Law.com Home Newswire LawJobs CLE Center LawCatalog Our Sites Advertise
New York Lawyer Advertisement:
Click Here
A New York Law Journal publication

Home | Register | Login | Classified Ads | Message Boards

Search
Public Notices
New! Create a Domestic LLC/LLP Public Notice
Law Firms
NYLJ Professional
Announcements
The NYLJ 100
The AmLaw 100
The AmLaw 200
The AmLaw Midlevel
Associates Survey
The Summer
Associates Survey
The NLJ 250
Beyond Firms
The New York Bar Exam
Pro Bono
NYLJ Fiction Contest
Get Advice
Advice for the Lawlorn
Crossroads
Work/Life Wisdom
Message Boards
Services
Contact Us
Corrections
Make Us Your
Home Page
Shop LawCatalog.com
This Week's
Public Notices
Today's Classified Ads
Who We Are
 
 
Work/Life Wisdom

New York Lawyer
September 27, 2001

Q:
There seems to be nothing one can say to one of my partners -- particularly in partners� meetings -- which he doesn�t automatically disagree with. I actually believe that one could say, �The sky is blue,� and he would object, �Oh, no, it�s actually a silvery-grey, and in any event will be dark grey soon.�

This habit is maddening. It gets in the way of effective communication in our meetings. Equally maddening is that often, having disagreed with an idea put forth by myself or someone else, he will later articulate the same idea in different words, this time framing it positively and adopting it as his own. He�s very glib and smooth so it�s hard to take him on without looking petty. What can I do?

Submit Your
Question
Find More
Answers
A:
We�ve probably all known at least one of these knee-jerk naysayers. As is often the case with difficult personalities, the first thing to do is locate the guy on a continuum of behavior. On the one hand, he could be totally innocent, with the best interests of the firm at heart and unaware that he has developed a habit of automatic disagreement. At the other hand, he could be a political conniver, deliberately parting company with everyone else in an effort to have his ideas (even if borrowed from others) triumph so that he gets the credit. Somewhere in between are people who consciously or subconsciously like to put others down, but who aren�t necessarily crusading for total dominion over their colleagues.

From the sound of it, your colleague appears to be farther down the slimy end of the spectrum. Dealing with him will first require evaluating whether his contrarian attitude actually gets in the way of progress or is just irritating. If it�s the latter, just carry on with your viewpoint and try to ignore him. If he derails good ideas, frequently grabs credit not due him and prevents a complete dialogue about important firm initiatives and problems, you�ll need to take some kind of action.

Above all else, I�d advise stiffening your own spine. If you have a valid view, rehearse ways to persevere in your line of argument without appearing defensive: �I understand your concerns. However, it�s important that we hire more people for the real estate department so that we don�t get caught flat-footed.� Answer generalized objections with specific, factual rejoinders to reveal the emptiness of his arguments. Don�t take him personally. This is his M.O. and if it rattles your self-confidence he�s won. Remind yourself when he starts his pooh-poohing routine that he knows no other way, keep your head cool and stick to the facts and realities of the actual issue, rather than being sidetracked by his political nonsense.

There�s also a more direct approach, which can be tried if someone with enough power can talk with him. Ellen Ostrow, Ph.D., founder of LawyersLifeCoach.com and a psychologist who coaches lawyers, asks whether other people in the partnership group feel the same way about this person. If so, she advises, �The person with the best relationship with the partner, the person with most power, or the person with the best communication skills can meet with the partner. This person might point out that although the partner probably doesn't even realize it, he tends to be argumentative in the meeting and that this makes accomplishing the goals of the meeting more difficult. This person might thank the partner for helping the group consider alternatives and perhaps note that his adversarial abilities serve him well in court, but in the meeting it would be helpful if he were more aware of this and gave more careful thought to suggestions before he responded to them. If the partner accepts the feedback, the group is then in a position to gently remind him of the goals of the meeting -- that cooperation and dialogue will help more than argument in this setting -- if and when the behavior occurs again.�

It won�t be easy, but at least we can all agree that it�s worth it to try to check this fellow�s perverse attitude.

Sincerely,
Holly English
Principal Consultant, Values at Work


 




All Today's Classified Ads

ATTORNEY

ROCKEFELLER CENTER

lawjobs
Search For Jobs

Job Type

Region

Keyword (optional)


LobbySearch
Find a Lobbyist
Practice Area
State Ties


Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

  About ALM  |  About Law.com  |  Customer Support  |  Terms & Conditions