I don't have any real experience in this sort of thing, and I'm a little hesitant to offer normative judgments, but on the practical side it looks to me like you're already pretty well buffaloed. If M. already hasn't backed you up, I think pushing it with M. is going to be nothing but heartache for you. You already know that M. is not going to do a blessed thing for you, so...
Am I right in assuming that
a) neither printer is her personal printer and
b) there's no company-wide policy on which printers should be used for what?
2: That's right. I am not in violation of any printer policy or norm that I am aware of that exists outside of S.'s head.
1: Well, the question is, what will M. do if I bully him? "T. made you aware of S.'s unprofessional conduct -- I just wanted to check that you had made it clear to her that she can't go on behaving like this." He won't love me for it, but how bad an idea is it?
I would drop this complaint, but I would also continue using the local printer any time I wanted to. It is meant for your use as much as for S's, right? Keep on complaining when S cancels your print jobs and eventually things will work themselves out.
Also, can you get your own printer installed in your office?
I'm thinking it's the sort of thing that goes in the Pig Wrestling category: you can, but you're going to get dirty and the pig's probably going to enjoy it.
That is to say, it seems you're right here, in that it seems absurdly stupid for her to stop a job with a minute remaining for a Letterhead Emergency. Surely it would have completed by the time she placed the letterhead in the printer!
But it may not be worth pursuing, especially if law is like the academy to the extent that Pissing Off Secretaries is just Not Done Nor Good For You.
It is meant for your use as much as for S's, right?
Sure is.
Keep on complaining when S cancels your print jobs and eventually things will work themselves out.
The question is, to whom? I don't, very much don't, want to be involved in a long simmering feud with a secretary that has to be mediated by a partner -- "M., S. is being mean to me agaaain." That makes me look like a consistent problem. One sharp, short-term fuss, in which she has behaved badly and gets put in her place for it, is my best outcome; I'm just not sure if it's achievable.
Ugh. Yeah, I think you have to swallow this one. Cancelling your print job is ridiculous, but I don't know there's anything reasonable you can do other than what you did: report it and seethe.
On the other hand, S's conduct was, while unprofessional, not fatal. She inconvenienced you, but didn't prevent you from doing your job or blow a major case or anything like that, so I can't see M getting too exercised over it.
If you can, log the complaints with the secretarial coordinator. If you think T. manoeuvered you into a confrontation with M., then maybe you and M. need to sit down for lunch or something.
But it may not be worth pursuing, especially if law is like the academy to the extent that Pissing Off Secretaries is just Not Done Nor Good For You.
The thing is, that it isn't. I've worked in environments where the done thing was to tiptoe around crazy admins, regardless of whether they're right or wrong. In a law firm, though, deferring to an unreasonable secretary marks me as a chump, and weak. It may not do me noticeable career damage, if the story doesn't get around, but it's not the norm, and it's not a good place to be. (Being abusive to secretaries is also disfavored, of course, unless you're a partner, or a well thought of associate, in which case it's ignored.)
1. Presumably you can't get your own printer.
2. In all honesty, I don't see why not use the printer that's a bit farther away. In my department, we have one shared printer and it's all the way at the other end of the hall--I have to trot back and forth every time I use it. Which does kind of suck, and no I can't hear or see it. The flip side, though, is that I've figured out if I send a job through, it'll be printed by the time I get down there, unless it's really long, in which case I'll do something else (e.g., check Unfogged) before going down the hall.
That said, the fact is you're in the situation you're in now, and if you just back down, you *will* look like a chump. I would try reframing the problem, not as one of "insolent secretary" but as one of "resource / location issue." E.g., "I recognize that my using her printer is annoying to her, and I don't wish to be an unnecessary irritant; on the other hand, using the closer printer which I can hear really is more efficient for me." Is there no way to put in an allocation for another printer, and you can maybe offer, magnanimously, to use the further away one in the meantime?
Given that M. looks like he's not going to deal with it, I'd deal with him by saying, "I understand your reluctance to get involved with what really is a petty kind of problem. And perhaps I've exacerbated the issue by using the printer over her objections. On the other hand, I really would appreciate your support on the question of whether or not she has the right to undermine my work by cancelling printing jobs. Since this obviously means more to her than it does to me, I'll use the further printer more often, but if I find myself pressed for time or printing out short documents where convenience is a factor, I want her to understand that you won't back her up in sabotaging my print jobs" or something.
And then, of course, in order to be tactful, you just don't send any print jobs for quite some time. And hell, maybe offer an apology to her? Even though it sounds like she's being passive-aggressive and obnoxious, the reality of secretarial work is often that people *do* throw their weight around, and it gets frustrating, and she doesn't have her "own" work space the way you do, and I can see how having the printer start up unexpectedly all the time would feel intrusive.
I don't think it's impossible to manage to avoid the chump / bitch syndrome. Just go for the gracious lady approach: "I lost my temper, for which I apologize. Nonetheless, I really would appreciate it in the future if . . . . And for my part, I will try not to overuse that printer, because it clearly is something that means a lot to you. I'm sorry I didn't understand how important that was before."
What amazes me in this account is the behavior of T. Why have a secretarial coordinator if all she does is mention it to M and then be "out of it?" You could just as easily have taken it to M yourself. Especially after not replying to you for several days, T seems to be no kind of secretarial coordinator at all, more like what Orwell called "a hole in the air." I would ask T if this is what she does to "coordinate" secretaries, and if it is, tell her you're going to ask the management committee for clarification. Which you should then do.
If this isn't something they want to mess with, then the firm is only pretending to be organized. And you'll have to act accordingly.
Ah. Wrote 13 before I saw 12. If the law issue is "secretaries should know their place," then it's tougher.
OTOH, you might consider the gender dynamics: are you the only woman lawyer? Is there a way that by doing the capital-F Feminist thing of creating solidarity with the secretaries in the name of ignoring Ridiculous Masculinist Hierarchies, you can come out of the thing looking not only gracious, but with the secretarial pool ready to have your back at every turn?
I would ask T if this is what she does to "coordinate" secretaries, and if it is, tell her you're going to ask the management committee for clarification. Which you should then do.
This was my father's advice -- to go straight to the managing partner (of the NY office). Which struck me as over-the-top considering the size of the firm, but I'm not sure he was wrong.
I can see how having the printer start up unexpectedly all the time would feel intrusive
I just want to know where LB's firm is finding these noisy printers, are they old dot-matrix things or something?
Also: here is why there is no need to be in earshot of your printer: Just put a shortcut to the printer in a handy spot on your desktop. When you print a document, open the printer and you can see when the print job is finished, easy -- that way you can also tell if there are a lot of documents on queue ahead of you, in case you want to send to an alternate printer. Not that I think you should back down -- I'm all in favor of a knock-down, drag-out catfight -- just don't see how the conflict arises to begin with.
17: I do this, generally. I am sweet and gentle and considerate with anyone I have to work with, at any level -- I get along great with my secretary, and treat her with the utmost of respect.
On the other hand, if Subverting The Masculinist Hierarchy means that male lawyers get to be in charge, while I have to take crap in the name of Solidarity, screw Solidarity.
Am I just imagining things, or was the fact the lead attorney of LB's group is a she obvious from the initial post?
I had dinner with some former fellow employees of my former employer last week. The one who has landed a job as a legal secretary tells endless stories about the bullying by secretaries in her office. This is common, I think I've seen it best portrayed in film in Erin Brokavitch.
But that did not happen, and instead you got screwed because M is not interested in getting his secretary mad at him (cowardly and bad management for a variety of reasons, but not that unusual).
A few assumptions:
1. What S did was way wrong, but it did not actually cause a client or the firm any real harm.
2. Given 1, you are not willing to expend significant capital making your point, even though you are right.
I would declare victory and let it drop. Send M an e-mail saying that you understand that the issue has been referred to him, you are sorry to trouble him with such matters and regret that T could not handle it herself. You appreciate his understanding that the firm's work comes first.
Find someone in IT and lobby them to reinstal the high speed printer. But do not make a big issue of it. In the interim, continue to print as you have done.
If S. has an exceptional amount of power over her boss and M makes a point of telling you to do what S has asked, do it. It is not worth fighting about. You are right whether or not they recognize it, and their recognizing it will not make you any more right.
To be clear, the "I think" is largely because, from all evidence, and in all seriousness, you're a much more decent person that an I am.
But basically I'm inclined to be on the secretary's side (absent you) for the same reason I'd be on the side of an associate telling a partner that it's better if he passes her work in X way: lawyers are notoriously shitty managers, and (in any case) I'm inclined to trust the judgment of the person most tied to the resource as to how to best use the resource. Also, I think that shows of strength for their own sake invariably lead to bad outcomes. (See, e.g., Iraq.)
Thinking a bit about it, this is clearly a situation controlled by a lot of unknown factors. Does the secretary have a bad reputation, or she generally a pain in the ass? Is the associate not a nightmare? (Here, yes.) Office environment - yeah, that's clearly the kicker, and another thing that makes me think twice.
But if the secretary is a good one, she's making a decision based on her understanding of her job - she's responsible to a number of people, and she's choosing a pecking order based on the firm hierarchy and her needs to serve her overlords. Get massive documents sent to somewhere behind your head - disruptive. People coming into your workspace all of the time - disruptive. Worrying about having to get a letter out for a partner, and how to handle the associate you're going to screw - disruptive.
Of course, SCMT, "disruptive" can just as easily read "irritating" in S.'s thinking, and more likely reads so since S. is willing to cancel an attorney's print job as suits her (apparently non-urgent) needs. It doesn't sound as if she's merely managing resources wisely by canceling LB's job after LB has instructed her not to.
I miss the status. Being able to get service from the paralegals when I needed it with a certain amount of vigor and enthusiasm was awfully pleasant. This is not a place where associates, even senior associates, swing a lot of weight.
27: That's true. I skimmed the post, so I'm not overly encumbered by the actual facts. In the best of all possible worlds, LB does a deal with the secretary that admits no fault, makes clear the lines of authority, and results in the secretary and LB being able to forget this little episode. It's not clear that this is possible, and if indications of "hand" matters a lot in the firm, hammer the bejeebus out of the secretary, including going to M with a "I'm not trying to be a pain in the ass, but..." story. Otherwise, call the secretary into the office, close the door, and do a deal.
I am a very concialiatory person, but I found I had to be firm with some secretaries to avoid being walked over. I hated that, thinking I must have put a foot wrong somehow, but the older I get the less I think that and the more I think that is the culture of these offices.
I would declare victory and let it drop. Send M an e-mail saying that you understand that the issue has been referred to him, you are sorry to trouble him with such matters and regret that T could not handle it herself. You appreciate his understanding that the firm's work comes first.
I think it's just a matter of having a political "base." The secretary feels like she has M at her back, in her corner -- it's you vs. her and M, and you can't go directly to M because of the pettiness of it all, and the damage to your own career. It would even make sense if the reason that T is "out of it" is because the secretary worked behind the scenes to make it so...
So you do what a good Go player would do -- when you're playing in an area where you're weak, stop playing there. Go and play somewhere else, and build up a region of strength. Fortify your own position elsewhere, and eventually it will benefit you when you choose to return to this battle.
This is also called "holding a grudge," of course.
But yeah, bite the bullet and be the chump now. And then cultivate M somehow. Do something -- lunch? Something else? But... when you do, don't do it for the express purpose of talking about the secretary. Don't talk about it at all.
Only bring up the issue of the printer in a couple of months, or longer, when you have a better relationship with M.
Is there a prequel to this story, LB? How was the matter of your printing at the printer nearest her resolved when she asked (instructed?) you to use the one farther away?
Without any particular fanfare. She's never asked me not to use this printer at all -- only for long documents. I print exorbitantly long documents to the other printer, as it seems like a reasonable request. For something that will only take a few minutes, on the other hand, I print locally.
So, the consensus here is 'Don't push it any further.' I have to say that my father's advice, essentially 'Take it up the ladder until satisfied (or, of course, until instructed to drop it by a superior),' is more the sort of thing I'd like to do -- Dad's style of being gentle, respectful, kind, and conciliatory until someone causes him unwarranted grief, at which point they rue the day their mother bore them, has always worked well for him in professional offices.
I'm still considering pushing it with M. I'm also considering stepping up my job hunt.
deferring to an unreasonable secretary marks me as a chump, and weak. It may not do me noticeable career damage, if the story doesn't get around, but it's not the norm, and it's not a good place to be.
and
'Take it up the ladder until satisfied (or, of course, until instructed to drop it by a superior),' is more the sort of thing I'd like to do
I agree with both of those. This is fucking absurd. Secretaries that cancel the print jobs of the lawyers should be told in no uncertain terms that the next idiot stunt they pull like that will mean their stupid ass gets fired. I also have a hard time believing any partner is going to respect you more if you don't pursue it.
Now you seem to be fudging the facts. Did she ask you not to print anything over ten pages (as stated in the post) or the less specified "long documents" (as stated in 34). If it was actually ten pages, how did you respond? Did you assent in some manner? If you did, then she probably saw the 50 page document as breaking an agreement that you had made.
If you did assent to her request in some manner, than you failed to directly confront the secretary in the same way that partner M. appears to be avoiding the confrontation. You should have specifically said that 10 pages was not enough.
Fudging the facts? I never made any agreement not to print documents over any length; I was noncommital in response to her earlier griping, and sent really long documents to the other printer in an attempt to be reasonable and avoid conflict. Ten pages was an estimate of about where she seems to get cranky.
Here's another way to look at it. Do you think a male lawyer would just let it go?
And if M doesn't put the secretary in her place, then definitely step up the job hunt. Do you really want to try and get promoted in a place that let's the secretary give a lawyer that kind of shit?
From the original post: "S. has been consistently cranky all year about sharing the printer, and has asked me repeatedly to use the high-speed printer for documents over ten pages or so." Sorry, the way it was written I understood that she had been specific in her request.
She probably took the noncommittal response to mean assent. I'm not saying that she's right, but failing to directly disagree was probably good enough for her. If it happens again, I would tell the next secretary that such an arrangement is not acceptable. Or, discuss a specific page limit that is acceptable to both of you.
You didn't want the conflict at the time, the partner doesn't want the conflict now.
How do you know that the letterhead document wasn't an urgent request from a partner?
And more importantly, how does a lawyer have this much time to surf the internet?
I'm not actually certain of the answer to that -- one of the things I was hoping for out of this post was a chorus of male professionals saying that they take this sort of nonsense all the time, so I could dismiss the thought. But I don't know.
Holy shit. I'm dealing with a situation at my firm that is scarily identical to yours, except the secretary with whom I'm in a row doesn't just have a self-importance problem, she's a certifiable Bitch with the maturity of a five-year old.
I completely understand how enraging her petty shows of importance are - because that's exactly what they are, not just irritable person syndrome, I've seen it enough to know. Luckily for me, the superiors involved in my case have all taken my side, so maybe I'm not sure exactly what I'd do if they hadn't. However:
You need to follow up with the Secretarial Manager. This is exactly what the SM's job description is, and passing it off to the partner is both pointless and, dare I say, a slight to you, since you were doing the responsible thing by contacting the right person, and SM is trying to make you look petty by telling the partner about squabbles he shouldn't need to be concerned with. Tell SM exactly that, and to get off his/her ass and get the secretary in line.
I also agree that you should contact the partner and try to downplay it. He's not going to admonish his own secretary - he's got to deal with her more than you do - and isn't going to want to get involved to mediate printer problems. So you just need to make sure you don't come out looking like the raving loony who's bitching about printer queues. Don't even mention the printer, just say how you referred the secretary's disruption of your work to the SM, figuring that was the appropriate thing to do, and that he need'nt be troubled by the situation.
I say, don't let it go - esp as a woman in a law firm, losing even tiny power struggles can sometimes be a huge blow to your reputation - just make sure you're talking to the right people about it. Also, see if you can contact the IT people directly about getting the high-speed printer installed. If the secretary objects to it again, you've got pretty good evidence that shows why it needs to be there.
Here's another way to look at it. Do you think a male lawyer would just let it go?
I'm a male lawyer, and I told LB to do what I would do. This is not worth expending capital on.
The better question is:
Do you think the secretary would have killed the job of a male lawyer in the first place?
Given the treatment I have seen partners' secretaries mete out to associates, I do not think the answer is obvious, but it would not be crazy to think that this made a difference. However, that does not necessarily answer the first question.
12: This point about the power of secretaries is really interesting to me. My grandmother had the same lawyer for about 25 years. He started out in trusts and estates but eventually came to head that firm's corporate practice and was then managing partner. At 85, he's still of counsel and going strong.
My grandfather picked him to act as a trustee on certain trusts established by my great grandfather, one of the founding partner's of the firm. I believe that the terms of my great-grandfather's will required that one of the trustees be a Senior partner of that firm. But gran's lawyer did a lot more for her than just act as a trustee. (In fact I ran into him just the other day and we had an amiable chat.) He coordinated with the people in DC who handled her family's money. Note that we're not rolling in dough. Our family is an example of downward mobility.
Here was the secretary situation. He always had his own. He married one, and the second one stayed until she retired. (She was the most annoying person I've ever known.) What I do know is that she lasted a lot longer than most associates do at this big New England firm (now merged with a DC one).
The secretarial coordinator dropped the ball. If the firm is large enough to have such a position, then it shouldn't be up to the partners to settle little petty office crap. T's not doing her job, and I'd take it up with her.
Mmm. M.'s vacation makes that annoying -- I don't want to go back to T until I can say "M agrees that this is so not his problem -- now do your job," which means that I'm putting it off until next week.
Do you really want to try and get promoted in a place that let's the secretary give a lawyer that kind of shit?
Well, no, but insofar as the work didn't impede a case or client, it's reasonable for M. not to intervene. We're assuming M. doesn't know all the facts of a case but knows 1) it's a headache for him no matter what, and 2) the conflict doesn't affect his or firm cases. That's why the firm has an SM. Really, LB, at this point I'd be more pissed with the SM than with S.; I think you need to take it up with SM posthaste.
47: I was actually curious, since half the people I know are lawyers and barely have time to read CNN during the day. They are clearly less efficient. I will tell them all.
I would avoid pissing off the partner at all cost. I pal was passed over for partnership due to an even more petty dispute.
This is somewhat serious because it affects your work. The other situation had to do with office space allocation and didn't affect work or the partner.
It sounds like law firms can be as bad as tenure committees.
The firm should get you your own printer. At my firm we do that for everyone who requests. Point out to whoever is in charge that a printer suitable for smaller jobs costs about one or two billable hours, you give them at least 2000 of those a year, and you're expending more time than that walking to and from the printer in the secretary's area when you add it up.
This seems like, as someone else indicated, a fungibility test. If you don't work for M, and your firm is large, you are almost certainly more fungible to M than S is. If you want win, go to a partner you work for (he or she won't think of you as fungible), and ask him or her and ask for advice. He or she may be able to step in and address the matter. If you want to be clear that you aren't the sort people can walk all over, go to M, and accept a graceful loss.
Outside of technical work, HR has always struck me as useless; I wouldn't count on them to be of much use.
i do think the secretary was disrespectful to LB by canceling a print job after LB had specifically asked her not to. That's just like contradicting LB to her face - it's a rudeness.
I guess I would have taken it up further with the secretary herself immediately after this happened, very calmly and very firmly. Now, it seems like a bit of a lost cause... I would guess taking it up with the partner is really not going to help you, but I know nothing about law firms...
yes, request your own printer. perfect solution! you look very serious about your work, and you don't have to address the petty issue again or have any real dealings with this secretary.
I guess I would have taken it up further with the secretary herself immediately after this happened, very calmly and very firmly.
I did, of course, address it with her directly as it happened. Given that I have no administrative power over her, there wasn't a lot more that I could do in terms of being calm and firm than informing her that her behavior was unacceptably unprofessional.
I'm now inclining to the 40/44 view of things, esp. w/ LB saying that she usually gets along well with the secretaries (which I find entirely in keeping with her affect here). It could be a case of secretary, consciously or not, failing to see you as having the same authority her boss does, or another male lawyer would.
But of course you'd get nowhere actually making that an issue: "pooh pooh, little girl," everyone would say. Hence I'd go with Idealist's advice; don't get dragged into the power struggle, because doing so subtly puts you on the level of the secretaries, which is precisely where you don't want to be. Send the email to M., continue to do what you're doing, and if the secretary tries something like this again, snap at her.
Do not follow 64. It will turn out that this is all some scheme by two brothers who run a commodities brokerage to settle a bet over nature v. nurture.
Euugh. This would be reality, not legal drama. Legal secretaries aren't all hottt.
But, at least I can now console myself by thinking that what happened on Thursday wasn't the least pleasurable possible interaction I could have had with her.
Aw, where was dsquared's vitriol when we needed it? If it were me, I could not let this go. Note that this does not constitute the counsel of wisdom, just I'm saying, I could not let this go.
I would either
(a) go to the secretary myself, tell her -- maybe making a minor concession like B suggests -- i.e., sorry I lost my temper -- you simply can't cancel an attorney's print-job, it's firm business, and that's what pays the bills here, and we need clarity on that. You're slightly going out on a limb -- what if M doesn't back you up? so you could go for
(b) Enlisting M and tell him you need him to broker a sitdown, and you can go over the script in advance.
But I feel rather like LB's dad. I could not just let this go. (It's the sneaking feeling that you might be viewed as a chump that would prevent me letting it slide. The chump mantle prevents you doing your job down the road.)
At this point, given that T has tossed the problem at M, I think I'm committed to talking to M. Really, at this point I'm mostly looking to extricate myself from the situation while looking like "I meant to do that."
Personally, I'd have been inclined to have it out with the secretary face to face rather than pass it on to their manager. I can't get away from the fact that going over someone's head to their boss always seems like ratting them out -- even when they've been unreasonable. I hate to do it and will usually go to great lengths to avoid it.
On the other hand, I have no problem with face to face confrontation and generally feel much more comfortable just having the argument if the diplomatic approach or just ignoring it and letting it slide doesn't work.
People like that get off on exercising arbitrary power in their own little petty domains and, for me, it's usually a choice between i) ignoring it and trying to rise above it while being diplomatic or ii) just go for the head-to-head confrontation and trusting I'll win. The second of these has worked for me in instances of workplace bullying in the past. Although I'm generally a lot mellower now than in the past -- I wouldn't want to give the impression of being an argumentative sod!
Also, maybe the layout of the office and the noise of the printer really _is_ irritating to her and affects her ability to work properly.
Hrm. I've gotten this suggestion from a couple of people, and I may be unclear on what's being suggested. What do you mean by 'have it out with the secretary face to face'? When the incident happened, I went directly to her and told her that what she had done was unacceptable and unprofessional, and that she could not behave like that. Her response was to smile at me and tell me that I could resend my document to the other printer.
Given that I have no administrative power over her, I was out of ideas at that point other than (1) hitting her (which seemed like a flawed plan) (2) berating her in a "How dare you speak to me like that," tone (which also seemed ill-advised) or (3) taking it to someone with authority to do something. Is there something I'm missing about where I could have gotten by having it out with her?
An' incidentally, come next day, that li'l accountant bitch got a surprise when she come in an' fire up her addin' machine. When she punched in some numbahs, all of them come up in red ink on tha calculata tape, like they wuz bein' subtracted, even though she wuz addin'. After she peeped that blood red, she ran outta her cubicle, jumped into her hoopty, peeled down tha parkin' ramp, an' ain't been seen since. When office flunkies cross a A.R. playa, they get served that blood-red ink sheet as a warnin'. What it a warnin' foe, I ain't sayin,' lest I incriminate myself, know what I'm sayin'? I had enuf o' this shit, G's. H-Dog OUT.
(IOW, I don't know what else you could have done to confront her personally.)
Well, I suppose what I mean is, when she said, 'you can resend it to the other printer' I wouldn't have just left it there. Leaving it at the point means that dealing with it later is really too late and then you end up looking like you're brooding over something petty and escalating problems to senior staff when it's not necessary. I'd have been pretty damn clear then and there that sending to the other printer wasn't an acceptable option for reasons x, y and z, etc.
I'm not entirely sure that this case really warrants that -- for me personally I don't care that I can't hear a printer and I don't mind walking an extra 10 feet to collect printouts -- but if it _was_ something that mattered to me I'd be arguing fairly assertively that it _did_ (matter to me).
Of course, I don't know exactly what was said or the culture of your firm -- it's entirely possible I'd have done exactly what you did. But generally, I prefer to just take a stand and argue it out -- verbally I mean.
... and obviously with some people you're just never going to win the argument. They're either too stupid or too obstinate to recognise when they are in the wrong or know perfectly well they are in the wrong but want victory at all costs.
And then, I can't see what else you can do other than what you've already done. Escalate to someone in a position of greater authority.
But I did. I mean, I didn't say 'That's fine' and then go off and call T.; I said 'That's unacceptable, I'll be speaking to your supervisor about this' and then called T. Once she blew me off initially, I'm not sure what it would mean to 'argue it out -- verbally' -- keep on standing there talking at her as she printed her letter? Because I'd simply have felt foolish. I could have ratcheted up the interaction in an attempt to frighten her, but in the context of keeping my temper and speaking civilly, I didn't see a lot of options once she ignored me and returned to her work.
Eh. I should quit talking about this -- not a terribly important incident, although it left me spitting with rage at the time -- and I don't know that there was a really good way to handle it.
Fair enough, as I said, I wasn't there and I don't know the culture at your firm.
It seemed, from the initial report, that the conversation was shorter than I'd have went in for and I'd have tried to be more persuasive but you're the one who was there and knows if that was a realistic option or not. I don't think I'd have felt foolish continuing the conversation while she printed the letter but if there was no way to do so without coming across as a total dick ... then I'd have tried not to come across as a total dick.
My impression is that my threshold for foolishness in that situation is maybe in a different place from yours. :)
Yeah, it is infuriating when something makes you really angry at the time and when it's really hard to express later why it was so irritating -- especially if there really was nothing that could be done. Impotence in the face of other people's arsey behaviour is a real bugger.
Seriously, my impression is that people react differently to an angry man than to an angry woman. My image of the interaction you're suggesting is one that includes a strong element of physical intimidation -- not that you would be explicitly threatening, but when men get angry, it gets read as a suggestion that violence isn't out of the question, which under at least some circumstances tends to elicit compliance. Most women, including me, don't have the capacity to project an implicit physical threat in a socially acceptable fashion.
You chould make partner, maneuver to have her made your personal secretary and then tell her, politely, that she can finish all her letterhead printing on a different letterhead on a different printer in a different office.
1. That T bumped the problem to M without telling you is telling: neither S nor T think you're worth worrying about.
2. Forget about it.
3. Some night when you're working late, spill coffee into the old printer. Do your very best to clean it up, taking the printer apart if necessary. Make sure you get every last drop of coffee, even if it requires that you bend something out of the way. The next morning, walk in and announce that you've accidentally ruined the printer and offer to pay for a new, faster, printer.
This frustrates my wife to no end. She says it isn't fair, and really, she's right. It's kind of absurd that the deeper voice and certain body language can still be used this way in modern society, but it's probably hardwired into us.
87: Yeah, it's not so much that it's unfair that it's harder for me to be threatening, I just want to note that it's not a character flaw not to be able to pull it off, so much as a physical difference.
2. Do you work with / for a partner of equal status with M? S and L are below you in rank, but they're not in the same chain of command as you. M is in their chain of command, but he's above you in rank and doesn't feel like bothering. Only if an equal or superior of M talks to him will anything happen. If he's the highest-ranking partner, you're dog meat.
3. From what I know about the intensely competitive nature of lawyers, if you let this slide you'll lose status. On the other hand, if you make a stink you'll most likely be regarded as a bitch. So probably you're dog meat no matter what.
4. goto1
In my bureaucratic experience, you usually have to go up your own chain of command until you find someone with authority over someone in the other person's chain of command. This is often impractical, in very large organizations with pig-headed, lazy administrators, significant problems can fester for decades.
1 is, for many reasons other than this, the best of all possible advice.
2. would generally be excellent advice, and in fact, the partner I work for is the head of the department, he thinks I'm smart, and he likes my work. Unfortunately, he's a sociopath whose greatest joy in life is to torture the weak. (yeah, yeah, I can hear the lawyer jokes. This guy is distinctly out there by any standards.) I've been watching him shred another associate on the case into a quivering heap of protoplasm for a year now, and I've only retained what status I have by never showing a weak point. If I go to him for help, I'll end up making a formal, handwritten apology to S. and printing to a printer on the other elevator bank, just because he finds humiliation entertaining.
3. Pretty much. I'm aiming for bitch rather than chump out of natural inclination.
4. Did I say this was excellent advice? Any lurkers out there working inhouse in NYC? I'll buy you lunch if you tell me about your job.
Can't you make a case that you need the faster, noisier printer close to you? Like right beside your work area? And then whenever you print things to it, you can smirk at S when you go to pick them up. Or maybe find a way to sic the sociopath on S. Mention how sensitive she is. If he picks up on it, though, you collect bad karma.
If you can't get a printer, try for a transfer to another part of the suite. Closer to your secretary, or maybe closer to people you'd like to be closer to.
Not knowing anyone, it's hard to generalize, but it seems to me that you should have no conversation with M that does not begin with 'I had a problem with S, but a solution has been found.' There's no upside for you in a confrontation with M.
You can get a new job, but S, M, and T will all be there too. And you won't have the seniority to get either a new printer or a transfer to a different part of the suite. Obviously if you want a new job for other reason, go for it -- life is pretty short -- but if escaping lameness of this kind is part of the agenda, you may need to hang a shingle.
I'm sure things differ significantly from firm to firm, but here are a few quick observations from my own experience:
* Secretaries, particularly those who work for senior partners, have the unspoken authority to be as nutty and idiosyncratic as they like, so long as they're doing all of the partner's bidding. The ill effects of said n & i will inevitably fall on you and your fellow associates (male and female alike).
* You should *not* expect the partner to intervene on your behalf. That secretary knows every name in his rolodex, knows the location of every important slip of paper, and knows how run interference when he doesn't want to take a particular call. For all of those reasons she is far more valuable to him than you are.
* This is all part of the freaky law firm ecosystem. No one's going to respect you less if the secretary slings some shit at you and you don't sling back.
* The solution is easy. Get in good with the tech guys. Flatter them. They will hook you up with your own printer.
re: 82 - I'd certainly hope that I never give off the impression of violent intimidation. That wasn't what I meant by arguing back.
However, I'm AM fairly sure that having a fairly deep voice and a certain physical presence, i.e. just being male, does help when it comes to being assertive in ways that are acceptable to society at large.
As BPhd implies in 95 it's hard for some women to be assertive without coming across as a bitch -- our society just generally makes it harder for women to be strongly assertive in socially acceptable ways -- and while some people are happy to play that role (like BPhD herself) others are not.
Also, re: 87, that _is_ just not fair.
My wife is the 'boss' at her place of work so has much more authority than I have at mine and although she's very very good at what she does I know she struggles with the tension between exercising authority and coming over as a total bitch. Something she'd just not have to deal with if it wasn't for her gender.
Way back at 35, you more or less outed yourself as looking for permission to take this as far as necessary. So do it, but before you do it consider the following carefully:
Your father has done himself good in the past by choosing his battles and fighting them to the finish. Is your workplace one that will allow you to do this and if not, is it really where you want to be?
If you roll up your sleeves and go for it, are you a good enough actor to keep a measured, reasonable tone, and not get wired up, whatever anybody says or does, for as long as it takes?
If you get positive answers to both questions, get stuck in and fight like Patton, because right is clearly on your side.
Not knowing anyone, it's hard to generalize, but it seems to me that you should have no conversation with M that does not begin with 'I had a problem with S, but a solution has been found.' There's no upside for you in a confrontation with M.
So, so not planning to confront M. Conversation with M is going to open with an apology to M on T's behalf: "I'm so sorry T bothered you with this; clearly she should have dealt with it herself," and continue in an attempt to be sympathetic and conciliatory toward M for how difficult it must be for him managing S, given her behavior.
Obviously if you want a new job for other reason, go for it -- life is pretty short -- but if escaping lameness of this kind is part of the agenda, you may need to hang a shingle.
This is why I'm very glad this blog is (mostly) anonymous. I do realize that having this sort of problem at all makes me sound like a neurotic princess who is essentially unemployable; I can say that in seven years of practice I can think of only one other occasion on which I've had any sort of a problem with a secretary. I normally get along fine with difficult people, including the notoriously awful partner I work for, who I do much better with than most people (just not well enough to ask him for help. But no one with any sense would ask this guy for help.) I grovel to partners' secretaries like nobody's business, in a context where everyone's behaving sanely.
This incident just got under my skin because it was so hostile and so contemptuous, and I reacted strongly enough at the time that I feel like I need to extricate myself in a manner where I can at least look as if I was satisfied with the result.
I have been an executive admin assistant before, though not at a law firm. I've been on the other end of disputes like this one, so I think I know what's going on with her side of the situation.
That local printer probably gets hit all day long with documents from everyone in a six-cube radius. She has had it out with everyone about their habit of printing War and Peace on it when she's trying to print a two-page letter that has to get in the ten o'clock post and it's nine forty-seven. The battle wears on and on and no one ever listens to her request to not tie up the printer.
And then one day she snaps and decides that from then on she is just cancelling the jobs that violate what she thinks are the ground rules she's requested everyone follow.
I think this is a fight that's happening with everyone, not just you. That's the only reason I can think of an admin would escalate to that level- she's tired of having everyone behave as if her work were unimportant and her request for a minimal level of understanding unreasonable.
I would just drop the whole thing, myself, but I understand you're angry and don't feel that dropping it is an option. Check and see if she's done this to anyone else, though, if you can without making people aware of the disagreement you've had. That might be why the admin organizer is ignoring you- she's had this conversation with S.
I think this is a fight that's happening with everyone, not just you. That's the only reason I can think of an admin would escalate to that level- she's tired of having everyone behave as if her work were unimportant and her request for a minimal level of understanding unreasonable.
That would be a reasonable guess, but it's not the case. The printer is shared by her, me, and M, and M doesn't really use it except through her. Hours at a time go when nothing is printed.
I feel left-out of the gender side of this conversation, as if not having taken it into consideration as an assumption, as nearly everyone else has, has left me talking about a different problem.
From your charming description of your workplace and partners as this thread has gone on, I'm sure I was wrong. I never had a professional job, as a lawyer or editor, where my immediate supervisor wasn't a woman, and usually hers as well. Assuming that this had become normal, I thought of gender power issues as quaint or obsolete, as I believe they were where I worked for twenty years.
The threat-of-violence-in-anger thing has another side. For years women have blown up at me, without my reacting with any kind of hostility. The longest and best professional relationship I ever had was with a woman who did this often enough that everyone else had found a way to leave working closely with her. There appear to be many men who just can't take that, and women too. This despite the fact that she was the kindest, smartest and most empathetic and imaginative person I've ever worked with. I'd taken much worse from my previous bosses.
However, I've started expressing anger myself lately, and my wife, whose ability to blow up and feel better has always impressed me, is very disturbed by this. I feel there is a gender imbalance here. She claims I frighten the kids, I want to say "And you don't?" "Do you really feel you're in any kind of physical danger?" "Really?"
Maybe it's just change that is unsettling her, but I actually feel that I'm not permitted to express as much anger because I'm a man.
I'm not sure that this is a gender issue at all -- it might be, but I don't know.
The gender issue I was responding to was something I got the impression of as implicit in Matt McG's comment, and a couple of earlier ones, that I should have hashed it out directly with S in some manner that I did not: the impression (which no one quite said, and which I therefore may be imagining) was that on an issue like this, being direct with the person giving you trouble should be enough to get compliance, and if you aren't getting compliance, the problem is probably that you are overly diffident or somehow personally weak or conflict avoidant. I just wanted to make the point that this is easy for most men to say: size and strength tend to get deference, and size strength and anger get fear (even under circumstances where there is no practical likelihood of actual violence).
If you're a big strong guy (or even just bigger and stronger than the person you're talking to, which is usually the case when you're a man talking to a woman), and when you get mad people tend to try to tone the situation down and become compliant, it's because you're scaring them -- that doesn't mean that you're necessarily doing anything wrongful, but it does mean that you have a tool that most women don't have.
So whether I'm doing anything "wrongful" or not, you more-or-less agree I am, or ought to be, more constrained in my ability to express anger than the women in my life of whom I have often been, if only momentarily, actually physically afraid.
No, or if that was what I said I didn't mean it. What I meant to say is that based on the asymmetry of size, strength, and cultural roles, men are generally more successful at being frightening when angry than women are, and that it is easy for men who rely on this to a certain extent to not realize what they are doing, and to be puzzled about why other people, who aren't physically intimidating, don't get the same sort of compliance and respect. Deference to and fear of a big strong angry person is a natural reaction, and assuming the person in question is reasonably, rather than unreasonably, angry, they probably aren't doing anything wrong. But there is an implicit fear of violence in the interaction, and it means that men tend to get placated more than women do when angry.
If you deal with women who physically frighten you on a regular basis, of course, you're well within your rights to ask them to tone it down to make you more comfortable. And they're within their rights to ask you to tone yourself down to make them more comfortable. But that's individual relationship dynamics, not so much something systemic.
As I said, these have been the most rewarding relationships of my life, but I"m discovering a subtext that say's to me: "I can get mad, and you have to take it, but when you get mad, I don't have to take it, without invoking some pretty heavy shit." It may just be that trying to do, or feeling I ought to be able to do, what I feel they have always felt free to do, after so long a time, changes the relationship or the sense of my personality.
I don't mean to set up a Hohfeld opposition in using these terms, but I'm reminded of a passage where Matthew Arnold says something like:
"I more and more feel I have no rights, only duties"
He wasn't whining or lamenting, merely describing an evolving sense of moral and social responsibility.
The physical intimidation factor is real. Big guys have ways of intimidating little guys in a sort of kabuki way even though an actual physical confrontation is scarcely even imaginable. LBJ did that a lot, for example.
In actual fights, big guys can also humiliate a little guy in a "joking" way without using serious violence, whereas the little guy in that kind of case can only defend himself by escalating the situation, for example by getting a weapon of some kind or by trying to hurt the big guy in some way.
And al fortiori with women, who aren't supposed to fight at all, except with each other in porn movies.
Laws on violence actually support the big guys, because shoving and manhandling are the lowest level of assault and usually aren't prosecuted at all, whereas any escalation would usually be a more serious charge.
John,
Of course it's real. My question is, does the fact that I am a big guy necessarily limit my expression, in a way it does not that of another person? Does my size & shape & voice carry special duties/responsibilities? In an anonymous or "street" situation I would say "of course it does." And I've lived a life of privilege because of those attributes, and owe corresponding responsibilities. I needed to understand that my sense of freedom to walk anywhere in a big city, even at night, could not be assumed by everyone, for instance.
What flummoxes me are situations where this presumption is invoked after many years familiarity, during which the agression ran the other way.
re: 107 and 112 -- All of that makes sense to me, yeah.
Even if someone isn't trying to be threatening or aggressive, they can 'benefit' from the fact that big + deep-voice + loud = intimidating for most people and I suppose those of us who do have that 'benefit' can overlook that fact.
What flummoxes me are situations where this presumption is invoked after many years familiarity, during which the agression ran the other way.
Here we're really, really talking about the details of interpersonal relationships to which none of us but you are parties so take this with all sorts of caveats, but you've got a couple of additional issues here. One is a perceived changing of the rules -- if you've got years invested in a relationship in which person A does X, and person B doesn't, B's starting to do X may feel like a violation of some implicit agreement, even though it would have been the fairest way to arrange matters from the start. The other thing is that anger feels more important coming from someone who doesn't usually get angry: Buck is a hothead, and blows up about something quite often -- it's usually no big deal, it's over quickly, no problem. I'm much more even tempered, and so my getting angry happens much less often and is (rightly) percieved as much more important. If I'm raising my voice at Buck, it is a big freaking deal. If he's raising his voice at me, it's a day of the week ending in Y. (On rereading, this sounds bad. I just mean that he's shouty and I'm not.)
IDP is right to frame it as an added responsibility. If a big, tall, strong guy wishes to avoid appearing to be threatening when angry, he has to exercise more self-control that I do as a petite woman.
The flipside of course, is that if I don't want to be dismissed as a shrill screechy wench, I have to modulate my responses, too.
I think IDP is better off. He may mistakenly give the impression of being threatening, but he won't be dismissed or ignored, and we both have similar responsibilities regarding our personal expression.
That's kind of an upside to being a frumpy, unprepossessing guy -- I know I am going to be dismisssed regardless, so I can afford myself a wider latitude of behaviors.
This talk of presumptions reminds me of what I've liked about online conversations: none of this stuff comes into play. Or does it? Might our styles, produced by years of adjustment, be revealing of our physical selves so that people are able to get a more-or-less accurate physical sense of us? I'd hate to think so.
My boyfriend's a strong, powerful looking guy, and he's been called intimidating just by sitting there looking peaceful. It's not his fault he looms.
123: I don't think so. People have let their heights and types slip here and there, so I might be able to tell Becks from Tia, e.g., but I'm pretty confident that given that I'm not sure which commenters are male half the time, I don't have a lot on their physical appearances.
I think that it's true that women can scare men, physically: a lot of physical intimidation is about aggression. I've scared tall men once or twice, and I have to admit that there is something exhilirating about realixing that you can intimidate someone who is pissing you off into backing the hell away and shutting up, rather than having to engage in some kind of exchange with them. I suspect the reason that, by and large, we credit men more with that power is less about size differentials than it simply is about things like sport and physical comfort: in the cases where I was intimidating, they were both about me feeling that someone was threatening/mocking/upsetting PK, and without really thinking about it I was *way* more aggressive than I think I could ever consciously decide to be. Whereas it seems to me that that kind of intimidation tactic is something that at least some men are taught to feel comfortable with, but very, very few women are.
Oh, it's not impossible -- I'm a big strong woman, and I've been told I'm scary when I'm angry (I expect Idealist to show up and start giving me shit about precisely how scary I am) -- but you have to go ballistic. Big men can pull off a "I'm not raising my voice, but I'm standing too close to you, and I am visibly making an effort to remain calm," effect that can be quite intimidating (a) without meaning to, and (b) without doing anything that looks rude or inappropriate.
In this instance I could certainly have intimidated S and commanded her attention, I was quite angry enough, but I couldn't have done it and remained appropriately civil -- that level of hostility from me would have pushed the incident over the line into "We don't care what she did, you mayn't frighten the secretaries like that."
I would tend to doubt that big men are all that unaware of how they're coming off. I only get into trouble when I'm mad, and even then I'm not making any threatening gestures. So I disbelieve in an "I'm not raising my voice, but I'm standing too close to you, and I am visibly making an effort to remain calm," effect that can be quite intimidating (a) without meaning to. My dad was as big as I am, and I never saw him do anything of the kind.
I don't think I do either, ever.
This is going to sound ridiculous, but I have the same sense of size other people have. When a large man enters a room I'm often struck, impressed and sometimes intimidated by him, even when he's in fact smaller than I am. I don't even like to think about what that means about me, and the impression I make.
Not knowing you, IDP, I have no idea what I think of your behavior. If you feel aggrieved at the very idea that people expect you you to play by different rules than smaller people, I'm not too sympathetic.
I remember from working in mental health units that big, strong out-of-control guys were put in restraints quicker than anyone else. Maybe not fair, but there's no other way it could be. They were just more dangerous.
So on the one hand, in certain contexts, you can't do things other people can do. On the other hand, you have other benefits you might be unaware of. In certain circumstances, the cards are stacked toward big tall guys.
I didn't mean to suggest I thought you are a spolied princess of some kind. Just that law firms are the perfect dysfunctional atmosphere for this kind of thing. That you have experienced it rarely strikes me as very good luck. (Which you've surely helped along by your own demeanor.)
At my firm, I'm on the committee which evaluates associates, especially candidacies for partnership. I've participated in plenty of discussions about associates who have trouble with staff -- either particular individuals or in general -- but never one in which the justification of the associate's position was a part of the discussion, and never one where the question of whether an associate had failed to stand up to a staffmember-in-the-wrong was a sign of unworthiness of some kind.
I still think a move within the suite that solves some other issue -- and surely there is some way your life can be improved with a move -- leaves you a winner. Without having to talk to M at all.
But, of course, what do I know? Less than nothing . . .
Or, of course, more than anyone else commenting here, given your level of relevant experience (which makes your perspective very helpful).
Having, at this point, finally fully recovered my temper (it was mostly waiting for a response from T and then getting blown off that made it take as long as it did), while I'm committed to talking to M when he gets back, I am so, so, minimizing the whole thing and apologizing that he got dragged into it.
If I'm not male, my wife is gonna be real pissed when she figures it out. And I'd have to do some real head-scritching about how I acquired a daughter.
On the other hand, if I was female, presumably I'd get a clitoris of my very own, and that seems like a pretty good deal. Plus, boobies! Hooray!
while I'm committed to talking to M when he gets back, I am so, so, minimizing the whole thing and apologizing that he got dragged into it
yes to apologise, no to minimise. Nobody wants to hear about how trivial the thing they're being bothered with is when they're already being bothered by it. The correct line is "I am sorry you got dragged into this because someone else should have dealt with it, and I don't want to make trouble because having you involved is an excessive level of force, but it is not trivial, the lack of respect I get round here and I had no option but to complain."
Basically, ignore the original problem and make the entire meeting be about the supervisor's refusal to supervise.
(and, obviously, carry the look of someone storing up material for a constructive dismissal suit).
actually, even better, the way to get out of any of these situations without unpleasantness is based on a technique I have seen used in situations from speeding tickets to promotion boards and it never fails.
Just start a sentence saying "look this was particularly hard for me to deal with because ...". Then trail off, and look down in the general direction of your groin. I am assuming that the partner is male here and suspect that the tactic would not work on women, but on 99% of men it works a fucking treat, and he will do more or less anything if he thinks it will make sure that you get out of his office without mentioning your vagina.
Basically, ignore the original problem and make the entire meeting be about the supervisor's refusal to supervise.
Ooo, good call.
Then trail off, and look down in the general direction of your groin.
This, not so much. In fact, given the geometry of the whole thing, this is quite anatomically difficult -- I'm not sure that I could look meaningfully at my groin in a fashion that could be distinguished from looking at the floor. Not without assuming a terribly unlikely position that I assume isn't what you're recommending.
147 -- but d specified "in the general direction of", not "directly at". I should think that would be reasonably safe, probably better than 3-in-1 odds of living to tell the tale.
Since this has come around close to where I was a couple of days ago, with your problem being with the secretarial coordinator--maybe supervisor is not quite right--I share your frustration at her unwillingness to apply herself to finding a mutually beneficial solution. That is the essence of what the term coordinator implies to me.
Comments above, by you, LB and others, raise the question of whether litigators might be different in this from other lawyers, but I think of lawyers as problem solvers. The late David Riesmann mused about this in one of his essays, about how in his experience lawyers who served in many capacities during WWII, performing many functions far from their training or background were always leaders in trying to get people to work together, to resolve logjams and conflicts arising from somebody's rule-based rigidity.
Lawyers know, almost instinctually, how arbitrary and innaplicable rules often are, and that the question of whether they've become an obstacle is always open.
I know this will surprise people that I think this, since it has become customary to blame lawyers, and the law, usually the fear of liability, for all manner of clumsy, stupid and complicated rule-making. It is my conviction after years of experience, that it is not usually lawyers who are responsible for this. "Legal reasons" and "liability issues" have provided cover for a vast amount of petty and sometimes spiteful, control and bureaucracy.
Anyway, it drives me crazy when people don't try to work things out, and when somebody isn't in a position to try to find out what the problem is and whether everybody's needs, including respect and status, can't be served by some adjustment.
Ah, come on, the "women's problems" gambit is pure gold. It never fails, and the idea of trying to build a better world by not doing it is exactly what they warned us against in the "Tragedy of the Commons", or some such. I can't believe it's used as (relatively) infrequently as it is.
It would not be my number one choice, but unfortunately all my really good "generic solutions" (this term [c] McKinsey & Co) tend to sound unattractively brutish when you start suggesting their use in the context of a woman in a subordinate role.
As a litigator, I think much of what you write is correct--lawyers are trained to figure out how to get stuff done and ca nbe very good at it.
However, as someone who was a manager for a lot of years before becoming a lawyer, I think lawyers (generally), and litigators in particular, often are not great managers.
First, no one ever trains them to manage, and lots of management is skills which can be learned. Second, notwithstanding the obvious examples of the need for people skills--arguing in court, negotiating with opposing counsel, etc.--a lot of what many litigators do does not involve a lot of interaction with other people. You can be pretty antisocial or otherwise not good with people and be a successful litigator. However, such traits make it hard to be a good manager.
Thus, M may be a litigation partner in a big firm, but there is no reason to believe that he will be particularly good at dealing with the mess which S has created.
It's the fine line between telling someone else what their best and most sensible course of action is (which as a litigator, I am fantastically skilled at) and managing not to behave like a brain-damaged emu oneself. Litigators are generally quite good at the first, not so much at the second.
Well, I meant to make that distinction, although it may not have come through. I have mostly been, when I practiced, a "solicitor;" I think Reismann had that sort of person in mind. And I didn't mean to suggest, "you're a lawyer, why can't you fix this problem?" "Because it involves me." is actually a good-enough answer.
What I meant was that a lawyer's instincts are to see right away that somebody should try to get everybody pulling in the same direction, by finding out what the issues are and trying to reconcile them. And thinking someone should do that, and that someone has a title suggesting that's what they're supposed to do, and won't do it, is nerve-wracking, for lawyers.
On one hand, it is nice that you have given this so much thought and deliberation. Analytical mode isn't appropriate to every situation, though, and if I may share some unkind-yet-objective (and typically male-lawyer) perspective on this business:
You are having an extended stress-fest over control of maybe fifty seconds of printer time. So stop.
And if I were asked to "mediate" this sort of dispute, I'd punish everyone involved.
A partner's secretary is like an extension of the partner himself (or herself). You are basically fighting with M on this one, and you will lose. M is not going to side with you, a lawyer he doesn't work with, over the secretary he depends on.
While in theory you may have been right, in realpolitik terms you were dead wrong to make a big deal out of this. Don't dig the hole deeper now. Let it drop, use the other printer, and never, never complain about anyone at the firm again until you make partner.
For anyone on tenterhooks as to how this all came out -- M. came back from vacation, and we had a talk. He's been working with her on, as he put it 'mediating her interactions with people' -- apparently she's been a consistent problem in this regard. And he approved a printer for my office.
So, I think I've closed the incident without any significant damage.
And I have to change my assessment, of T. There is the possibility T knew all along how this would probably turn out, had spoken to M about it before and been asked to bring such issues to him, etc. I just wish T could have given you more of a signal, if that were the case, but maybe she felt she couldn't and maybe you're expected to be a big girl. If that's what they expect it looks to me like they're right.
I don't have any real experience in this sort of thing, and I'm a little hesitant to offer normative judgments, but on the practical side it looks to me like you're already pretty well buffaloed. If M. already hasn't backed you up, I think pushing it with M. is going to be nothing but heartache for you. You already know that M. is not going to do a blessed thing for you, so...
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 04-18-06 11:58 AM
Am I right in assuming that
a) neither printer is her personal printer and
b) there's no company-wide policy on which printers should be used for what?
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 04-18-06 11:58 AM
2: That's right. I am not in violation of any printer policy or norm that I am aware of that exists outside of S.'s head.
1: Well, the question is, what will M. do if I bully him? "T. made you aware of S.'s unprofessional conduct -- I just wanted to check that you had made it clear to her that she can't go on behaving like this." He won't love me for it, but how bad an idea is it?
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-18-06 12:02 PM
I would drop this complaint, but I would also continue using the local printer any time I wanted to. It is meant for your use as much as for S's, right? Keep on complaining when S cancels your print jobs and eventually things will work themselves out.
Also, can you get your own printer installed in your office?
Posted by Todd | Link to this comment | 04-18-06 12:03 PM
I'd chop off the secretary's head with a meat cleaver.
Posted by Patrick "FL" Bateman | Link to this comment | 04-18-06 12:06 PM
I'm thinking it's the sort of thing that goes in the Pig Wrestling category: you can, but you're going to get dirty and the pig's probably going to enjoy it.
That is to say, it seems you're right here, in that it seems absurdly stupid for her to stop a job with a minute remaining for a Letterhead Emergency. Surely it would have completed by the time she placed the letterhead in the printer!
But it may not be worth pursuing, especially if law is like the academy to the extent that Pissing Off Secretaries is just Not Done Nor Good For You.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 04-18-06 12:07 PM
You mean lawyers can't afford laser printers? Or what, are there laser printers that are not almost silent?
Posted by The Flummoxed Kid | Link to this comment | 04-18-06 12:07 PM
It is meant for your use as much as for S's, right?
Sure is.
Keep on complaining when S cancels your print jobs and eventually things will work themselves out.
The question is, to whom? I don't, very much don't, want to be involved in a long simmering feud with a secretary that has to be mediated by a partner -- "M., S. is being mean to me agaaain." That makes me look like a consistent problem. One sharp, short-term fuss, in which she has behaved badly and gets put in her place for it, is my best outcome; I'm just not sure if it's achievable.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-18-06 12:07 PM
Ugh. Yeah, I think you have to swallow this one. Cancelling your print job is ridiculous, but I don't know there's anything reasonable you can do other than what you did: report it and seethe.
On the other hand, S's conduct was, while unprofessional, not fatal. She inconvenienced you, but didn't prevent you from doing your job or blow a major case or anything like that, so I can't see M getting too exercised over it.
Posted by mrh | Link to this comment | 04-18-06 12:10 PM
Does it speak badly of me that my reaction to this story is, "Man, I wish I had the balls to be so mouthy to my superiors"?
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 04-18-06 12:10 PM
If you can, log the complaints with the secretarial coordinator. If you think T. manoeuvered you into a confrontation with M., then maybe you and M. need to sit down for lunch or something.
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 04-18-06 12:12 PM
5: Have I told you lately how much I love you?
But it may not be worth pursuing, especially if law is like the academy to the extent that Pissing Off Secretaries is just Not Done Nor Good For You.
The thing is, that it isn't. I've worked in environments where the done thing was to tiptoe around crazy admins, regardless of whether they're right or wrong. In a law firm, though, deferring to an unreasonable secretary marks me as a chump, and weak. It may not do me noticeable career damage, if the story doesn't get around, but it's not the norm, and it's not a good place to be. (Being abusive to secretaries is also disfavored, of course, unless you're a partner, or a well thought of associate, in which case it's ignored.)
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-18-06 12:12 PM
I think Matt's right. A couple of ideas:
1. Presumably you can't get your own printer.
2. In all honesty, I don't see why not use the printer that's a bit farther away. In my department, we have one shared printer and it's all the way at the other end of the hall--I have to trot back and forth every time I use it. Which does kind of suck, and no I can't hear or see it. The flip side, though, is that I've figured out if I send a job through, it'll be printed by the time I get down there, unless it's really long, in which case I'll do something else (e.g., check Unfogged) before going down the hall.
That said, the fact is you're in the situation you're in now, and if you just back down, you *will* look like a chump. I would try reframing the problem, not as one of "insolent secretary" but as one of "resource / location issue." E.g., "I recognize that my using her printer is annoying to her, and I don't wish to be an unnecessary irritant; on the other hand, using the closer printer which I can hear really is more efficient for me." Is there no way to put in an allocation for another printer, and you can maybe offer, magnanimously, to use the further away one in the meantime?
Given that M. looks like he's not going to deal with it, I'd deal with him by saying, "I understand your reluctance to get involved with what really is a petty kind of problem. And perhaps I've exacerbated the issue by using the printer over her objections. On the other hand, I really would appreciate your support on the question of whether or not she has the right to undermine my work by cancelling printing jobs. Since this obviously means more to her than it does to me, I'll use the further printer more often, but if I find myself pressed for time or printing out short documents where convenience is a factor, I want her to understand that you won't back her up in sabotaging my print jobs" or something.
And then, of course, in order to be tactful, you just don't send any print jobs for quite some time. And hell, maybe offer an apology to her? Even though it sounds like she's being passive-aggressive and obnoxious, the reality of secretarial work is often that people *do* throw their weight around, and it gets frustrating, and she doesn't have her "own" work space the way you do, and I can see how having the printer start up unexpectedly all the time would feel intrusive.
I don't think it's impossible to manage to avoid the chump / bitch syndrome. Just go for the gracious lady approach: "I lost my temper, for which I apologize. Nonetheless, I really would appreciate it in the future if . . . . And for my part, I will try not to overuse that printer, because it clearly is something that means a lot to you. I'm sorry I didn't understand how important that was before."
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-18-06 12:14 PM
Ah, the chance to be different: I'm on the secretary's side, I think.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 04-18-06 12:15 PM
14: Um, do tell?
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-18-06 12:16 PM
What amazes me in this account is the behavior of T. Why have a secretarial coordinator if all she does is mention it to M and then be "out of it?" You could just as easily have taken it to M yourself. Especially after not replying to you for several days, T seems to be no kind of secretarial coordinator at all, more like what Orwell called "a hole in the air." I would ask T if this is what she does to "coordinate" secretaries, and if it is, tell her you're going to ask the management committee for clarification. Which you should then do.
If this isn't something they want to mess with, then the firm is only pretending to be organized. And you'll have to act accordingly.
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 04-18-06 12:17 PM
Ah. Wrote 13 before I saw 12. If the law issue is "secretaries should know their place," then it's tougher.
OTOH, you might consider the gender dynamics: are you the only woman lawyer? Is there a way that by doing the capital-F Feminist thing of creating solidarity with the secretaries in the name of ignoring Ridiculous Masculinist Hierarchies, you can come out of the thing looking not only gracious, but with the secretarial pool ready to have your back at every turn?
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-18-06 12:18 PM
I would ask T if this is what she does to "coordinate" secretaries, and if it is, tell her you're going to ask the management committee for clarification. Which you should then do.
This was my father's advice -- to go straight to the managing partner (of the NY office). Which struck me as over-the-top considering the size of the firm, but I'm not sure he was wrong.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-18-06 12:20 PM
I can see how having the printer start up unexpectedly all the time would feel intrusive
I just want to know where LB's firm is finding these noisy printers, are they old dot-matrix things or something?
Also: here is why there is no need to be in earshot of your printer: Just put a shortcut to the printer in a handy spot on your desktop. When you print a document, open the printer and you can see when the print job is finished, easy -- that way you can also tell if there are a lot of documents on queue ahead of you, in case you want to send to an alternate printer. Not that I think you should back down -- I'm all in favor of a knock-down, drag-out catfight -- just don't see how the conflict arises to begin with.
Posted by The In-the-dark Kid | Link to this comment | 04-18-06 12:22 PM
17: I do this, generally. I am sweet and gentle and considerate with anyone I have to work with, at any level -- I get along great with my secretary, and treat her with the utmost of respect.
On the other hand, if Subverting The Masculinist Hierarchy means that male lawyers get to be in charge, while I have to take crap in the name of Solidarity, screw Solidarity.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-18-06 12:22 PM
I just want to know where LB's firm is finding these noisy printers, are they old dot-matrix things or something?
No, she's just very, very sensitive.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-18-06 12:24 PM
Am I just imagining things, or was the fact the lead attorney of LB's group is a she obvious from the initial post?
I had dinner with some former fellow employees of my former employer last week. The one who has landed a job as a legal secretary tells endless stories about the bullying by secretaries in her office. This is common, I think I've seen it best portrayed in film in Erin Brokavitch.
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 04-18-06 12:29 PM
You could get up an hour earlier, catch her seat before she does, and make sure the window stays shut.
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 04-18-06 12:32 PM
Only due to a typo -- I didn't close the paren after "L." L. is a woman, but the partner she serves is a man. As are most litigation partners.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-18-06 12:32 PM
S was wrong and shoud have been chewed out by T.
But that did not happen, and instead you got screwed because M is not interested in getting his secretary mad at him (cowardly and bad management for a variety of reasons, but not that unusual).
A few assumptions:
1. What S did was way wrong, but it did not actually cause a client or the firm any real harm.
2. Given 1, you are not willing to expend significant capital making your point, even though you are right.
I would declare victory and let it drop. Send M an e-mail saying that you understand that the issue has been referred to him, you are sorry to trouble him with such matters and regret that T could not handle it herself. You appreciate his understanding that the firm's work comes first.
Find someone in IT and lobby them to reinstal the high speed printer. But do not make a big issue of it. In the interim, continue to print as you have done.
If S. has an exceptional amount of power over her boss and M makes a point of telling you to do what S has asked, do it. It is not worth fighting about. You are right whether or not they recognize it, and their recognizing it will not make you any more right.
Do you miss us?
Posted by Idealist | Link to this comment | 04-18-06 12:34 PM
15:
To be clear, the "I think" is largely because, from all evidence, and in all seriousness, you're a much more decent person that an I am.
But basically I'm inclined to be on the secretary's side (absent you) for the same reason I'd be on the side of an associate telling a partner that it's better if he passes her work in X way: lawyers are notoriously shitty managers, and (in any case) I'm inclined to trust the judgment of the person most tied to the resource as to how to best use the resource. Also, I think that shows of strength for their own sake invariably lead to bad outcomes. (See, e.g., Iraq.)
Thinking a bit about it, this is clearly a situation controlled by a lot of unknown factors. Does the secretary have a bad reputation, or she generally a pain in the ass? Is the associate not a nightmare? (Here, yes.) Office environment - yeah, that's clearly the kicker, and another thing that makes me think twice.
But if the secretary is a good one, she's making a decision based on her understanding of her job - she's responsible to a number of people, and she's choosing a pecking order based on the firm hierarchy and her needs to serve her overlords. Get massive documents sent to somewhere behind your head - disruptive. People coming into your workspace all of the time - disruptive. Worrying about having to get a letter out for a partner, and how to handle the associate you're going to screw - disruptive.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 04-18-06 12:34 PM
Of course, SCMT, "disruptive" can just as easily read "irritating" in S.'s thinking, and more likely reads so since S. is willing to cancel an attorney's print job as suits her (apparently non-urgent) needs. It doesn't sound as if she's merely managing resources wisely by canceling LB's job after LB has instructed her not to.
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 04-18-06 12:38 PM
Do you miss us?
I miss the status. Being able to get service from the paralegals when I needed it with a certain amount of vigor and enthusiasm was awfully pleasant. This is not a place where associates, even senior associates, swing a lot of weight.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-18-06 12:38 PM
27: That's true. I skimmed the post, so I'm not overly encumbered by the actual facts. In the best of all possible worlds, LB does a deal with the secretary that admits no fault, makes clear the lines of authority, and results in the secretary and LB being able to forget this little episode. It's not clear that this is possible, and if indications of "hand" matters a lot in the firm, hammer the bejeebus out of the secretary, including going to M with a "I'm not trying to be a pain in the ass, but..." story. Otherwise, call the secretary into the office, close the door, and do a deal.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 04-18-06 12:45 PM
I am a very concialiatory person, but I found I had to be firm with some secretaries to avoid being walked over. I hated that, thinking I must have put a foot wrong somehow, but the older I get the less I think that and the more I think that is the culture of these offices.
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 04-18-06 12:46 PM
I would declare victory and let it drop. Send M an e-mail saying that you understand that the issue has been referred to him, you are sorry to trouble him with such matters and regret that T could not handle it herself. You appreciate his understanding that the firm's work comes first.
This seems like excellent advice to me.
Posted by mrh | Link to this comment | 04-18-06 12:47 PM
I think it's just a matter of having a political "base." The secretary feels like she has M at her back, in her corner -- it's you vs. her and M, and you can't go directly to M because of the pettiness of it all, and the damage to your own career. It would even make sense if the reason that T is "out of it" is because the secretary worked behind the scenes to make it so...
So you do what a good Go player would do -- when you're playing in an area where you're weak, stop playing there. Go and play somewhere else, and build up a region of strength. Fortify your own position elsewhere, and eventually it will benefit you when you choose to return to this battle.
This is also called "holding a grudge," of course.
But yeah, bite the bullet and be the chump now. And then cultivate M somehow. Do something -- lunch? Something else? But... when you do, don't do it for the express purpose of talking about the secretary. Don't talk about it at all.
Only bring up the issue of the printer in a couple of months, or longer, when you have a better relationship with M.
Think long-term.
Posted by Anonymous | Link to this comment | 04-18-06 12:47 PM
Is there a prequel to this story, LB? How was the matter of your printing at the printer nearest her resolved when she asked (instructed?) you to use the one farther away?
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 04-18-06 12:56 PM
Without any particular fanfare. She's never asked me not to use this printer at all -- only for long documents. I print exorbitantly long documents to the other printer, as it seems like a reasonable request. For something that will only take a few minutes, on the other hand, I print locally.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-18-06 12:59 PM
So, the consensus here is 'Don't push it any further.' I have to say that my father's advice, essentially 'Take it up the ladder until satisfied (or, of course, until instructed to drop it by a superior),' is more the sort of thing I'd like to do -- Dad's style of being gentle, respectful, kind, and conciliatory until someone causes him unwarranted grief, at which point they rue the day their mother bore them, has always worked well for him in professional offices.
I'm still considering pushing it with M. I'm also considering stepping up my job hunt.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-18-06 1:06 PM
deferring to an unreasonable secretary marks me as a chump, and weak. It may not do me noticeable career damage, if the story doesn't get around, but it's not the norm, and it's not a good place to be.
and
'Take it up the ladder until satisfied (or, of course, until instructed to drop it by a superior),' is more the sort of thing I'd like to do
I agree with both of those. This is fucking absurd. Secretaries that cancel the print jobs of the lawyers should be told in no uncertain terms that the next idiot stunt they pull like that will mean their stupid ass gets fired. I also have a hard time believing any partner is going to respect you more if you don't pursue it.
Posted by gswift | Link to this comment | 04-18-06 1:18 PM
Your dad sounds like my dad, and you already know what I think.
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 04-18-06 1:18 PM
Re: 34
Now you seem to be fudging the facts. Did she ask you not to print anything over ten pages (as stated in the post) or the less specified "long documents" (as stated in 34). If it was actually ten pages, how did you respond? Did you assent in some manner? If you did, then she probably saw the 50 page document as breaking an agreement that you had made.
If you did assent to her request in some manner, than you failed to directly confront the secretary in the same way that partner M. appears to be avoiding the confrontation. You should have specifically said that 10 pages was not enough.
I know, hindsight and all.
Posted by Frolic | Link to this comment | 04-18-06 1:22 PM
Fudging the facts? I never made any agreement not to print documents over any length; I was noncommital in response to her earlier griping, and sent really long documents to the other printer in an attempt to be reasonable and avoid conflict. Ten pages was an estimate of about where she seems to get cranky.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-18-06 1:27 PM
Here's another way to look at it. Do you think a male lawyer would just let it go?
And if M doesn't put the secretary in her place, then definitely step up the job hunt. Do you really want to try and get promoted in a place that let's the secretary give a lawyer that kind of shit?
Posted by gswift | Link to this comment | 04-18-06 1:30 PM
40: I'm not sure that you're right, but you're describing my thinking.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-18-06 1:31 PM
From the original post: "S. has been consistently cranky all year about sharing the printer, and has asked me repeatedly to use the high-speed printer for documents over ten pages or so." Sorry, the way it was written I understood that she had been specific in her request.
She probably took the noncommittal response to mean assent. I'm not saying that she's right, but failing to directly disagree was probably good enough for her. If it happens again, I would tell the next secretary that such an arrangement is not acceptable. Or, discuss a specific page limit that is acceptable to both of you.
You didn't want the conflict at the time, the partner doesn't want the conflict now.
How do you know that the letterhead document wasn't an urgent request from a partner?
And more importantly, how does a lawyer have this much time to surf the internet?
Posted by Frolic | Link to this comment | 04-18-06 1:35 PM
And more importantly, how does a lawyer have this much time to surf the internet?
I'm blindingly efficient. When someone I work for gives me a hard time about my billables or my output, I'll worry.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-18-06 1:36 PM
40 - Do you think the secretary would have killed the job of a male lawyer in the first place? I suspect not.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 04-18-06 1:40 PM
I'm not actually certain of the answer to that -- one of the things I was hoping for out of this post was a chorus of male professionals saying that they take this sort of nonsense all the time, so I could dismiss the thought. But I don't know.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-18-06 1:42 PM
Holy shit. I'm dealing with a situation at my firm that is scarily identical to yours, except the secretary with whom I'm in a row doesn't just have a self-importance problem, she's a certifiable Bitch with the maturity of a five-year old.
I completely understand how enraging her petty shows of importance are - because that's exactly what they are, not just irritable person syndrome, I've seen it enough to know. Luckily for me, the superiors involved in my case have all taken my side, so maybe I'm not sure exactly what I'd do if they hadn't. However:
You need to follow up with the Secretarial Manager. This is exactly what the SM's job description is, and passing it off to the partner is both pointless and, dare I say, a slight to you, since you were doing the responsible thing by contacting the right person, and SM is trying to make you look petty by telling the partner about squabbles he shouldn't need to be concerned with. Tell SM exactly that, and to get off his/her ass and get the secretary in line.
I also agree that you should contact the partner and try to downplay it. He's not going to admonish his own secretary - he's got to deal with her more than you do - and isn't going to want to get involved to mediate printer problems. So you just need to make sure you don't come out looking like the raving loony who's bitching about printer queues. Don't even mention the printer, just say how you referred the secretary's disruption of your work to the SM, figuring that was the appropriate thing to do, and that he need'nt be troubled by the situation.
I say, don't let it go - esp as a woman in a law firm, losing even tiny power struggles can sometimes be a huge blow to your reputation - just make sure you're talking to the right people about it. Also, see if you can contact the IT people directly about getting the high-speed printer installed. If the secretary objects to it again, you've got pretty good evidence that shows why it needs to be there.
Posted by A Sheer Ghost | Link to this comment | 04-18-06 1:43 PM
And more importantly, how does a lawyer have this much time to surf the internet?
Poor form, Frolic. We operate on a strict don't-ask-don't-tell policy at the Mineshaft.
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 04-18-06 1:44 PM
Here's another way to look at it. Do you think a male lawyer would just let it go?
I'm a male lawyer, and I told LB to do what I would do. This is not worth expending capital on.
The better question is:
Do you think the secretary would have killed the job of a male lawyer in the first place?
Given the treatment I have seen partners' secretaries mete out to associates, I do not think the answer is obvious, but it would not be crazy to think that this made a difference. However, that does not necessarily answer the first question.
Posted by Idealist | Link to this comment | 04-18-06 1:45 PM
12: This point about the power of secretaries is really interesting to me. My grandmother had the same lawyer for about 25 years. He started out in trusts and estates but eventually came to head that firm's corporate practice and was then managing partner. At 85, he's still of counsel and going strong.
My grandfather picked him to act as a trustee on certain trusts established by my great grandfather, one of the founding partner's of the firm. I believe that the terms of my great-grandfather's will required that one of the trustees be a Senior partner of that firm. But gran's lawyer did a lot more for her than just act as a trustee. (In fact I ran into him just the other day and we had an amiable chat.) He coordinated with the people in DC who handled her family's money. Note that we're not rolling in dough. Our family is an example of downward mobility.
Here was the secretary situation. He always had his own. He married one, and the second one stayed until she retired. (She was the most annoying person I've ever known.) What I do know is that she lasted a lot longer than most associates do at this big New England firm (now merged with a DC one).
Posted by Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 04-18-06 1:47 PM
The secretarial coordinator dropped the ball. If the firm is large enough to have such a position, then it shouldn't be up to the partners to settle little petty office crap. T's not doing her job, and I'd take it up with her.
Posted by goofyfoot | Link to this comment | 04-18-06 1:50 PM
Mmm. M.'s vacation makes that annoying -- I don't want to go back to T until I can say "M agrees that this is so not his problem -- now do your job," which means that I'm putting it off until next week.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-18-06 1:53 PM
Do you really want to try and get promoted in a place that let's the secretary give a lawyer that kind of shit?
Well, no, but insofar as the work didn't impede a case or client, it's reasonable for M. not to intervene. We're assuming M. doesn't know all the facts of a case but knows 1) it's a headache for him no matter what, and 2) the conflict doesn't affect his or firm cases. That's why the firm has an SM. Really, LB, at this point I'd be more pissed with the SM than with S.; I think you need to take it up with SM posthaste.
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 04-18-06 1:55 PM
47: I was actually curious, since half the people I know are lawyers and barely have time to read CNN during the day. They are clearly less efficient. I will tell them all.
I would avoid pissing off the partner at all cost. I pal was passed over for partnership due to an even more petty dispute.
Posted by Frolic | Link to this comment | 04-18-06 1:55 PM
47: Should have read "A pal."
Posted by Frolic | Link to this comment | 04-18-06 1:57 PM
even more petty dispute.
It's refreshing to hear that something more petty than this is conceivable, at least.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-18-06 1:59 PM
Wow, you have so many pals you have to assign them alpha identifiers? I can count my pals on the fingers of one hand.
Posted by The Alphanumeric Kid | Link to this comment | 04-18-06 2:00 PM
This is somewhat serious because it affects your work. The other situation had to do with office space allocation and didn't affect work or the partner.
It sounds like law firms can be as bad as tenure committees.
Posted by Frolic | Link to this comment | 04-18-06 2:00 PM
I'm very friendly. Also, I have a loose definition of friendship. Anyone who can tolerate me for ten minutes is a friend.
Posted by Frolic | Link to this comment | 04-18-06 2:02 PM
The firm should get you your own printer. At my firm we do that for everyone who requests. Point out to whoever is in charge that a printer suitable for smaller jobs costs about one or two billable hours, you give them at least 2000 of those a year, and you're expending more time than that walking to and from the printer in the secretary's area when you add it up.
Posted by an irregular | Link to this comment | 04-18-06 2:14 PM
This seems like, as someone else indicated, a fungibility test. If you don't work for M, and your firm is large, you are almost certainly more fungible to M than S is. If you want win, go to a partner you work for (he or she won't think of you as fungible), and ask him or her and ask for advice. He or she may be able to step in and address the matter. If you want to be clear that you aren't the sort people can walk all over, go to M, and accept a graceful loss.
Outside of technical work, HR has always struck me as useless; I wouldn't count on them to be of much use.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 04-18-06 2:19 PM
i do think the secretary was disrespectful to LB by canceling a print job after LB had specifically asked her not to. That's just like contradicting LB to her face - it's a rudeness.
I guess I would have taken it up further with the secretary herself immediately after this happened, very calmly and very firmly. Now, it seems like a bit of a lost cause... I would guess taking it up with the partner is really not going to help you, but I know nothing about law firms...
Posted by mmf! | Link to this comment | 04-18-06 2:26 PM
yes, request your own printer. perfect solution! you look very serious about your work, and you don't have to address the petty issue again or have any real dealings with this secretary.
Posted by mmf! | Link to this comment | 04-18-06 2:28 PM
I guess I would have taken it up further with the secretary herself immediately after this happened, very calmly and very firmly.
I did, of course, address it with her directly as it happened. Given that I have no administrative power over her, there wasn't a lot more that I could do in terms of being calm and firm than informing her that her behavior was unacceptably unprofessional.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-18-06 2:39 PM
The only thing left is to hide some coke in her desk and then rat her out.
Posted by gswift | Link to this comment | 04-18-06 2:49 PM
Now you're thinking.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-18-06 2:51 PM
I'm now inclining to the 40/44 view of things, esp. w/ LB saying that she usually gets along well with the secretaries (which I find entirely in keeping with her affect here). It could be a case of secretary, consciously or not, failing to see you as having the same authority her boss does, or another male lawyer would.
But of course you'd get nowhere actually making that an issue: "pooh pooh, little girl," everyone would say. Hence I'd go with Idealist's advice; don't get dragged into the power struggle, because doing so subtly puts you on the level of the secretaries, which is precisely where you don't want to be. Send the email to M., continue to do what you're doing, and if the secretary tries something like this again, snap at her.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-18-06 3:00 PM
Do not follow 64. It will turn out that this is all some scheme by two brothers who run a commodities brokerage to settle a bet over nature v. nurture.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 04-18-06 3:05 PM
The only thing left is to hide some coke in her desk and then rat her out.
No way. She'll find this thread via google and you'll be screwed. At this point, your only option left is to have her whacked.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 04-18-06 4:18 PM
50 pages is not a short document.
Having said that, it is clear to me that your only remaining course of action is to have sex with her.
Posted by dsquared | Link to this comment | 04-18-06 5:17 PM
Euugh. This would be reality, not legal drama. Legal secretaries aren't all hottt.
But, at least I can now console myself by thinking that what happened on Thursday wasn't the least pleasurable possible interaction I could have had with her.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-18-06 5:37 PM
Aw, where was dsquared's vitriol when we needed it? If it were me, I could not let this go. Note that this does not constitute the counsel of wisdom, just I'm saying, I could not let this go.
I would either
(a) go to the secretary myself, tell her -- maybe making a minor concession like B suggests -- i.e., sorry I lost my temper -- you simply can't cancel an attorney's print-job, it's firm business, and that's what pays the bills here, and we need clarity on that. You're slightly going out on a limb -- what if M doesn't back you up? so you could go for
(b) Enlisting M and tell him you need him to broker a sitdown, and you can go over the script in advance.
But I feel rather like LB's dad. I could not just let this go. (It's the sneaking feeling that you might be viewed as a chump that would prevent me letting it slide. The chump mantle prevents you doing your job down the road.)
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 04-18-06 5:42 PM
At this point, given that T has tossed the problem at M, I think I'm committed to talking to M. Really, at this point I'm mostly looking to extricate myself from the situation while looking like "I meant to do that."
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-18-06 6:03 PM
Personally, I'd have been inclined to have it out with the secretary face to face rather than pass it on to their manager. I can't get away from the fact that going over someone's head to their boss always seems like ratting them out -- even when they've been unreasonable. I hate to do it and will usually go to great lengths to avoid it.
On the other hand, I have no problem with face to face confrontation and generally feel much more comfortable just having the argument if the diplomatic approach or just ignoring it and letting it slide doesn't work.
People like that get off on exercising arbitrary power in their own little petty domains and, for me, it's usually a choice between i) ignoring it and trying to rise above it while being diplomatic or ii) just go for the head-to-head confrontation and trusting I'll win. The second of these has worked for me in instances of workplace bullying in the past. Although I'm generally a lot mellower now than in the past -- I wouldn't want to give the impression of being an argumentative sod!
Also, maybe the layout of the office and the noise of the printer really _is_ irritating to her and affects her ability to work properly.
Posted by Matt McGrattan | Link to this comment | 04-18-06 6:23 PM
Hrm. I've gotten this suggestion from a couple of people, and I may be unclear on what's being suggested. What do you mean by 'have it out with the secretary face to face'? When the incident happened, I went directly to her and told her that what she had done was unacceptable and unprofessional, and that she could not behave like that. Her response was to smile at me and tell me that I could resend my document to the other printer.
Given that I have no administrative power over her, I was out of ideas at that point other than (1) hitting her (which seemed like a flawed plan) (2) berating her in a "How dare you speak to me like that," tone (which also seemed ill-advised) or (3) taking it to someone with authority to do something. Is there something I'm missing about where I could have gotten by having it out with her?
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-18-06 6:30 PM
Adapt as required:
(IOW, I don't know what else you could have done to confront her personally.)
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 04-18-06 6:35 PM
Well, I suppose what I mean is, when she said, 'you can resend it to the other printer' I wouldn't have just left it there. Leaving it at the point means that dealing with it later is really too late and then you end up looking like you're brooding over something petty and escalating problems to senior staff when it's not necessary. I'd have been pretty damn clear then and there that sending to the other printer wasn't an acceptable option for reasons x, y and z, etc.
I'm not entirely sure that this case really warrants that -- for me personally I don't care that I can't hear a printer and I don't mind walking an extra 10 feet to collect printouts -- but if it _was_ something that mattered to me I'd be arguing fairly assertively that it _did_ (matter to me).
Of course, I don't know exactly what was said or the culture of your firm -- it's entirely possible I'd have done exactly what you did. But generally, I prefer to just take a stand and argue it out -- verbally I mean.
Posted by Matt McGrattan | Link to this comment | 04-18-06 6:43 PM
... and obviously with some people you're just never going to win the argument. They're either too stupid or too obstinate to recognise when they are in the wrong or know perfectly well they are in the wrong but want victory at all costs.
And then, I can't see what else you can do other than what you've already done. Escalate to someone in a position of greater authority.
Posted by Matt McGrattan | Link to this comment | 04-18-06 6:45 PM
But I did. I mean, I didn't say 'That's fine' and then go off and call T.; I said 'That's unacceptable, I'll be speaking to your supervisor about this' and then called T. Once she blew me off initially, I'm not sure what it would mean to 'argue it out -- verbally' -- keep on standing there talking at her as she printed her letter? Because I'd simply have felt foolish. I could have ratcheted up the interaction in an attempt to frighten her, but in the context of keeping my temper and speaking civilly, I didn't see a lot of options once she ignored me and returned to her work.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-18-06 6:49 PM
78 to 76.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-18-06 6:51 PM
Eh. I should quit talking about this -- not a terribly important incident, although it left me spitting with rage at the time -- and I don't know that there was a really good way to handle it.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-18-06 6:56 PM
Fair enough, as I said, I wasn't there and I don't know the culture at your firm.
It seemed, from the initial report, that the conversation was shorter than I'd have went in for and I'd have tried to be more persuasive but you're the one who was there and knows if that was a realistic option or not. I don't think I'd have felt foolish continuing the conversation while she printed the letter but if there was no way to do so without coming across as a total dick ... then I'd have tried not to come across as a total dick.
My impression is that my threshold for foolishness in that situation is maybe in a different place from yours. :)
Posted by Matt McGrattan | Link to this comment | 04-18-06 6:58 PM
re: 80
Yeah, it is infuriating when something makes you really angry at the time and when it's really hard to express later why it was so irritating -- especially if there really was nothing that could be done. Impotence in the face of other people's arsey behaviour is a real bugger.
I hope not to sound hypercritical.
Posted by Matt McGrattan | Link to this comment | 04-18-06 7:02 PM
Seriously, my impression is that people react differently to an angry man than to an angry woman. My image of the interaction you're suggesting is one that includes a strong element of physical intimidation -- not that you would be explicitly threatening, but when men get angry, it gets read as a suggestion that violence isn't out of the question, which under at least some circumstances tends to elicit compliance. Most women, including me, don't have the capacity to project an implicit physical threat in a socially acceptable fashion.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-18-06 7:04 PM
You chould make partner, maneuver to have her made your personal secretary and then tell her, politely, that she can finish all her letterhead printing on a different letterhead on a different printer in a different office.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 04-18-06 7:11 PM
But I suppose that would involve holding a grudge.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 04-18-06 7:13 PM
1. That T bumped the problem to M without telling you is telling: neither S nor T think you're worth worrying about.
2. Forget about it.
3. Some night when you're working late, spill coffee into the old printer. Do your very best to clean it up, taking the printer apart if necessary. Make sure you get every last drop of coffee, even if it requires that you bend something out of the way. The next morning, walk in and announce that you've accidentally ruined the printer and offer to pay for a new, faster, printer.
Posted by rc | Link to this comment | 04-18-06 7:30 PM
#83
This frustrates my wife to no end. She says it isn't fair, and really, she's right. It's kind of absurd that the deeper voice and certain body language can still be used this way in modern society, but it's probably hardwired into us.
Posted by gswift | Link to this comment | 04-18-06 7:59 PM
83 -- See, this is why you should be packing heat. Haven't we been over this already?
Posted by The Gangsta Kid | Link to this comment | 04-18-06 8:07 PM
I don't mean to be too much of a lint puppet, Kid, but you can have your props back if you stop doing that.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 04-18-06 8:09 PM
83: Try throttling?
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-18-06 8:15 PM
87: Yeah, it's not so much that it's unfair that it's harder for me to be threatening, I just want to note that it's not a character flaw not to be able to pull it off, so much as a physical difference.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-18-06 8:16 PM
1. Get a new job.
2. Do you work with / for a partner of equal status with M? S and L are below you in rank, but they're not in the same chain of command as you. M is in their chain of command, but he's above you in rank and doesn't feel like bothering. Only if an equal or superior of M talks to him will anything happen. If he's the highest-ranking partner, you're dog meat.
3. From what I know about the intensely competitive nature of lawyers, if you let this slide you'll lose status. On the other hand, if you make a stink you'll most likely be regarded as a bitch. So probably you're dog meat no matter what.
4. goto1
In my bureaucratic experience, you usually have to go up your own chain of command until you find someone with authority over someone in the other person's chain of command. This is often impractical, in very large organizations with pig-headed, lazy administrators, significant problems can fester for decades.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 04-18-06 8:17 PM
1 is, for many reasons other than this, the best of all possible advice.
2. would generally be excellent advice, and in fact, the partner I work for is the head of the department, he thinks I'm smart, and he likes my work. Unfortunately, he's a sociopath whose greatest joy in life is to torture the weak. (yeah, yeah, I can hear the lawyer jokes. This guy is distinctly out there by any standards.) I've been watching him shred another associate on the case into a quivering heap of protoplasm for a year now, and I've only retained what status I have by never showing a weak point. If I go to him for help, I'll end up making a formal, handwritten apology to S. and printing to a printer on the other elevator bank, just because he finds humiliation entertaining.
3. Pretty much. I'm aiming for bitch rather than chump out of natural inclination.
4. Did I say this was excellent advice? Any lurkers out there working inhouse in NYC? I'll buy you lunch if you tell me about your job.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-18-06 8:28 PM
Can't you make a case that you need the faster, noisier printer close to you? Like right beside your work area? And then whenever you print things to it, you can smirk at S when you go to pick them up. Or maybe find a way to sic the sociopath on S. Mention how sensitive she is. If he picks up on it, though, you collect bad karma.
Posted by mcmc | Link to this comment | 04-18-06 8:36 PM
I've actually never found that "bitch" was a really bad role to play. Seriously. People mutter about it, but they don't fuck with you.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-18-06 8:45 PM
LB, I know someone at the New York branch of Association of Corporate Counsel, but the organization is more into CLE for people who are already in house, rather than helping people move to in-house.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 04-18-06 8:47 PM
If you can't get a printer, try for a transfer to another part of the suite. Closer to your secretary, or maybe closer to people you'd like to be closer to.
Not knowing anyone, it's hard to generalize, but it seems to me that you should have no conversation with M that does not begin with 'I had a problem with S, but a solution has been found.' There's no upside for you in a confrontation with M.
You can get a new job, but S, M, and T will all be there too. And you won't have the seniority to get either a new printer or a transfer to a different part of the suite. Obviously if you want a new job for other reason, go for it -- life is pretty short -- but if escaping lameness of this kind is part of the agenda, you may need to hang a shingle.
Posted by CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 04-18-06 8:59 PM
In the big firm law business, I think 'bitch' is a very dangerous role for a female associate to play. Even in NYC.
Posted by CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 04-18-06 9:03 PM
LB -
I'm sure things differ significantly from firm to firm, but here are a few quick observations from my own experience:
* Secretaries, particularly those who work for senior partners, have the unspoken authority to be as nutty and idiosyncratic as they like, so long as they're doing all of the partner's bidding. The ill effects of said n & i will inevitably fall on you and your fellow associates (male and female alike).
* You should *not* expect the partner to intervene on your behalf. That secretary knows every name in his rolodex, knows the location of every important slip of paper, and knows how run interference when he doesn't want to take a particular call. For all of those reasons she is far more valuable to him than you are.
* This is all part of the freaky law firm ecosystem. No one's going to respect you less if the secretary slings some shit at you and you don't sling back.
* The solution is easy. Get in good with the tech guys. Flatter them. They will hook you up with your own printer.
Posted by jw | Link to this comment | 04-18-06 10:09 PM
re: 82 - I'd certainly hope that I never give off the impression of violent intimidation. That wasn't what I meant by arguing back.
However, I'm AM fairly sure that having a fairly deep voice and a certain physical presence, i.e. just being male, does help when it comes to being assertive in ways that are acceptable to society at large.
As BPhd implies in 95 it's hard for some women to be assertive without coming across as a bitch -- our society just generally makes it harder for women to be strongly assertive in socially acceptable ways -- and while some people are happy to play that role (like BPhD herself) others are not.
Also, re: 87, that _is_ just not fair.
My wife is the 'boss' at her place of work so has much more authority than I have at mine and although she's very very good at what she does I know she struggles with the tension between exercising authority and coming over as a total bitch. Something she'd just not have to deal with if it wasn't for her gender.
Posted by Matt McGrattan | Link to this comment | 04-19-06 1:08 AM
I'm fairly certain I once saw a porno that started like this. Is she hot?
Posted by reuben | Link to this comment | 04-19-06 1:45 AM
Way back at 35, you more or less outed yourself as looking for permission to take this as far as necessary. So do it, but before you do it consider the following carefully:
Your father has done himself good in the past by choosing his battles and fighting them to the finish. Is your workplace one that will allow you to do this and if not, is it really where you want to be?
If you roll up your sleeves and go for it, are you a good enough actor to keep a measured, reasonable tone, and not get wired up, whatever anybody says or does, for as long as it takes?
If you get positive answers to both questions, get stuck in and fight like Patton, because right is clearly on your side.
Posted by OneFatEnglishman | Link to this comment | 04-19-06 5:16 AM
Not knowing anyone, it's hard to generalize, but it seems to me that you should have no conversation with M that does not begin with 'I had a problem with S, but a solution has been found.' There's no upside for you in a confrontation with M.
So, so not planning to confront M. Conversation with M is going to open with an apology to M on T's behalf: "I'm so sorry T bothered you with this; clearly she should have dealt with it herself," and continue in an attempt to be sympathetic and conciliatory toward M for how difficult it must be for him managing S, given her behavior.
Obviously if you want a new job for other reason, go for it -- life is pretty short -- but if escaping lameness of this kind is part of the agenda, you may need to hang a shingle.
This is why I'm very glad this blog is (mostly) anonymous. I do realize that having this sort of problem at all makes me sound like a neurotic princess who is essentially unemployable; I can say that in seven years of practice I can think of only one other occasion on which I've had any sort of a problem with a secretary. I normally get along fine with difficult people, including the notoriously awful partner I work for, who I do much better with than most people (just not well enough to ask him for help. But no one with any sense would ask this guy for help.) I grovel to partners' secretaries like nobody's business, in a context where everyone's behaving sanely.
This incident just got under my skin because it was so hostile and so contemptuous, and I reacted strongly enough at the time that I feel like I need to extricate myself in a manner where I can at least look as if I was satisfied with the result.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-19-06 6:10 AM
I have been an executive admin assistant before, though not at a law firm. I've been on the other end of disputes like this one, so I think I know what's going on with her side of the situation.
That local printer probably gets hit all day long with documents from everyone in a six-cube radius. She has had it out with everyone about their habit of printing War and Peace on it when she's trying to print a two-page letter that has to get in the ten o'clock post and it's nine forty-seven. The battle wears on and on and no one ever listens to her request to not tie up the printer.
And then one day she snaps and decides that from then on she is just cancelling the jobs that violate what she thinks are the ground rules she's requested everyone follow.
I think this is a fight that's happening with everyone, not just you. That's the only reason I can think of an admin would escalate to that level- she's tired of having everyone behave as if her work were unimportant and her request for a minimal level of understanding unreasonable.
I would just drop the whole thing, myself, but I understand you're angry and don't feel that dropping it is an option. Check and see if she's done this to anyone else, though, if you can without making people aware of the disagreement you've had. That might be why the admin organizer is ignoring you- she's had this conversation with S.
Posted by winna | Link to this comment | 04-19-06 7:15 AM
I think this is a fight that's happening with everyone, not just you. That's the only reason I can think of an admin would escalate to that level- she's tired of having everyone behave as if her work were unimportant and her request for a minimal level of understanding unreasonable.
That would be a reasonable guess, but it's not the case. The printer is shared by her, me, and M, and M doesn't really use it except through her. Hours at a time go when nothing is printed.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-19-06 7:35 AM
I feel left-out of the gender side of this conversation, as if not having taken it into consideration as an assumption, as nearly everyone else has, has left me talking about a different problem.
From your charming description of your workplace and partners as this thread has gone on, I'm sure I was wrong. I never had a professional job, as a lawyer or editor, where my immediate supervisor wasn't a woman, and usually hers as well. Assuming that this had become normal, I thought of gender power issues as quaint or obsolete, as I believe they were where I worked for twenty years.
The threat-of-violence-in-anger thing has another side. For years women have blown up at me, without my reacting with any kind of hostility. The longest and best professional relationship I ever had was with a woman who did this often enough that everyone else had found a way to leave working closely with her. There appear to be many men who just can't take that, and women too. This despite the fact that she was the kindest, smartest and most empathetic and imaginative person I've ever worked with. I'd taken much worse from my previous bosses.
However, I've started expressing anger myself lately, and my wife, whose ability to blow up and feel better has always impressed me, is very disturbed by this. I feel there is a gender imbalance here. She claims I frighten the kids, I want to say "And you don't?" "Do you really feel you're in any kind of physical danger?" "Really?"
Maybe it's just change that is unsettling her, but I actually feel that I'm not permitted to express as much anger because I'm a man.
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 04-19-06 8:38 AM
I'm not sure that this is a gender issue at all -- it might be, but I don't know.
The gender issue I was responding to was something I got the impression of as implicit in Matt McG's comment, and a couple of earlier ones, that I should have hashed it out directly with S in some manner that I did not: the impression (which no one quite said, and which I therefore may be imagining) was that on an issue like this, being direct with the person giving you trouble should be enough to get compliance, and if you aren't getting compliance, the problem is probably that you are overly diffident or somehow personally weak or conflict avoidant. I just wanted to make the point that this is easy for most men to say: size and strength tend to get deference, and size strength and anger get fear (even under circumstances where there is no practical likelihood of actual violence).
If you're a big strong guy (or even just bigger and stronger than the person you're talking to, which is usually the case when you're a man talking to a woman), and when you get mad people tend to try to tone the situation down and become compliant, it's because you're scaring them -- that doesn't mean that you're necessarily doing anything wrongful, but it does mean that you have a tool that most women don't have.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-19-06 8:50 AM
you have a tool that most women don't have.
This is pretty much true by definition.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 04-19-06 8:57 AM
Talkin' bout my hammer? Or my screwdriver?
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 04-19-06 8:59 AM
Really, the answer is to wait 6 months and then fill all her desk drawers with dog shit.
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 04-19-06 9:16 AM
So whether I'm doing anything "wrongful" or not, you more-or-less agree I am, or ought to be, more constrained in my ability to express anger than the women in my life of whom I have often been, if only momentarily, actually physically afraid.
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 04-19-06 9:29 AM
No, or if that was what I said I didn't mean it. What I meant to say is that based on the asymmetry of size, strength, and cultural roles, men are generally more successful at being frightening when angry than women are, and that it is easy for men who rely on this to a certain extent to not realize what they are doing, and to be puzzled about why other people, who aren't physically intimidating, don't get the same sort of compliance and respect. Deference to and fear of a big strong angry person is a natural reaction, and assuming the person in question is reasonably, rather than unreasonably, angry, they probably aren't doing anything wrong. But there is an implicit fear of violence in the interaction, and it means that men tend to get placated more than women do when angry.
If you deal with women who physically frighten you on a regular basis, of course, you're well within your rights to ask them to tone it down to make you more comfortable. And they're within their rights to ask you to tone yourself down to make them more comfortable. But that's individual relationship dynamics, not so much something systemic.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-19-06 9:41 AM
As I said, these have been the most rewarding relationships of my life, but I"m discovering a subtext that say's to me: "I can get mad, and you have to take it, but when you get mad, I don't have to take it, without invoking some pretty heavy shit." It may just be that trying to do, or feeling I ought to be able to do, what I feel they have always felt free to do, after so long a time, changes the relationship or the sense of my personality.
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 04-19-06 10:09 AM
Isn't the classic strategy of the physically weak to project "crazy"? Won't really help at work, but still. An alternate way to suggest violence.
Posted by ac | Link to this comment | 04-19-06 10:33 AM
Re: being "within my rights"
I don't mean to set up a Hohfeld opposition in using these terms, but I'm reminded of a passage where Matthew Arnold says something like:
"I more and more feel I have no rights, only duties"
He wasn't whining or lamenting, merely describing an evolving sense of moral and social responsibility.
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 04-19-06 10:49 AM
The physical intimidation factor is real. Big guys have ways of intimidating little guys in a sort of kabuki way even though an actual physical confrontation is scarcely even imaginable. LBJ did that a lot, for example.
In actual fights, big guys can also humiliate a little guy in a "joking" way without using serious violence, whereas the little guy in that kind of case can only defend himself by escalating the situation, for example by getting a weapon of some kind or by trying to hurt the big guy in some way.
And al fortiori with women, who aren't supposed to fight at all, except with each other in porn movies.
Laws on violence actually support the big guys, because shoving and manhandling are the lowest level of assault and usually aren't prosecuted at all, whereas any escalation would usually be a more serious charge.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 04-19-06 11:03 AM
John,
Of course it's real. My question is, does the fact that I am a big guy necessarily limit my expression, in a way it does not that of another person? Does my size & shape & voice carry special duties/responsibilities? In an anonymous or "street" situation I would say "of course it does." And I've lived a life of privilege because of those attributes, and owe corresponding responsibilities. I needed to understand that my sense of freedom to walk anywhere in a big city, even at night, could not be assumed by everyone, for instance.
What flummoxes me are situations where this presumption is invoked after many years familiarity, during which the agression ran the other way.
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 04-19-06 11:15 AM
re: 107 and 112 -- All of that makes sense to me, yeah.
Even if someone isn't trying to be threatening or aggressive, they can 'benefit' from the fact that big + deep-voice + loud = intimidating for most people and I suppose those of us who do have that 'benefit' can overlook that fact.
Posted by Matt McGrattan | Link to this comment | 04-19-06 11:36 AM
What flummoxes me are situations where this presumption is invoked after many years familiarity, during which the agression ran the other way.
Here we're really, really talking about the details of interpersonal relationships to which none of us but you are parties so take this with all sorts of caveats, but you've got a couple of additional issues here. One is a perceived changing of the rules -- if you've got years invested in a relationship in which person A does X, and person B doesn't, B's starting to do X may feel like a violation of some implicit agreement, even though it would have been the fairest way to arrange matters from the start. The other thing is that anger feels more important coming from someone who doesn't usually get angry: Buck is a hothead, and blows up about something quite often -- it's usually no big deal, it's over quickly, no problem. I'm much more even tempered, and so my getting angry happens much less often and is (rightly) percieved as much more important. If I'm raising my voice at Buck, it is a big freaking deal. If he's raising his voice at me, it's a day of the week ending in Y. (On rereading, this sounds bad. I just mean that he's shouty and I'm not.)
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-19-06 11:57 AM
IDP is right to frame it as an added responsibility. If a big, tall, strong guy wishes to avoid appearing to be threatening when angry, he has to exercise more self-control that I do as a petite woman.
The flipside of course, is that if I don't want to be dismissed as a shrill screechy wench, I have to modulate my responses, too.
I think IDP is better off. He may mistakenly give the impression of being threatening, but he won't be dismissed or ignored, and we both have similar responsibilities regarding our personal expression.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 04-19-06 12:06 PM
That's kind of an upside to being a frumpy, unprepossessing guy -- I know I am going to be dismisssed regardless, so I can afford myself a wider latitude of behaviors.
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 04-19-06 12:13 PM
(I will take my solace where I can find it.)
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 04-19-06 12:16 PM
This talk of presumptions reminds me of what I've liked about online conversations: none of this stuff comes into play. Or does it? Might our styles, produced by years of adjustment, be revealing of our physical selves so that people are able to get a more-or-less accurate physical sense of us? I'd hate to think so.
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 04-19-06 12:22 PM
My boyfriend's a strong, powerful looking guy, and he's been called intimidating just by sitting there looking peaceful. It's not his fault he looms.
123: I don't think so. People have let their heights and types slip here and there, so I might be able to tell Becks from Tia, e.g., but I'm pretty confident that given that I'm not sure which commenters are male half the time, I don't have a lot on their physical appearances.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 04-19-06 12:31 PM
I think that it's true that women can scare men, physically: a lot of physical intimidation is about aggression. I've scared tall men once or twice, and I have to admit that there is something exhilirating about realixing that you can intimidate someone who is pissing you off into backing the hell away and shutting up, rather than having to engage in some kind of exchange with them. I suspect the reason that, by and large, we credit men more with that power is less about size differentials than it simply is about things like sport and physical comfort: in the cases where I was intimidating, they were both about me feeling that someone was threatening/mocking/upsetting PK, and without really thinking about it I was *way* more aggressive than I think I could ever consciously decide to be. Whereas it seems to me that that kind of intimidation tactic is something that at least some men are taught to feel comfortable with, but very, very few women are.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-19-06 12:39 PM
Oh, it's not impossible -- I'm a big strong woman, and I've been told I'm scary when I'm angry (I expect Idealist to show up and start giving me shit about precisely how scary I am) -- but you have to go ballistic. Big men can pull off a "I'm not raising my voice, but I'm standing too close to you, and I am visibly making an effort to remain calm," effect that can be quite intimidating (a) without meaning to, and (b) without doing anything that looks rude or inappropriate.
In this instance I could certainly have intimidated S and commanded her attention, I was quite angry enough, but I couldn't have done it and remained appropriately civil -- that level of hostility from me would have pushed the incident over the line into "We don't care what she did, you mayn't frighten the secretaries like that."
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-19-06 12:52 PM
I would tend to doubt that big men are all that unaware of how they're coming off. I only get into trouble when I'm mad, and even then I'm not making any threatening gestures. So I disbelieve in an "I'm not raising my voice, but I'm standing too close to you, and I am visibly making an effort to remain calm," effect that can be quite intimidating (a) without meaning to. My dad was as big as I am, and I never saw him do anything of the kind.
I don't think I do either, ever.
This is going to sound ridiculous, but I have the same sense of size other people have. When a large man enters a room I'm often struck, impressed and sometimes intimidated by him, even when he's in fact smaller than I am. I don't even like to think about what that means about me, and the impression I make.
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 04-19-06 1:32 PM
Not knowing you, IDP, I have no idea what I think of your behavior. If you feel aggrieved at the very idea that people expect you you to play by different rules than smaller people, I'm not too sympathetic.
I remember from working in mental health units that big, strong out-of-control guys were put in restraints quicker than anyone else. Maybe not fair, but there's no other way it could be. They were just more dangerous.
So on the one hand, in certain contexts, you can't do things other people can do. On the other hand, you have other benefits you might be unaware of. In certain circumstances, the cards are stacked toward big tall guys.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 04-19-06 5:46 PM
I didn't mean to suggest I thought you are a spolied princess of some kind. Just that law firms are the perfect dysfunctional atmosphere for this kind of thing. That you have experienced it rarely strikes me as very good luck. (Which you've surely helped along by your own demeanor.)
At my firm, I'm on the committee which evaluates associates, especially candidacies for partnership. I've participated in plenty of discussions about associates who have trouble with staff -- either particular individuals or in general -- but never one in which the justification of the associate's position was a part of the discussion, and never one where the question of whether an associate had failed to stand up to a staffmember-in-the-wrong was a sign of unworthiness of some kind.
I still think a move within the suite that solves some other issue -- and surely there is some way your life can be improved with a move -- leaves you a winner. Without having to talk to M at all.
But, of course, what do I know? Less than nothing . . .
Posted by CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 04-19-06 6:13 PM
Or, of course, more than anyone else commenting here, given your level of relevant experience (which makes your perspective very helpful).
Having, at this point, finally fully recovered my temper (it was mostly waiting for a response from T and then getting blown off that made it take as long as it did), while I'm committed to talking to M when he gets back, I am so, so, minimizing the whole thing and apologizing that he got dragged into it.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-19-06 6:28 PM
given that I'm not sure which commenters are male half the time
I know. For the longest time I actually thought Chopper was a guy.
Maybe I was fooled by how much Chopper likes substantive comment threads wherein smack is talked.
Posted by M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 04-19-06 6:43 PM
Is that a joke of some kind? Cause Chopper posted pictures of itself a while back and it looked awfully male.
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 04-19-06 6:54 PM
I know exactly which commenters are male half the time.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 04-19-06 6:58 PM
"It" looked awfully goddamn sombrero on a harley. Hellz yeah.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 04-19-06 6:58 PM
Speak of the devil!
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 04-19-06 7:00 PM
133 -- what are they the other half of the time?
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 04-19-06 7:04 PM
Serial hermaphrodites?
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 04-19-06 7:06 PM
Matt, I should hope you're referring to this or similar.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 04-19-06 7:06 PM
More or less (to 138).
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 04-19-06 7:11 PM
If I'm not male, my wife is gonna be real pissed when she figures it out. And I'd have to do some real head-scritching about how I acquired a daughter.
On the other hand, if I was female, presumably I'd get a clitoris of my very own, and that seems like a pretty good deal. Plus, boobies! Hooray!
Shit. Decisions, decisions.
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 04-19-06 7:27 PM
Is that a joke of some kind?
No flies on you, Kid.
Posted by M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 04-19-06 9:17 PM
I can't believe your firm is so cheap they won't get you your own damned printer. I daresay it costs less than two of your billable hours.
Posted by Frederick | Link to this comment | 04-20-06 12:57 AM
while I'm committed to talking to M when he gets back, I am so, so, minimizing the whole thing and apologizing that he got dragged into it
yes to apologise, no to minimise. Nobody wants to hear about how trivial the thing they're being bothered with is when they're already being bothered by it. The correct line is "I am sorry you got dragged into this because someone else should have dealt with it, and I don't want to make trouble because having you involved is an excessive level of force, but it is not trivial, the lack of respect I get round here and I had no option but to complain."
Basically, ignore the original problem and make the entire meeting be about the supervisor's refusal to supervise.
Posted by dsquared | Link to this comment | 04-20-06 6:29 AM
(and, obviously, carry the look of someone storing up material for a constructive dismissal suit).
actually, even better, the way to get out of any of these situations without unpleasantness is based on a technique I have seen used in situations from speeding tickets to promotion boards and it never fails.
Just start a sentence saying "look this was particularly hard for me to deal with because ...". Then trail off, and look down in the general direction of your groin. I am assuming that the partner is male here and suspect that the tactic would not work on women, but on 99% of men it works a fucking treat, and he will do more or less anything if he thinks it will make sure that you get out of his office without mentioning your vagina.
Posted by dsquared | Link to this comment | 04-20-06 6:32 AM
Dear god in heaven, do not follow the "look at your vagina" advice, or I will personally hunt you down and beat the crap out of you.
Was that sufficiently intimidating?
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-20-06 7:21 AM
Basically, ignore the original problem and make the entire meeting be about the supervisor's refusal to supervise.
Ooo, good call.
Then trail off, and look down in the general direction of your groin.
This, not so much. In fact, given the geometry of the whole thing, this is quite anatomically difficult -- I'm not sure that I could look meaningfully at my groin in a fashion that could be distinguished from looking at the floor. Not without assuming a terribly unlikely position that I assume isn't what you're recommending.
In other words: B.? Don't worry.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-20-06 7:48 AM
do not follow the "look at your vagina" advice
Seriously, don't do that.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 04-20-06 8:02 AM
147 -- but d specified "in the general direction of", not "directly at". I should think that would be reasonably safe, probably better than 3-in-1 odds of living to tell the tale.
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 04-20-06 8:18 AM
Since this has come around close to where I was a couple of days ago, with your problem being with the secretarial coordinator--maybe supervisor is not quite right--I share your frustration at her unwillingness to apply herself to finding a mutually beneficial solution. That is the essence of what the term coordinator implies to me.
Comments above, by you, LB and others, raise the question of whether litigators might be different in this from other lawyers, but I think of lawyers as problem solvers. The late David Riesmann mused about this in one of his essays, about how in his experience lawyers who served in many capacities during WWII, performing many functions far from their training or background were always leaders in trying to get people to work together, to resolve logjams and conflicts arising from somebody's rule-based rigidity.
Lawyers know, almost instinctually, how arbitrary and innaplicable rules often are, and that the question of whether they've become an obstacle is always open.
I know this will surprise people that I think this, since it has become customary to blame lawyers, and the law, usually the fear of liability, for all manner of clumsy, stupid and complicated rule-making. It is my conviction after years of experience, that it is not usually lawyers who are responsible for this. "Legal reasons" and "liability issues" have provided cover for a vast amount of petty and sometimes spiteful, control and bureaucracy.
Anyway, it drives me crazy when people don't try to work things out, and when somebody isn't in a position to try to find out what the problem is and whether everybody's needs, including respect and status, can't be served by some adjustment.
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 04-20-06 8:38 AM
Ah, come on, the "women's problems" gambit is pure gold. It never fails, and the idea of trying to build a better world by not doing it is exactly what they warned us against in the "Tragedy of the Commons", or some such. I can't believe it's used as (relatively) infrequently as it is.
It would not be my number one choice, but unfortunately all my really good "generic solutions" (this term [c] McKinsey & Co) tend to sound unattractively brutish when you start suggesting their use in the context of a woman in a subordinate role.
Posted by dsquared | Link to this comment | 04-20-06 12:39 PM
tend to sound unattractively brutish when you start suggesting their use in the context of a woman in a subordinate role.
'Unattractively brutish' sounds good, actually.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-20-06 12:42 PM
re: 149
As a litigator, I think much of what you write is correct--lawyers are trained to figure out how to get stuff done and ca nbe very good at it.
However, as someone who was a manager for a lot of years before becoming a lawyer, I think lawyers (generally), and litigators in particular, often are not great managers.
First, no one ever trains them to manage, and lots of management is skills which can be learned. Second, notwithstanding the obvious examples of the need for people skills--arguing in court, negotiating with opposing counsel, etc.--a lot of what many litigators do does not involve a lot of interaction with other people. You can be pretty antisocial or otherwise not good with people and be a successful litigator. However, such traits make it hard to be a good manager.
Thus, M may be a litigation partner in a big firm, but there is no reason to believe that he will be particularly good at dealing with the mess which S has created.
Posted by Idealist | Link to this comment | 04-20-06 12:52 PM
It's the fine line between telling someone else what their best and most sensible course of action is (which as a litigator, I am fantastically skilled at) and managing not to behave like a brain-damaged emu oneself. Litigators are generally quite good at the first, not so much at the second.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-20-06 1:07 PM
Well, I meant to make that distinction, although it may not have come through. I have mostly been, when I practiced, a "solicitor;" I think Reismann had that sort of person in mind. And I didn't mean to suggest, "you're a lawyer, why can't you fix this problem?" "Because it involves me." is actually a good-enough answer.
What I meant was that a lawyer's instincts are to see right away that somebody should try to get everybody pulling in the same direction, by finding out what the issues are and trying to reconcile them. And thinking someone should do that, and that someone has a title suggesting that's what they're supposed to do, and won't do it, is nerve-wracking, for lawyers.
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 04-20-06 1:16 PM
On one hand, it is nice that you have given this so much thought and deliberation. Analytical mode isn't appropriate to every situation, though, and if I may share some unkind-yet-objective (and typically male-lawyer) perspective on this business:
You are having an extended stress-fest over control of maybe fifty seconds of printer time. So stop.
And if I were asked to "mediate" this sort of dispute, I'd punish everyone involved.
Posted by GMCG | Link to this comment | 04-20-06 5:58 PM
A partner's secretary is like an extension of the partner himself (or herself). You are basically fighting with M on this one, and you will lose. M is not going to side with you, a lawyer he doesn't work with, over the secretary he depends on.
While in theory you may have been right, in realpolitik terms you were dead wrong to make a big deal out of this. Don't dig the hole deeper now. Let it drop, use the other printer, and never, never complain about anyone at the firm again until you make partner.
Posted by Gaijin Biker | Link to this comment | 04-24-06 10:27 AM
For anyone on tenterhooks as to how this all came out -- M. came back from vacation, and we had a talk. He's been working with her on, as he put it 'mediating her interactions with people' -- apparently she's been a consistent problem in this regard. And he approved a printer for my office.
So, I think I've closed the incident without any significant damage.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-24-06 2:21 PM
And I have to change my assessment, of T. There is the possibility T knew all along how this would probably turn out, had spoken to M about it before and been asked to bring such issues to him, etc. I just wish T could have given you more of a signal, if that were the case, but maybe she felt she couldn't and maybe you're expected to be a big girl. If that's what they expect it looks to me like they're right.
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 04-26-06 4:19 PM