Original Doctoral Research by Dr. Stephen Rue, DBA, JD

A Qualitative Multiple Case Study | Completed May 2026 | National University School of Business and Economics

The legal profession has devoted increasing attention to the mental health, burnout, substance use, and occupational well-being of attorneys. These concerns are important, and the growing body of research examining them has contributed substantially to the national conversation about the practice of law.

Yet another critical question deserves equally serious consideration.

What role do supervising attorneys, law-firm leaders, and everyday managerial behaviors play in shaping both the well-being and professional performance of the lawyers they supervise?

This question formed the foundation of original doctoral research conducted by Dr. Stephen Rue, a practicing attorney, researcher, and author whose professional work integrates lawyer well-being, organizational leadership, human motivation, and sustainable professional performance.

Completed in May 2026 at National University's School of Business and Economics, the research examined how supervising and subordinate attorneys in large United States law firms experienced the relationship among managerial behavior, workplace relationships, psychological well-being, and perceived job performance.

The formal dissertation is titled:

Managerial Behaviors and Their Impact on Subordinate Lawyer Well-Being and Performance in Large U.S. Law Firms: A Qualitative Multiple Case Study.

The research is referred to throughout Dr. Rue's subsequent work as the Rue Lawyer Well-Being and Performance Study.

Its central contribution is a more focused examination of an organizational relationship that can profoundly shape an attorney's professional experience: the relationship between the supervising lawyer and the lawyer being supervised.

The study encourages the legal profession to consider lawyer well-being and professional performance not simply as individual concerns, but also as matters involving leadership, supervision, organizational culture, and the conditions under which attorneys perform their work.

Lawyers work in an environment characterized by substantial responsibility, intellectual demands, deadlines, client expectations, financial pressures, professional competition, and ethical obligations.

Much of the discussion surrounding lawyer well-being appropriately emphasizes individual mental health, resilience, stress management, and access to professional assistance.

However, the daily working conditions experienced by lawyers are not created by individual attorneys acting in isolation.

They are also shaped by the people who supervise them.

Supervising lawyers influence workload assignments, professional autonomy, communication, feedback, recognition, mentoring, opportunities for advancement, and the interpersonal climate in which legal work takes place.

A supervising partner may help a developing lawyer become more confident, capable, engaged, and professionally fulfilled. Conversely, unclear expectations, inconsistent communication, excessive control, or inadequate support may contribute to unnecessary uncertainty and professional strain.

The Rue Study examined these relationships through the experiences and perceptions of practicing attorneys and legal supervisors.

Its findings contribute to an important discussion about whether law-firm leadership practices should be evaluated not only by immediate productivity and financial results, but also by their relationship to professional development, employee well-being, and the conditions supporting continued effectiveness.

The study does not suggest that professional standards should be lowered or that legal practice can become free from pressure.

Rather, it invites a more complete examination of how lawyers can meet demanding professional expectations under conditions that support their ability to continue performing effectively.

The Rue Lawyer Well-Being and Performance Study was conducted as part of Dr. Rue's Doctor of Business Administration research at National University.

The investigation employed a qualitative multiple-case study design, examining managerial behaviors and professional experiences within large United States law-firm environments.

The research incorporated semi-structured interviews with supervising and subordinate attorneys and used thematic analysis to identify recurring patterns across their accounts.

The study examined how participants described the relationship between managerial practices, supervisory interactions, psychological needs, lawyer well-being, professional development, and perceived job performance.

Unlike large-scale quantitative surveys designed to estimate the prevalence of depression, anxiety, burnout, or other occupational conditions, this qualitative investigation concentrated on understanding how attorneys experienced and interpreted important aspects of their working environments.

The methodological distinction is significant.

Qualitative research can provide insight into professional experiences, organizational relationships, and recurring behavioral patterns that may not be fully captured through numerical measures alone.

At the same time, qualitative findings require appropriate interpretation.

The Rue Study was not designed to produce nationally representative prevalence estimates or establish that particular managerial behaviors independently cause specific psychological or professional outcomes.

Its contribution is the examination of recurring themes within the experiences of participating attorneys and the implications those themes may have for legal leadership, organizational practices, and future scholarly investigation.

The theoretical foundation of the Rue Study was Self-Determination Theory, developed principally through the work of psychologists Edward L. Deci and Richard M. Ryan.

Self-Determination Theory examines human motivation, psychological functioning, and the conditions that support or frustrate important psychological needs.

The theory identifies three fundamental psychological needs: autonomy, competence, and relatedness.

These concepts are particularly relevant to the organization and management of professional legal work.

Autonomy involves experiencing meaningful ownership of one's actions and an appropriate degree of professional discretion.

For lawyers, autonomy does not mean freedom from ethical duties, client expectations, court requirements, or legitimate supervision.

It concerns whether an attorney has opportunities to exercise judgment, understand the purpose of assignments, participate meaningfully in professional decisions, and develop increasing responsibility.

A supervising attorney who communicates objectives, explains constraints, welcomes reasoned recommendations, and provides appropriate discretion may support a subordinate lawyer's experience of autonomy.

Conversely, unnecessarily controlling supervision can diminish opportunities for professional ownership and development.

Competence involves experiencing effectiveness, developing mastery, and receiving meaningful evidence of professional growth.

Attorneys invest considerable effort in acquiring legal knowledge, analytical ability, advocacy skills, negotiation capabilities, judgment, and client-service expertise.

Yet professional development does not occur through demanding assignments alone.

It also depends upon useful feedback, appropriate challenges, mentoring, recognition, opportunities to learn from mistakes, and progressively greater responsibility.

The quality of supervision can therefore influence whether demanding work becomes a meaningful developmental opportunity or merely another source of pressure and uncertainty.

Relatedness concerns the human need for meaningful interpersonal connection, mutual respect, and belonging.

Although legal practice emphasizes intellectual independence and professional judgment, lawyers do not cease to have relational needs when they enter the workplace.

Professional relationships can influence confidence, collaboration, communication, engagement, and the willingness to seek assistance or acknowledge uncertainty.

A constructive supervisory relationship may provide professional guidance and a sense that an attorney is valued as both a contributor and a person.

Conversely, persistent interpersonal disconnection, unpredictability, or dismissive treatment may frustrate those needs.

Together, autonomy, competence, and relatedness provided the theoretical framework through which the Rue Study examined the experiences of supervising and subordinate attorneys.

The study identified recurring patterns in how participating lawyers described managerial behaviors and their relationship to well-being, psychological need satisfaction, professional development, and perceived job performance.

Several themes are particularly relevant to contemporary law-firm leadership.

Mentorship emerged as an important feature of constructive supervisory relationships.

The relevant distinction is not simply whether a senior attorney is formally designated as a mentor.

Effective mentoring requires meaningful engagement with a developing lawyer's professional capabilities, opportunities, concerns, and progression.

Structured mentorship may include guidance concerning legal analysis, judgment, client relationships, advocacy, professional responsibility, and career development.

The study identified mentoring relationships among the managerial practices associated with more favorable professional experiences.

For law firms, the implication is that mentoring should be approached as a substantive leadership responsibility rather than merely an informal or symbolic commitment.

The research identified autonomy-supportive management as another constructive supervisory pattern.

Lawyers often enter the profession with strong expectations concerning independent judgment and professional achievement.

Supervision remains essential, particularly when less experienced attorneys confront unfamiliar legal or ethical issues.

However, supervision can promote development while still respecting the subordinate attorney's capacity to think independently.

Explaining the purpose of assignments, inviting professional analysis, clarifying expectations, and progressively delegating responsibility are examples of practices consistent with autonomy-supportive leadership.

The study's findings suggest that the quality of autonomy experienced within supervisory relationships deserves attention as part of the broader discussion of lawyer well-being and performance.

Professional feedback is a central component of legal training and development.

Yet feedback varies considerably in its usefulness.

An attorney may receive criticism without clear guidance, additional work without developmental explanation, or silence that leaves professional expectations uncertain.

The Rue Study identified intentional skill development and meaningful feedback among the constructive managerial patterns described by participants.

Effective feedback can help attorneys identify strengths, understand performance expectations, recognize areas needing improvement, and develop professional confidence.

This is not an argument against demanding standards or corrective evaluation.

It is an argument for ensuring that evaluation contributes to professional growth rather than functioning solely as criticism or pressure.

The availability and responsiveness of supervising attorneys also emerged as meaningful themes.

Junior and subordinate lawyers may encounter legal questions, unfamiliar client situations, workload challenges, and professional decisions requiring timely guidance.

A supervising attorney who remains appropriately accessible can provide clarification, developmental support, and greater confidence in navigating difficult responsibilities.

Conversely, chronic supervisory unavailability may create uncertainty, inefficiency, and avoidable professional stress.

The research identified consistent supervisory accessibility among the practices associated with more favorable reported experiences.

Accessibility does not require constant interruption or the elimination of individual responsibility.

It involves creating dependable communication practices appropriate to the demands and responsibilities of the legal workplace.

A further theme involved the importance of genuine relational investment in subordinate attorneys.

Law firms are professional organizations, but they are also human organizations.

Attorneys bring to their work personal histories, ambitions, family responsibilities, developmental needs, and individual circumstances that can influence their professional experiences.

Respectful supervision, professional interest, constructive recognition, and appropriate concern for a developing attorney's progress may strengthen working relationships.

The Rue Study identified relational investment as a feature of more favorable supervisory experiences.

This reinforces the importance of treating interpersonal leadership behavior as a legitimate subject of organizational attention rather than as an incidental matter separate from professional performance.

The study also documented less favorable supervisory patterns within participating attorneys' accounts.

These included controlling supervision, chronic supervisory unavailability, emotionally volatile or unpredictable managerial behavior, and billing-driven appropriation of subordinate work.

Participants described such experiences in connection with psychological strain, professional isolation, diminished confidence, and other adverse workplace conditions.

These accounts deserve attention because managerial behaviors may have consequences beyond the immediate completion of an assignment.

A lawyer may deliver technically competent work while simultaneously experiencing uncertainty, reduced professional confidence, limited opportunities for development, or diminishing engagement.

These themes do not establish that any individual management practice necessarily produces the same outcome for every attorney.

They do, however, identify potentially consequential patterns worthy of organizational examination.

The study also recognized that some working conditions arise from structural features of law-firm operations, including workload allocation and billing-related expectations.

Accordingly, an effective response to lawyer well-being cannot rest entirely on improving individual supervisory personalities.

It may also require examining the organizational practices and incentive structures within which supervision takes place.

One of the particularly meaningful concepts identified in the Rue Study is resigned resilience.

This describes a pattern in which attorneys continue meeting professional responsibilities and maintaining outward productivity despite experiencing adverse working conditions or deteriorating personal well-being.

An attorney may continue preparing cases, completing assignments, meeting deadlines, serving clients, and recording billable hours while experiencing exhaustion, diminished confidence, relational strain, or inadequate opportunities for recovery.

From the organization's perspective, performance may appear satisfactory.

The work gets completed.

The deadlines are met.

The lawyer continues producing.

Yet the visible results may conceal the personal and professional resources being consumed to maintain that level of output.

This distinction raises an important question for the legal profession:

Is a lawyer's current productivity a sufficient measure of professional success if the conditions sustaining that productivity are progressively undermining the lawyer's future capacity to perform?

Resigned resilience should not be confused with healthy resilience, which includes adaptability, effective coping, appropriate recovery, and continued functioning in the presence of challenges.

Nor does the concept imply that every hardworking or productive lawyer is experiencing diminished well-being.

Instead, it illustrates why immediate output and sustainable performance should not automatically be treated as equivalent.

For legal organizations, this distinction supports closer attention to the conditions under which professional results are achieved.

For individual lawyers, it provides a framework for examining whether success is being maintained through practices that can reasonably continue over time.

A central concern of the Rue Study is the relationship between lawyer well-being and job performance.

These concepts should neither be separated completely nor treated as interchangeable.

Professional performance requires legal knowledge, preparation, competence, ethical conduct, judgment, communication, diligence, and the ability to fulfill obligations to clients and the legal system.

Well-being concerns psychological functioning, meaningful relationships, health, motivation, purpose, and other dimensions of human experience.

A lawyer may perform effectively while experiencing considerable distress.

Likewise, experiencing positive well-being does not automatically produce superior legal performance.

The Rue Study does not establish a universal causal proposition that happier lawyers necessarily outperform unhappy lawyers.

Its qualitative findings contribute to a more focused understanding of how attorneys perceived the connections among supervisory behaviors, their psychological and professional experiences, and their ability to perform.

The broader question is whether the conditions supporting professional achievement are capable of sustaining excellent performance over a working lifetime.

A lawyer's attention, judgment, learning capacity, emotional regulation, motivation, health, relationships, and recovery can all be relevant to that inquiry.

These dimensions do not replace traditional professional standards.

They help expand the profession's understanding of what is necessary for excellence to endure.

The practical significance of the Rue Study extends beyond scholarly discussion.

It presents opportunities for supervising attorneys, managing partners, practice-group leaders, and legal employers to examine the ways everyday management practices may affect subordinate lawyers.

Several considerations emerge from the research and its theoretical foundation.

Supervision should include development, not merely delegation. Assigning work is necessary. Helping lawyers develop the judgment, confidence, and capabilities to perform increasingly sophisticated work is an additional leadership responsibility.

Feedback should be constructive and specific. Attorneys benefit from understanding both the quality of their work and the steps necessary for continued professional growth.

Appropriate autonomy matters. Lawyers need opportunities to exercise professional judgment while receiving the direction, guidance, and accountability their responsibilities require.

Professional relationships matter. Respect, mentoring, accessibility, and constructive communication deserve attention as dimensions of an effective legal workplace.

Organizational systems deserve examination. Workload practices, incentives, billing expectations, professional development, and supervisory accountability can affect workplace experiences independently of an individual attorney's intentions.

Performance should be considered over time. Immediate output is important, but law firms also have reason to consider the continued professional capabilities, engagement, and development of the attorneys responsible for that output.

These considerations should be evaluated in light of each organization's size, practice areas, client responsibilities, professional standards, and operational circumstances.

No single leadership technique can guarantee greater well-being or improved job performance.

However, the research provides a defensible basis for bringing supervisory practices more directly into the conversation about lawyer well-being and sustainable legal careers.

Although the study focuses substantially on supervisory and organizational relationships, its subject matter also has implications for individual attorneys.

Lawyers can benefit from recognizing how their working environments support or frustrate autonomy, competence, and relatedness.

They may consider whether they receive meaningful feedback, have appropriate opportunities to exercise judgment, experience constructive professional relationships, and possess the resources required to sustain their responsibilities.

Such reflection does not eliminate individual responsibility for competent, ethical, and diligent representation.

Nor does it mean that attorneys can unilaterally control their working conditions.

Responsibility within a supervisory relationship is reciprocal, but authority is not equally distributed.

Supervising attorneys and law-firm leadership generally possess greater influence over assignments, evaluation, advancement, organizational expectations, and workplace systems.

Recognizing that distinction is essential when considering how individual responsibility and organizational accountability should operate together.

The legal profession has made meaningful progress in recognizing the importance of attorney mental health and well-being.

Research, professional organizations, lawyer-assistance programs, bar associations, and legal educators have contributed to a more informed discussion of occupational distress and the need for supportive professional environments.

The next challenge is translating awareness into meaningful action.

For law firms, this may involve examining supervisory training, mentoring systems, feedback practices, leadership accountability, workload allocation, professional development, organizational expectations, and methods of evaluating performance.

For legal educators and professional organizations, the findings suggest opportunities to give greater attention to the human and managerial dimensions of practicing law.

For researchers, the study identifies questions that may warrant additional qualitative, quantitative, longitudinal, and intervention-based investigation.

Ultimately, the larger objective is not to diminish professional ambition.

It is to develop a more sustainable understanding of professional success.

A healthy legal profession should be capable of demanding excellence while recognizing that exceptional performance depends upon the continued development and functioning of the human beings who provide legal services.

The Rue Lawyer Well-Being and Performance Study provides an important research foundation for Dr. Stephen Rue's book, The Happy High-Performing Lawyer: The Science and Practice of Well-Being and Sustainable High Performance.

Scheduled for publication on January 12, 2027, the book brings together original doctoral research, lawyer-specific studies, positive psychology, organizational leadership, human flourishing, professional-performance scholarship, and nearly four decades of legal-practice experience.

The book extends beyond the dissertation's focused examination of managerial behavior and subordinate attorney experiences.

It considers the larger challenge of how lawyers can pursue demanding professional careers while sustaining their health, judgment, relationships, meaningful achievements, personal identities, and capacity for continued excellence.

An important component of the book is Dr. Rue's Positive Outlier Framework, which encourages attorneys to develop a more integrated approach to well-being, personal agency, resilience, meaning, professional competence, and sustainable performance.

The Rue Study and the broader synthesis developed in the book should be understood as related but distinct contributions.

The dissertation reports original qualitative research.

The book integrates that research with additional scientific literature, professional experience, interpretation, and practical applications.

Together, they advance an important conversation about the future of legal practice:

How can attorneys and legal organizations pursue exceptional professional achievement while preserving and developing the human capacities that make continued excellence possible?

Learn more about The Happy High-Performing Lawyer and the Positive Outlier Framework.

The Rue Lawyer Well-Being and Performance Study is original doctoral research conducted by Dr. Stephen Rue examining how managerial behaviors and supervisory relationships were experienced in relation to subordinate attorney well-being and perceived job performance in large United States law firms. The research was completed in May 2026 as part of his Doctor of Business Administration program at National University.

The dissertation is titled Managerial Behaviors and Their Impact on Subordinate Lawyer Well-Being and Performance in Large U.S. Law Firms: A Qualitative Multiple Case Study.

The study employed a qualitative multiple-case study design incorporating semi-structured interviews and thematic analysis. Its theoretical foundation was Self-Determination Theory, emphasizing autonomy, competence, and relatedness.

The study identified recurring patterns involving structured mentorship, autonomy-supportive supervision, meaningful feedback and skill development, supervisory accessibility, and relational investment. It also examined adverse supervisory patterns, organizational working conditions, and the experience of lawyers who maintained professional output despite diminished well-being.

Resigned resilience describes a pattern in which lawyers continue fulfilling professional responsibilities despite adverse working conditions or diminished well-being. The concept highlights why visible productivity alone may not capture the sustainability of professional performance.

No. The study used qualitative methods to examine professional experiences and perceived relationships among managerial behavior, lawyer well-being, and job performance. It does not establish a universal causal relationship between happiness and superior professional performance.

The research raises important questions concerning the influence of supervisory behavior, mentoring, autonomy, feedback, accessibility, workload practices, and organizational conditions on subordinate attorney experiences. These questions are relevant to leadership development, professional effectiveness, and sustainable law-firm operations.

The Rue Study and the 2026 Krill–Anker research are independent investigations with different methodologies and objectives. The Krill–Anker research examined lawyer mental health and occupational well-being through a large-scale quantitative approach, while the Rue Study explored supervisory and organizational relationships through qualitative research. They offer complementary perspectives but do not empirically validate one another.

Dr. Rue discusses the study's themes in The Happy High-Performing Lawyer and in related resources concerning law-firm leadership, lawyer performance, well-being, and the Positive Outlier Framework at HappyHighPerforming.com.

Rue, S. R. (2026). Managerial behaviors and their impact on subordinate lawyer well-being and performance in large U.S. law firms: A qualitative multiple case study [Doctoral dissertation, National University, School of Business and Economics].

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268.

Krieger, L. S., & Sheldon, K. M. (2015). What makes lawyers happy? A data-driven prescription to redefine professional success. George Washington Law Review, 83, 554–627.

Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383.

The additional scholarly sources provide theoretical and contextual background. They are not presented as independent verification of the Rue Study's particular findings.

Dr. Stephen Rue is a practicing attorney, researcher, author, and professional speaker whose work focuses on lawyer well-being, professional performance, leadership, motivation, and the conditions supporting sustainable legal careers.

With nearly four decades of experience practicing law, Dr. Rue brings the perspective of a longtime attorney to his academic research and professional writing.

He earned his Doctor of Business Administration from National University, where his doctoral research examined the relationship among managerial behaviors, subordinate lawyer well-being, and perceived job performance in large United States law firms.

His broader professional and scholarly interests include positive psychology, human flourishing, professional identity, resilience, psychological needs, organizational leadership, and sustainable high performance.

He is the author of The Happy High-Performing Lawyer: The Science and Practice of Well-Being and Sustainable High Performance, scheduled for release January 12, 2027.

Greater Well-Being. Higher Performance. A Brighter Tomorrow.

HappyHighPerforming.com

Research and educational notice: This page summarizes qualitative doctoral research and discusses potential implications for the legal profession. Its findings are not nationally representative prevalence estimates, clinical assessments, or demonstrations of causal relationships. The content is provided for educational and professional purposes and is not individualized medical, psychological, or legal advice.