This post may contain affiliate links and Corporette® may earn commissions for purchases made through links in this post. As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases.
I thought I’d try out a new series today. Like any good little Type A-er, I keep a list of lessons I’ve learned; I started it sometime early in college. Some of them are, well, obvious (“#3: Don’t take life so seriously.”), but others were things that I learned the hard way.
Life lesson # 21: Never overestimate the competence of your colleagues. You tend to think that just because you’ve gotten to a certain level in life, that the people working alongside you have had the same struggles to get where you both are, and value it to the same extent. But it really is not the case.
(Pictured: Sunrise 1/8/10, originally uploaded to Flickr by m.robersonart.)
The backstory here: In my second year of law school, I was thrilled to be on law review. If you’re not a lawyer, the background to law school is that law review is allegedly a Big Deal — only the “best” students get on it, either by “grading on” or by “writing on.” (At most schools it’s a mix.) The second-year law students do the grunt work like fact-checking the articles, making sure the style is consistent, and just doing their best to make sure the article is as accurate, and readable, as possible; the third-year law students are the editors.
As a second year student, I was balancing a lot of other things, and sometimes my editors made me furious with their demands, but I always made time to get done what needed to get done. At the end of the year, I was promoted to one of three Executive Editor positions, and began reviewing assignments from my classmates who had lower positions, expecting all of their work to be similar to what I had turned in.
Gobsmacked is the only word to describe it — I couldn’t believe some of the assignments I got. Yes, it was the end of our second year, and yes, we were all balancing a lot of things, but *I* would never turn in something that looked like the stuff I got. This was the work of the “best” students, my primary competitors? It was an eye-opening experience, but it made sense when I thought about it: people have different priorities, different emergencies going on in their lives, and yes, even different competence levels. Learning this helped me immensely in two ways: first, when I was terrified that my own work wasn’t “up to snuff,” it helped me realize that all I can do is do my best. Secondly, on the rare chance I got some bad work product from a colleague, I didn’t take it as a personal affront — it wasn’t as if I hadn’t inspired them to do good work, just that they had other things going on.
I found this true when I was in BigLaw as well. Some people at my level “took work home with them” to do, meaning nothing got done and there was more for the rest of us to do. Some managers expected me to do all of the work and then they would take the credit. Other times, subordinates would hand in such mind-blowingly unacceptable things that I had to sit down and talk with them about it. Because I already knew not to overestimate their competence, it made it less of a personal affront to me, and helped me handle it in a professional way. Other times, it helped me from feeling overwhelmed or competitive — I just focused on the best work that I could do, and didn’t worry how I “rated” compared to the others.
Readers, what do you think of this life lesson? Have you had similar experiences with colleagues, subordinates, or managers?
Update: OK. After pushing the “send” button and running off for a series of meetings, I’ve just gotten back to a computer and read all the responses. Eeesh, so sorry to be so polarizing on this! For what it’s worth:
- I sort of intended to go into the background of every life lesson, and how I learned it — and here it really was through the circumstances as described. Funny how looking over my list of lessons takes me right back to that moment when I wrote it down… and at that time I was still in the uber-competitive mindset that law students can be in, which (for me) extended a year or two into practice. So… that was where the tone came from. (And I guess it’s a good thing I didn’t start the blog back then!)
- Commenter Lucy paraphrased my post as ““you will not always be able to rely on the work of others, don’t take it personally, learn how to deal with it; oh, and by the way, don’t be so hard on your own work — nobody is perfect.” So, um, yes: What she said. In my youth there were times when I bent over backwards to do a good job because I was terrified I wouldn’t be “up to snuff” with other colleagues, as well as times when I felt like a poor work product was a personal slap in the face to me, like I hadn’t inspired them to do good work… when I “learned” this lesson it was really liberating to me, and released me (to some extent) from those fears. (And the funny thing that I love about this blog is that I really feel like so many commenters have walked or are walking in the same shoes as me, particularly with our fears and insecurities. And while I’m not anonymous any more, you guys can be — as someone said the other day in comments, “this is a safe place,” and I love that about the community here.)
- Finally: I’m not perfect either. Obviously there have been times when I admittedly phoned it in — and there are times when I just haven’t “gotten” something and turned in something subpar, either because I couldn’t get it or I didn’t devote the time to getting it. The liberating thing to me — particularly about this lesson — is that that’s par for the course. Everybody has those days.
- Oh, and re: the “taking work home” — certainly no offense meant to the working moms/flex-timers. The particular circumstances coming to mind when I say that with derision are all single male co-workers who went out drinking or some such, but you’re right — not everyone’s in my head. Point taken for the future.
Panda with a key
Oh Corporette, this is a constant struggle for me at work.
I work in top tier investment bank and am a recent college graduate. I work with a near 30 year old who has had ~8 years of experience in the financial industry. He is possibly the dumbest person in the whole firm. His grammar is atrocious. All day long he is on the phone with his girlfriend (who he LIVES with). Here is a sample conversation from today: “Guess who I SEEN in the laundromat”. She doesn’t hear him and he repeats himself.
I think that in a professional environment where you speak to clients and auditors (such as the Fed) it is NOT okay to speak in this way. You sound like an imbecile. But the worst part is, if I were a client, I would not hire my team for the sole reason that this man does not know how to subtract. He told me that a drop from 42 million to 18 million is a 14 million dollar change…..
Other examples:
He told me AWOL means crazy because Rambo went AWOL and crazy at the same time.
He told me virtue means comes with time because in third grade his math teacher told him that patience comes with time.
When my boss said his daughter was in Switzerland, my coworker said , “What is she going to eat, Swedish meatballs?” Sweden does not = Switzerland people…
Anonymous
You are describing the guy I’m dating. Did not know he lived with a girl. if it’s him, of course.
Do you work for the bank that’s known for, well, not being so great?
Hel-lo
Ha!
Maybe he seen you at the laundromat?
Anonymous
He sounds like a real catch!
Long time reader
I’m beginning to think this might not be the blog for me anymore. Maybe I’ll just skip to the comments because I generally love the comments here and have gotten some great advice (and seen others receive wonderful advice as well).
Between yesterday’s comment of not being able to respect a man who didn’t go to a top school and wasn’t an editor of law review (aka someone who managed to have a life during law school) and now this, I’m just thinking that I might be supporting someone who I might not be interested in supporting.
MsZ
This. The tone (not the message or the question) of today’s post coupled with the assumed superiority of yesterday’s post were both very surprising to me. I didn’t realize that Corporette readers were all to assume we were better than everyone else and could pass judgment willy nilly.
Long time reader
I should also note that I think many of us go through a lot in our lives and many who do not have no idea how to interact with those of us who do.
Example:
Student 1: You are an editor of the law review (which you believe is only for “the best”). Your parents pay for your law school. You do not have to work to pay for school and you have free time to focus on your grades and law review only.
Student 2: You are not the editor of the law review, in fact you are a lowly member of a specialty journal in an area that you want to specialize in. You are paying for your own education (through loans and working). You have to work during the week to buy food. You can’t spend all your time on grades and journal. You might even have family struggles at home (sick family member, death of a family member, etc).
When it comes down to it, Student 1 thinks they are superior. I would hire #2 in a heart beat. Student #1 would then most likely complain to people they know that #2 got a job they wanted when “they aren’t even on the law review!”
#2 has character and can accomplish in the face of struggle. Student #1 has had an easier path in life and while they have accomplished a lot, I wouldn’t want to constantly hear about it. Would they both be capable? Most likely. But the reaction and general attitude of #1 would confirm my choice. I believe this post’s tone (and yesterday’s tone) are beginning to put this blog squarely in the category of student #1.
k
I don’t think someone should sign up for something if they can’t perform the task to a basic level of competency. If student #2 doesn’t have time to do the basic work required as a journal member (regardless of the reason), she shouldn’t be on journal. That isn’t character. That’s taking advantage of your peers for a cheap line on your resume.
Long time reader
I’m not saying that #2 does a bad job. That is what you took me saying they don’t devote their entire life to their journal. I’m saying that #2 is not on law review. The way that law review people tend to think (from my experience, and I would argue from this post) is that only the BEST are on law review. Everyone else is inferior merely by not being on the law review. It is a big time commitment that some don’t want to make and some can’t make. Also, some people want to specialize in certain areas of the law and find that working on a specialty journal is extremely helpful in broadening their knowledge and their network within the community they hope to get a job in (examples include international, sports, business, criminal, gender, etc)
Some have to work. Some chose to be in clinics or to do legal aid to get hands on experience. For some, publishing on law review is not the be all end all and will not help their career (ex: friends who want to be defense attorneys for indigent clients who are near the top of the class and don’t WANT to be on law review). My experience has shown me that everyone is different and there are many people who I would view as much more “successful” in terms of life over people who do nothing but law review.
When these people beat the law review folks for jobs the number one complaint was “But she/he’s not even on law review. Why would you pick them when you have applicants that are on law review like me?! We have more skills.” You may have more editing skills, but other people may have much more real life experience that people value.
Law review people and their elitist mindsets just don’t seem to understand that and I got a clear indication of that mindset from today’s post and yesterday’s post.
k
Longtime Reader —
All of your assumptions about what someone who was on law review thinks are your baggage. I’ve never met with that perspective. Kat’s post was about people turning in sub-par work and not assuming that your colleagues are doing to do good work. The LR story was just to put things in context.
Your post had a million excuses why #2 shouldn’t be expected to do her work. In my opinion, it’s all crap. Either she does the work or she doesn’t. If she doesn’t want to devote her time to journal she shouldn’t sign up. If she wants the resume line, she should do the work to the best of her ability and without excuses. That’s character. It’s not about dedicating your life to journal, but about following through with your commitments.
R
In case you haven’t figured it out, law school is bull. Law review and law journals are nothing more than giant scams to give students busy work so they don’t figure out there are too many lawyers and not enough jobs. How dare you judge someone for turning in shoddy work at the great and mighty Law School! Maybe they just have more common sense then you do. Maybe, just maybe, they realize that being out in the real world making connections is more important.
“That isn’t character. That’s taking advantage of your peers for a cheap line on your resume.”
No, it’s called being smart. The people who don’t put in the work know that at the end of the day, LR is just a cheap line on a resume. The ones who are “being taken advantage of” are not morally better because they use spell check. Repeat after me: perfectionism is not the equivalent of good moral character.
Yes, those poor, mistreated perfectionists who are up all night gnashing their teeth in despair over the quality of their peer’s work are not necessarily saints for doing so. In fact, they probably just lack common sense and good judgment to know when good enough is good enough.
At any rate, those perfections will get their reward for their work. Their reward might be personal satisfaction, the proverbial mental pat on their own self-righteous backs, or the praise of a law professor who can’t help them find a job anyway.
Now you tell me who’s smarter- the LR slacker or the LR stick-up-the-arse perfectionist who slaves away on a journal no one reads?
AnonInfinity
Your OP seems to be saying that you don’t like Kat’s last couple of posts because they are too judgmental. I disagree, but obviously you can (and should) express your opinion.
But then you proceed to make A LOT of assumptions and judgments based on a student’s class rank, law review status, and whether her parents are paying for her school. Pot, meet kettle.
I’m with k, here. I’m sure there are some of those “law review types” you’re talking about walking around out there, but most of the people on my school’s law review are just normal people. Maybe if you’d give them a chance rather than coming to every interaction with a chip on your shoulder, you’d see that.
Anony
I am starting to dislike law school, my fellow classmates, and sometimes the profession. I’m sick of the arrogant (censoring myself) law students who can’t help but mention law review or a journal or their great job. I have no problem with others being proud of their accomplishments, but every conversation does not have to be about how time consuming the journal has been and how if you were not on a journal you would have all of your outline completed by now! Okay rant over.
Student 2
I heart your post. The “moral” values ascribed to the quality of work submitted in the original post reveal a very particular, elite, narrow view of success. Prestigious college -> prestigious law school -> law review -> executive position -> firm = success. All else = fail/incompetence. Not making law review or not becoming an editor is not a moral failing in the real world. Law review is not some sort of activity of great moral significance. In fact, there are many, many other worthwhile activities like Legal Aid. In which the quality of your work product, as reviewed by a real court, could keep someone in their home or reunite them with their parents or keep them out of jail. Maybe the other law review participants weren’t motivated because the work is just so pointless? I am sure they went on to have fine lives despite having been deemed incompetent by a fellow law student.
RR
What about a third option? Student #2 who is busting their ass while other #2’s use everything you listed as an excuse to not? That was me. I paid for my own schooling, was married, and worked 20 hours a week or more throughout law school. I still met my commitments, did what I said I would do on law review, and graduated at the top of my class. And I managed to not whine about my list of challenges. So, while you are talking about smug superiority, maybe don’t assume that everyone who was successful had no challenges. Hypocrisy is not pretty.
Eponine
“Between yesterday’s comment of not being able to respect a man who didn’t go to a top school and wasn’t an editor of law review”
I didn’t get this from her post yesterday. Instead, I got that she used to be competitive with guys she was dating and have trouble respecting them if they weren’t exactly like her, but she lived and learned and is over that now.
Today’s post is a little vent-y, but I think we’ve all been in a situation where we’ve been flabbergasted by someone’s incompetence. I’m sure she has plenty of impressive coworkers, too, she just didn’t choose to write the post about them.
And yeah, maybe Kat is a little materialistic or snobby sometimes, but she doesn’t pretend not to be. She’s obviously doing well in life and paying her own way, so good for her. I’ve been reading this blog since its inception, and I think it’s clear that Kat is hardworking, smart, and caring, too.
Anonymous
Well said.
I consider Kat a friend (OK, imaginary friend but still) and I accept and adore her just the way she is. I don’t think she’s materialistic or snobby.
Eponine
Just to clarify, I didn’t mean that as a knock. I am materialistic (hello, Cole Haan bag) and a bit snobby (hello, Whole Foods grass-fed beef) at times too.
Anonymous
NP. I am, at times, shallow, snobby, vain, at generally imperfect. It’s just who I am.
AnonInfinity
I agree with you so much, Eponine. I read Longtime Reader’s first post and was wondering if I’d missed something.
Connecticut Cowgirl
As an attorney who left the profession for a few years to work in the financial services industry as a financial advisor ( a sales position), I had a epithany of a different kind. I assumed that based upon my academic background that it would inherently be easier for me to be successful. Many of my colleagues were recent college graduates and not of the “cum laude” variety, either. Sales is the great equalizer, degrees mean very little. Its all about personality and inherent ability. Its a humbling experience, but one definitely worth experiencing, to acknowledge that someone with modest credentials, putting in less effort, is simply more naturally talented than one is in a particular field.
Like your blog. I can’t stand the casual work attire in vogue in CT. in law firms and everywhere else.
Connecticut Cowgirl
I also wanted to add my own law review experience. I was in the top 10 of my class at the end of the first year, but not high enough for being asked onto law review. I did the write on and was selected. At the same time I was offered a student teacher position in the legal writing course. I honestly thought the expereince of helping other students become good legal writers was more important work than writing a law review article, which may very likely never be read. So, I took the student teacher position. I never lived it down. To top it off, I found out later that I wrote the top write-on article. What can I say, its a long time ago, and I still feel conflicted! Law school can mess with your mind forever!
CG
This post resonated with me a lot! Not because I am a perfectionist (far from it) but my spouse is and I have seen him struggle with handling situations when he puts in more than 100% and his colleagues or managers put in a mere 60 at best. He does take it as a personal affront and feels that his colleagues are “blowing him off” by not putting in the same effort. He then is shocked to see that they experience no negative fallout because of this. I have tried to make him understand that a) his colleagues’ lack of effort has nothing to do with him and b) the perfect merit-based system that we experience in school (your grades reflect your effort) doesn’t apply to the adult world. As he’s reflected on this more and begun to accept it, his approach to dealing with work issues has improved a lot. I plan to share Kat’s post with him because it will help him understand that we don’t live in a world where everyone does the best they can at whatever job they have and you can’t let it affect your mood. Doesn’t mean you look down upon others but it’s a reality you accept… a life lesson.
Kat, you have nothing to apologize for… I look forward to reading more life lessons from you
Stellana
Periodically I’m flabbergasted that I’m actually a lawyer. And reading this post is reminding me of that. The “real” me is humble, agreeable, empathetic, etc. “Lawyer” me is self-promoting, aggressive, insensitive, etc. “Lawyer” me is also taking over “real” me in all aspects of my life. I think being a lawyer is making me a worse person. :(
anon for now
I agree with a few commenters that the comments have become increasingly snarky and mean-spirited lately. I used to come to this site to find solace and support, but now I’m afraid to post because I realize that I can pretty much count on a good percentage of the followup commenters taking something I said the wrong way and/or outright insulting me. Things are hard enough for women trying to make it in male-dominated professions – can’t we try to be more supportive and cooperative in this one place where we can go to find a sounding board made up of a lot of similarly situated people? Let’s give each other the benefit of the doubt a little bit more. I think it will make this site better for all of us. PS – Kat – I think you’re wonderful. Thank you for this site.
clerker
We had this exact problem at our law review. To me it was mindboggling that people in the top ten of our class could turn in assignments below a minimum level of editing competency and not care about it at all. It wasn’t that they couldn’t do a better job, it was that they would rather put their efforts towards classes where they would earn a grade. It really taught me a lot about people. Suffice it to say there are many law review editors that I would not give a good rec to this very day. When we started giving incentives to the best editors on our staff we saw noticable changes in the quality of work that we received.
Melissa
Can you elaborate on how you guys gave incentives? I bet there are a lot of Review/ Journal editors reading this (myself included) that would appreciate hearing this.
Anonymous
As an overachieving woman myself, I used to also be really concerned if my drafts were not perfect, and I put in a lot of time into products I turned in to supervisors. In my first job out of grad school, I was also appalled that other people didn’t put the effort I did into their job or get things done as quickly. The first lesson is that unless you are in a leadership role, it is none of your business (and also totally out of your control), so tend your own plot without disrespecting your coworkers. Living life automatically assuming other people are lazy will be embarassing more times than it is worth. I also think that the culture of the workplace has a lot to do with this rather than individual flaws (though of course, it takes all kinds).
I also disagree with some previous points about subpar work = personal affront. If someone you are mentoring continues to turn in terrible work, than either your mentoring isn’t working or that person doesn’t care. You need to take an honest look at your mentoring. I think it does reflect poorly on supervisors who have poor quality work from their staff. It is probably not a purposeful affront, but maybe it is telling you that you aren’t that great of a supervisor. If it’s most of your employees, than it’s definitely telling you that.
After a few years of work, I have finally realized that unless you and you alone are working on something that has nothing to do with anyone else, the actual life lesson is to adjust your first attempt based on how many other people will want to look at it, discuss it, edit it, etc. If there are lots of people who will have input, than I have found that going all-in on that first “draft” that looks more like a final version makes me miss out on a lot of useful collaboration. I am a control freak and hate letting other people’s mark be on my work, but I am trying to change that, and I find that when I attack a draft as a practically final version, it’s difficult for me to take constructive criticism.
In Law Review, you were peers, and I don’t get the sense that the point of being editor is to lead, it’s to edit. From my experience, the type of personality that goes to law school isn’t looking to be “led” by someone just a year ahead of them. As a reflective adult, I think you should revise this life lesson with some more recent memories.
Anonymous
It is my business if my co-counsel (even if he is also my boss) is incompetent. There are times when I have been embarrassed to be standing at counsel table with my boss.
Amber
Corporettes, I need your help.
I’m currently in the midst of my third tax season. I recently changed firms, but I’m coming across the same problem I had at my last firm. Even though I have a year on the next staff below me, everyone goes to him before me for questions. I’m not trying to downplay his abilities, but there is a difference between what I know and he knows. There’s a pretty big learning curve in tax.
It’s just frustrating because I feel like I’m doing some darn good work, clean returns. But like at my last firm, I feel like I’m not given much credit. I’m pretty young compared to everyone else (graduated college early).
I don’t want to pull the NGDGTCO card… but sometimes I feel because I’m young and a “girl”, it’s hard to keep any authority.
Which brings me to my second problem. This season, I tried to speak up and not pose my ideas as questions to show that I know my stuff (as I used to do bc I didn’t have much confidence in my ideas). But it backfired. Now when I ask my managers questions, they just go “I-unno, you know as well as me”. Like they don’t want to take the time to think about my question, or they think I’m just trying to show them up in some way (because usually I end up answering my own question if they can head me in the right direction, you know?).
How do I find a balance between being overly-modest about my (great) ideas and overly-emphatic about them. I want a good discussion with my managers but I feel some kind of resistence. I want them to bounce ideas back at me, not send me back with an “I-unno”.
And when I hear them tell the brand new staff, “Oh go talk to Lance (staff below me), he knows his stuff”, it just discourages me. I know my stuff too!
Any suggestions?