about the early days of personal computing, starting with students at MIT obsessing over the university mega-computers that occupied entire rooms in the late 50s and early 60s! Hackers goes on to tell stories about the first homebrewed computer clubs, the formation of companies like Apple, and the development of computer games — with plenty of details about the individuals involved.

I was struck by how these computer pioneers were so utterly into what they were doing. Flow and engagement in one’s work…what a treat!

Wishcraft

I also got hold of a self-help book, Barbara Sher’s Wishcraft: How to Get What You Really Want (1979; now in a 30th anniversary 2009 edition). Wishcraft helps readers identify their strengths and interests and overcome resistances to change, a terrific mix of inspirational and practical advice. It remains one of the best self-help books for people who want to transform their lives.

I don’t think that I worked through every exercise and set of questions in the book, but its basic premise made a strong impact.

NYU Lawyering Program

Inspired in part by these books, I pushed myself to look at opportunities outside of public interest litigation, and the most appealing one was a position as a legal skills instructor in the Lawyering Program at NYU. The Lawyering Program is an innovative, year-long course for new law students that combines instruction in legal research and writing with a series of clinical simulation exercises designed to introduce them to the tasks of interviewing, fact-gathering, negotiation, and advocacy. It is the brainchild of professor Anthony Amsterdam, who has made seminal contributions to civil rights litigation (especially anti-death penalty work) and to clinical legal education.

I applied for the job, and after a series of interviews I was offered a position, which I accepted right away. It was an entry-level, non-tenured instructor position, and I even had to take a small pay cut. It didn’t matter; I loved it and became immediately enamored of teaching. Three years later, I pursued tenure-track appointments and secured my current position at Suffolk University Law School in Boston.

Modest yet meaningful transition

Okay, so going from legal practice to law teaching isn’t exactly a radical departure from the norm — presumably I didn’t need to be inspired by computer pioneers and life transformation experts to make the move.

Nevertheless, I thank these books for helping me to ask myself, what do I want to do with my life, and how do I get there? It has led me to a satisfying career that combines teaching and various types of law reform, public education, advocacy activities. There have been bumps along the road, to be sure, but I know that I made the right choice.

In particular, this career has allowed me to invest considerable time and energies into tackling the problem of workplace bullying. I doubt very much that I would’ve created this niche for myself had I not been given the opportunity to do serious research and writing, eventually leading to the drafting of the anti-bullying Healthy Workplace Bill and extensive contact and collaboration with folks outside of academe.

Lessons

Given my interests in stopping workplace bullying, this blog often discusses the more difficult and nasty aspects of the work experience. That said, I encourage you, especially if you’ve experienced bullying, abuse, and other mistreatment at work, to ask yourself the same compound question that spurred my change in direction some 20 years ago: What do I want to do with my life, and how do I get there?

The path to a better place may not be easy — in fact, there are no guarantees that smart planning and hard work will get you to where you want to be — but this inquiry is a pretty darn good place to start.

Recycling: The Golden Rule at work, hanging together, and personal reinvention

With the holidays beckoning, here are three past articles that offer some positive ideas and messages:

1. What if we applied the Golden Rule at work? (October 2010) — Did you know this “rule” has its roots in many faith traditions?

2. Can communal responses to tough times lead us to better lives? (October 2010) — Hopeful, humane, and creative thinking for difficult times.

3. Seth Godin: Seven keys to personal reinvention (September 2010) — Better than a New Year’s resolution.

[Editor's Note: In addition to maintaining a list of articles that have remained very popular on this blog -- see the Popular and Notable Posts page -- every month or so I'm recycling relevant posts from more than a year ago. Hopefully they will be of interest to newer readers.]

Study: Legal secretaries don’t like working for female attorneys

Here’s a study that will fuel thorny discussions about female-to-female working relationships in the office: As reported by the ABA Journal (link to article by Debra Cassens Weiss, here), “(w)hen Chicago-Kent law professor Felice Batlan surveyed 142 legal secretaries at larger law firms in 2009, not one expressed a preference for working with a female partner.” Ninety-five percent of the online survey respondents self-identified as female.

Here are some of the comments left by survey respondents:

• “Females are harder on their female assistants, more detail oriented, and they have to try harder to prove themselves, so they put that on you. And they are passive aggressive where a guy will just tell you the task and not get emotionally involved and make it personal.”

• “I just feel that men are a little more flexible and less emotional than women. This could be because the female partners feel more pressure to perform.”

• “Female attorneys have a tendency to downgrade a legal secretary.”

• “I am a female legal secretary, but I avoid working for women because [they are] such a pain in the ass! They are too emotional and demeaning.”

• “Female attorneys are either mean because they’re trying to be like their male counterparts or too nice/too emotional because they can’t handle the stress. Either way, their attitude/lack of maturity somehow involves you being a punching bag.”

• Women lawyers have “an air about them.”

Debriefing

Professor Batlan interpreted the results for the ABA Journal:

Batlan wondered if legal secretaries’ attitudes toward women lawyers is influenced by societal expectations. “For a woman to serve a man is an arrangement that conforms to and reproduces dominant and traditional, although contested and changing, gender arrangements,” she writes. “Gender structures tell men that they are entitled to women’s help and that women are supposed to freely give it.”

Other possible reasons: Men still have the power in law firms, and legal secretaries want to work for those in power. Or women lawyers may be more abrupt because of tensions created by conflicts between work and family. Or female lawyers may perceive that the secretaries are willing to do more work for male than women bosses, creating frictions.

Can female-to-female workplace bullying research shed some light?

From my anecdotal observations, even today female attorneys are indeed put between a rock and a hard place. A profession grounded in very stereotypically male behavior expects lawyers to be sharp-edged advocates. However, women perceived as being “strong” are more likely to be judged harshly, while those perceived as being “nice” are more likely to be judged as “weak.”

The Batlan study also resonates with research being done on female-to-female workplace bullying. I’m copying into this post a portion of a previous piece that I wrote in April, “Female-to-female workplace bullying: Homespun theory on an imperfect storm.” I believe it’s very relevant to this topic:

An imperfect storm

So why does female-to-female bullying get such attention? And why does this aggressor-target combination appear to exact such a high price from those on the receiving end? Here is how I connect the dots, based on the observations above and my own surmise:

Treachery

First, if women tend to bully more indirectly, they will be regarded more negatively. In our culture, we regard covert and indirect attacks as more devious than overt and direct attacks. In some ways, they are more frightening to us.

Think in military terms: “Sneak attacks” are always considered more treacherous and “cowardly,” sometimes associated with “unmanliness.” Direct attacks are considered more “honorable,” even when less effective.

Thus, when women bully in ways consistent with statistical indications, their actions will be judged more harshly than those who bully directly.

Perceptions

Second, if women perceive incivility more readily than do men, then they are more likely to recognize and struggle with indirect or covert behaviors that some men may never even notice. It means that women will suffer more due to bullying behaviors.

Double standard

Third, generally speaking, women are judged more harshly than men in the workplace. A male manager may be regarded as “tough,” while a female manager may be called a “b—h” for acting in the same manner.

Expectations

Fourth, it’s quite possible that, especially in professional workplaces, female subordinates enter an organization half-expecting female supervisors to be more supportive and mentoring, rather than hostile and undermining. When they experience incivility at the hands of these individuals, their sense of betrayal is more palpable.

Mobbing

Finally, if female bullies are more adept at enlisting others to join in on the mistreatment, this may give rise to more mobbing-type behaviors.

Adding it up

These factors coalesce into an imperfect storm, whereby women who have been treated poorly or even abusively at work by other women are more likely to perceive the behaviors in very negative and hurtful ways. It may help to explain, for example, why female-dominated professions such as nursing have cultures of incivility — “nurses eat their young” is a well-known quip — grounded in characterizations of “catty” aggression.

This also means that women have to be more self-aware of their behaviors than do men, on average. It is unfair that women who mistreat others may be judged more severely than men who act in the same way, but that is an enduring reality.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 697 other followers