New York Lawyer
March 4, 2004

Q:
I recently changed jobs. At my old firm I was a super-star. Great reviews, great bonuses, the whole package. I left for sounds reasons (more cash, better location, etc). At my new firm, the people I work for/with seem to get so bogged down in what I consider to be insignificant details (or their own beliefs about how things must be done) that I feel like I am constantly swimming against the tide. It feels like I can't do anything right here.

I am very good at research, writing, depositions, on-your-feet sort of stuff, etc., which is why I excelled at my former job. But I'm terrible at tasks that require absolute precision (like organizing/proofing documents or doing calculations), which I am being asked to do most of the time at my new job. Not only does the lack of experience suck and bore me to death, I've never been good at that sort of work, ever. I'm concerned that I don't have the chance to display my real talents here and that my inability to do rote, detail-oriented work with the required level of perfection is being held against me or soon will.

Your last column basically told someone who had some similar problems to try harder to please the person they were working for. What are some other options? How do you have a heart-to-heart conversation with the people you work for to tell them that your talents aren't being utilized or that the kind of work you are being given just doesn't show you in your best light?

Submit Your Question

Find More Answers

A:

My last column concerned a different matter: a senior partner who concerned himself too much with details, resulting in an inappropriate use of his time. And my advice suggested solutions depending on whether the associate was contributing to the problem or not.

Your situation is different. You feel you are being asked to do tasks that don't best utilize your skills, rather than having to work with someone more senior who gets bogged down in the details. First, there is the basic possibility that you are in the wrong firm, that it's too rigid and controlling for someone who wants more flexibility and freedom. Maybe they have some informal "system" whereby everyone starts at the bottom and works their way up after "proving" themselves (one indicator of a rigid workplace). You don't say whether you also are doing some research/writing/courtroom stuff, or whether it's strictly rather menial tasks (although important in their own way). I'm wondering what understanding you had when you took the new job, and whether you had any direct conversation about what your responsibilities would be.

If you had an agreement about your responsibilities that's being ignored, that gives an obvious basis for a conversation to clarify what your expectations had been and what's actually happening: "My understanding when I came here was that I would be doing active litigation tasks, whereas in fact I am organizing and proofreading documents. Can we discuss your concept of my role so that I can understand better where I fit in?" You can point out that you came to the firm with proven experience, and that meticulous detail tasks are more appropriate to people who are more junior, and who happen to like that stuff (fortunately, there are many nitpickers among lawyers).

Another option is to request some career advice from someone you respect. Certainly your firm has a responsibility for looking out for your career. But often it's left up to individuals to ask for help. People love to be asked for advice, and it's a positive way to go forward. You can ask them to draw on their own experience to help shape your career, focusing on what you're doing now, what you aspire to do, and how you can get there from here.

If you feel it's too early in your tenure to take that approach, then you will need to show the benefit to the supervising attorney of altering your responsibilities. Don't express your concerns in terms of "you" (showing you in your "best light," etc.), but instead in terms of the firm and its interests. What the firm wants to do, ideally, is best serve its clients by providing superior legal work. The most efficient way to do that is to capture the talents of the attorneys and all other staff people, minimize their deficiencies and/or give them ways to improve and develop any flaws in their abilities.

So the "heart-to-heart" conversation could be, "I'm concerned that the firm isn't benefiting from my presence as much as it could. Here's what I'm great at: research, writing, depositions and court appearances. Here's where I need improvement or just can't stand - meticulous detail work. The firm would be better served if I stuck to what I do best (and proved I did best at my old job) rather than putting me into a role that I am not naturally suited for and for which I'm not motivated to improve. I can do more for our clients and for you by focusing on my strengths."

Remember that it's not in the firm's interest to hire people, only to have them be disillusioned enough that they dislike their jobs and perhaps look elsewhere, creating turnover and instability. They're better served by ensuring that you are reasonably motivated in your position. Naturally you can't always expect that you will be doing precisely what you want, but you won't last long in a position that you hate. Work together with your firm management to mold the job so that it's a win-win for everyone.

Sincerely,
Holly English
Principal Consultant, Values at Work