Acerca dos advogados

Apesar de Cavaco, Guterres e Pinto de Sousa, não serem da área de Direito, é sabida a influência que este sector tem no poder deste país.
.
Daniel Pink em "Drive" alerta para o lado negativo desta profissão:
.
"Ever wonder why lawyers, as a group, are so miserable? Some social scientists have — and they’ve offered three explanations. One involves pessimism. Being pessimistic is almost always a recipe for low levels of what psychologists call “subjective well-being.” It’s also a detriment in most professions. But as Martin Seligman has written, “There is one glaring exception: pessimists do better at law.” In other words, an attitude that makes someone less happy as a human being actually makes her more effective as a lawyer. A second reason (Moi ici: Esta é a mais interessante e perigosa) Most other enterprises are positive-sum. If I sell you something you want and enjoy, we’re both better off. Law, by contrast, is often (though not always) a zero-sum game: Because somebody wins, somebody else must lose.
.
But the third reason might offer the best explanation of all—and help us understand why so few attorneys exemplify Type I behavior. Lawyers often face intense demands but have relatively little “decision latitude.” Behavioral scientists use this term to describe the choices, and perceived choices, a person has. In a sense, it’s another way of describing autonomy—and lawyers are glum and cranky because they don’t have much of it. The deprivation starts early. A 2007 study of two American law schools found that over the three-year period in school, students’ overall well-being plummeted—in large part because their need for autonomy was thwarted. But students who had greater autonomy over their course selection, their assignments, and their relations with professors showed far less steep declines and actually posted better grades and bar exam scores."
.
Be aware!

Quando usar recompensas tangíveis ou não, como factor de motivação extrínseca

Conclusões de Daniel Pink no seu livro "Drive":
.
"First, consider nontangible rewards. Praise and positive feedback are much less corrosive than cash and trophies. In fact, in Deci’s original experiments, and in his subsequent analysis of other studies, he found that “positive feedback can have an enhancing effect on intrinsic motivation.” So if the folks on the design team turn out a show-stopping poster, maybe just walk into their offices and say, “Wow. You really did an amazing job on that poster. It’s going to have a huge impact on getting people to come to this event. Thank you.” It sounds small and simple, but it can have an enormous effect.
.
Second, provide useful information. Amabile has found that while controlling extrinsic motivators can clobber creativity, “informational or enabling motivators can be conducive” to it. In the workplace, people are thirsting to learn about how they’re doing, but only if the information isn’t a tacit effort to manipulate their behavior. So don’t tell the design team: “That poster was perfect. You did it exactly the way I asked.” Instead, give people meaningful information about their work. The more feedback focuses on specifics (“great use of color”) — and the more the praise is about effort and strategy rather than about achieving a particular outcome — the more effective it can be.
In brief, for creative, right-brain, heuristic tasks, you’re on shaky ground offering “if-then” rewards. You’re better off using “now that” rewards. And you’re best off if your “now that” rewards provide praise, feedback, and useful information."

Acerca da motivação

Este artigo de Daniel Pink no The Telegraph "Forget shareholders, maximise consumer value instead" está em sintonia com o relato que ando a ouvir há dias durante o meu jogging sobre o seu livro "Drive".
.
O 2º capitulo "Seven Reasons Carrots and Sticks (Often) Don’t Work . . ." relata vários estudos que ilustram como a Motivação 2.0 não faz sentido, tem resultados contraproducentes no mundo do século XXI à medida que nos afastamos de trabalhos repetitivos e sem criatividade