In an article by Gardiner Harris of the NYTimes, the writer says that as physicians' jobs change, so do their politics. Although doctors were once overwhelmingly male, usually owning their practices, more than 50% of the younger generation of physicians is now female and more and more physicians, male and female, are taking salaried jobs. That's especially true in the NorthEast, but even so in the deep South. What this also means is that as doctors switch from private ownership to shift worker, they are changing from Republican to Democrat.
In the last two paragraphs of the article, Harris quotes the former president of Maine's Medical Association who describes himself as "very conservative." The physician's summary is a classic example to add to my store of beliefs, by otherwise astute people, who get caught in the "fundamental attribution error."
That "error" is the belief that our decisions are made primarily on the basis of our own psychological nature. Here's what the "very conservative" Dr. Kevin Flanigan of Maine's AMA has to say:
People who are conservative by nature are not going to go into the profession because medicine is not about running your own shop anymore.
Amusing--and wrongheaded. Especially the notion of "conservative by nature," or even the unstated, "liberal by nature." Far more important in how we make decision is not our inherent nature, but the situation in which we find ourselves. Although the trait psychologists would like us to believe that there is such a thing as our "inherent nature"--it would help sell more psychological tests--it just ain't true. What's true is that our situation has far more impact on us than any so-called "inherent nature." Actually, some of the well-known proverbs admit to that. And generous proverbs tend to reflect part of reality, so they do have importance. "What would you have done if you were in his shoes?" or "There, but for the grace of God go I." Each of those maxims points in the direction of role demands or situational determinants of behavior. Each also counsels against inappropriate interpretations of a person's "inherent nature."
You can always explain away the exceptions. But I don't expect most people to toss the notion of "inherent nature" in the garbage can. It has some use, but not nearly as much use overall as many think.
So what does this mean?
If you're an HR person and someone isn't performing, perhaps rethink that's person's situation--and try to work out an organizational change before a pink slip.
If you're unhappy or bored in your present role because you haven't been learning anything new, switch to a new setting with new demands.
If, in spite of your recognized performance, you're stymied in your attempts to get a promotion, move on.
If your role doesn't offer a promotion, either decide to accept the regular raises and reconstitute the role, or move on.
In the final analysis, your work situation is more impactful on your success and health than your own psychological disposition.
One of my best friends, a former faculty colleague, left our school after three years. When I asked him why, he responded that he didn't like what the situation (the school's values and attitudes) was doing to him and his wife. It took me far more than three years to make that decision, but since then I've realized how really thoughtful and wise his decision. So pay close attention to your culture and situation. Over the long run, it will have more impact positively or negatively on your career--and your health--than anything else.
