As an occupational psychologist who advises law firms on matters of selection, training and development, I spend much of my working day and many of my coffee breaks in the company of various shades of lawyer. Over the years, I have come to recognise the lull in the small talk and the slight sideways look that presages the inevitable question "so, you’re a psychologist — tell me, what’s the ideal psychological profile for a lawyer then?" For years, I have managed to bluff my way through this question by muttering things about there being ‘horses for courses’, ‘many ways to skin a cat’, and other non-committal animal aphorisms to get myself off the hook. After all, these are clients of mine — I’m not going to suggest that they might be, well… slightly odd.
But lawyers are odd. For a start, they are highly intelligent. Compared to the average person in the street they are as clever as a barrel load of monkeys. Common sense suggests that ‘personality’ probably has something to do with it too, but just as common sense also suggests that ‘many hands make light work’ and ‘too many cooks spoil the broth’ it is possible to construct all manner of appealing but contradictory ‘psychological profiles’ of the perfect lawyer. For example, a successful lawyer has to focus and concentrate on important little details — characteristics classically associated with an ‘introverted’ personality type. But they also need to be expressive and eloquent advocates if they are to persuade other people around to their point of view. That goes with ‘extroversion’, and the complete opposite end of the scale. So the word ‘chameleon’ starts to come to mind, and in no time at all we are back to animals again.
To begin to get a handle on what makes lawyers different from other people, and what makes successful lawyers different from the rest, we need to get hold of some hard empirical data (inciden-tally, "a desire to get hold of hard empirical data" is associated with a personality type known as ‘Sensing’ — something else we could argue lawyers should be. It is also associated with frustration at what Freud called the ‘Anal’ stage — but it is perhaps best to keep quiet about this when in you are standing next to the head of litigation). Hard empirical personality data on UK lawyers are hard to find, partly because UK law firms have been, what is politely called, ‘late-adopters’ when it comes to embracing up-to-date selection and assessment techniques that would allow us to measure a lawyer’s personality. Anecdotal evidence that someone was "a bit weird" at the interview is not enough. Fortunately, our American colleagues are way ahead of the game.
Florida Coastal School of Law Professor Susan Daicoff, author of the recently published, Lawyer, Know Thyself has been collecting data on lawyers’ personalities for many years. Daicoff has Masters degrees in both law and clinical psychology, and according to her research, lawyers are different from ‘normal’ people in several ways.
Firstly, lawyers have a high need for achievement. They also score highly on measures of competitiveness, masculinity, argumentativeness, aggression and dominance. Compared to the general (US) public, they are more cold and quarrelsome, and less warm and agreeable. To address the problem of cause and effect (are corporate litigators quarrelsome and pedantic by nature, or do they just seem that way because it goes with the job?), Daicoff has data to suggest that some of these characteristics begin to manifest themselves in lawyers’ childhoods, or may even have a biological basis. Levels of the male hormone, testosterone, are for example, higher in lawyers than they are in the general population (and yes, this goes for female lawyers too).
Next, lawyers have a disproportionate preference for ‘Thinking’ versus ‘Feeling’ — a distinction derived from Jungian psychology. People with a Thinking preference tend to make decisions in a detached, objective and logical manner, and make a conscious effort not to let their personal values get in the way of making a ‘right’ decision. A Feeling preference, on the other hand, is associated with making decisions on a more personal, subjective and values-driven basis. While ‘Thinkers’ might actually look forward to a good argument, ‘Feelers’ are uncomfortable with conflict, seek and promote harmony, and enjoy opportunities to help people. As a ‘Thinking’ type myself, it makes absolute sense to me that lawyers have a tendency to be coldly logical — it would also explain why I spend a lot of my time encouraging Partners to be a bit more ‘humane’ towards their often over-burdened assistants.
Yes, it does make sense, sound common sense, but even as a thinker I can’t help but ‘feel’ that it’s all a bit too simplistic — and here’s why…
The Thinking versus Feeling preference is usually measured using a device called the Myers Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI). The MBTI can also be used to measure the ‘Extroversion versus Introversion’ and the ‘Sensing’ (versus ‘Intuition’) preferences mentioned earlier in this article, as well as something called ‘Judging’ versus ‘Perceiving’ (a preference for an orderly, structured approach to things in general, versus a more flexible, spontaneous approach). The poles in each pair of preferences are mutually exclusive, so someone’s MBTI ‘type’ is a combination of four letters that denotes their particular set of preferences — for example ‘ISTJ’ stands for Introverted, Sensing, Thinking, Judging type. ISTJs are particularly logical and analytical, and while they are quite fair and ‘reasonable’ in their dealings with other people, they are often somewhat detached and intimidating.
ISTJ is the most common type among lawyers, according to research conducted by Lawrence Richard, of US-based legal consultants, Altman Weil.
Now, one of the central tenets of ‘type theory’ is that preferences and abilities are not the same thing — someone can still be very effective "working against their type". This is only ‘bad’ in the sense that it can tiring for the individual concerned, hence the hugely introverted and very successful barrister of my acquaintance who is electric in court but who has to retire to his rooms to recover after every "performance".
While it may be true that more lawyers tend to be ISTJs than any other type, this does not mean that ISTJs necessarily make the best lawyers, or even that other types might not find the law as enjoyable or as profitable a career. Even in the Altman Weil study, over 82% of successful lawyers were not ISTJs and nearly 4% were the polar opposite — ENFPs, those warm-hearted, outgoing, intuitive types who like to leave everything to the last minute. Now I think of it, that doesn’t sound like the stereotypical lawyer, but believe me, they are out there!
So successful lawyers may be different from the average person, but there are many different types of personalities successfully practicing law. Where does this leave us, and more to the point of this special edition of Legal Week, how can students use this information to their advantage when applying to law firms?
Firstly, it is important to note that just because lawyers seem different from the general population it doesn’t necessarily mean that law firms seek this out. Research shows that lawyers need to be more conscientious and hard working than most, so it will be no surprise to anyone that all firms will look for evidence of this at interview. Research also shows that lawyers tend to have a higher incidence of alcohol and substance abuse — but it’s best not to list these among the hobbies on your CV.
In the words of the HR director of one of the firms I contacted about this article, "we like them to have one" is her firm’s position on the personality of potential trainees. Behind this offthe-cuff comment lies the simple truth that law firms expect their trainees to be themselves, but to stand out a little from the crowd; to be positive about the choices they have made and to be comfortable in their own skins. Projecting yourself and your personality honestly at interview is perhaps the best way of exploring and determining its fit with the firm’s ‘corporate personality’. In the long term, this may well determine your prospects of happiness and success — oh, and it sure helps if you’re as smart as a barrel load of monkeys as well.
Dr. Russell Drakeley is managing director of CGR Business Psychologists.
