The Hard Case vs. the Bad Case

There is a very critical distinction between hard cases and bad cases, and understanding this makes the difference between professional excellence and professional mediocrity. Or worse.

To understand the difference, let’s first revisit Professor Czikszentmihalyi’s seminal teachings about flow. Flow is that state of existence where time loses meaning and you are in a zone where every fibre of your being is alive and engaged in an activity which brings you complete joy and satisfaction.

According to Czikszentmihalyi, flow occurs where you are simultaneously highly challenged and highly skilled. Think racing car driver, Olympian athlete, rock star, or skilled surgeon. Think of your own experience when you’re lost in an activity where time disappears and you’re in a world of satisfaction and exhilaration.

The notion of flow fits perfectly into the Alignment Doctrine, because it’s exactly when the professional is exercising their Giftings that they have the likelihood of being in a state of flow, or at least the opportunity to spend most or all of their time in that state.

For the highly skilled professional, the key element of Czikzsentmihalyi’s flow doctrine is challenge. If the work on the professional’s plate is appropriately challenging, they will be in a place of flow. If the work is insufficiently challenging, they will be in a place of boredom, but if it is too challenging, they will be in a place of anxiety.

Anxiety has its place, though. It is at the core of professional growth, because we learn new skills when we’re in a place of measured anxiety. On the other hand, when challenge is too low, boredom sets in, and boredom in the life of the professional is without excuse.

The great risk for professionals is in taking on work for which they have no aptitude and no realistic hope of gaining such aptitude before they encounter risks of which they would not be aware. It’s one thing for my friend Trevor to fly his airplane through a snowstorm, it’s quite another for me to take an airplane off the ground even in perfect weather. In his case he may experience some anxiety, in mine it would be just plain stupid.

For a young lawyer who just finished articles in a commercial law firm, taking on a three week jury trial is about as wise as me setting out to swim the Atlantic.

Reaching and stretching when one has the resources and wherewithal to learn new skills, abilities, and subject matter is a wonderful thing, to be desired by all professionals of all stages. But hurling oneself, alone, unprepared, into the abyss, is a quite different thing.

A case which makes me stretch is a good case, one which is impossible or near impossible at my stage of professional development is a bad case.

There is another argument against the bad case, too, and that is the matter of the bad client. There are those clients who have Needs which are harmful for you as a professional. These people are engaged dishonestly with you, having an agenda quite separate from the professional Needs which they cite to gain your trust and attention.

You think you’re engaged with such a client to satisfy a professional Need, but in fact they’re engaged with you to play games, to show they are smarter than you, or use you as a foil for their own schemes. No matter how well you perform your Giftings, there is another game going on for which you are not skilled, equipped, or insured. Such cases are not capable of a good outcome and should be avoided at all costs, and if not avoided, carefully exited at the first opportunity. More on this, later.

The hard case can make you stronger, the bad case can take you down. If there is a single skill I could teach young professionals it would be discerning the difference between the hard case and the bad case, and the wisdom to take the former and walk away from the latter.

If this makes sense to you and you’d like to discuss it further, let me know!