Yeah, I don't see that there was another move. You just met the guy. As you work with him more, things will change, and you'll be more comfortable. You seem to be assuming that there's some way in which initial relationships are not awkward; I'm not sure that's true.
(It's funny, I get cowed and silent around formal, polite people -- I have a hard time being professionally assertive in a way that I'm certain won't be percieved as rude or overly forceful. Shouty people, on the other hand, are great.)
We all have our problems being accepted, but yours are distinctive. I'm really fond of you but I'm having a hard time thinking how absent the internet we'd have avoided despising one another, for what I insist is no good reason.
I'm right, right there with LB on doing much better with casual, shouty people. Is that really so odd?
I'm underimpressed with the partner who put you in this position.
Getting on better with casual shouty people is why I was dying to work at the place I'm working in the fall. After I'd sat in on one staff meeting, I was like "these are my people."
I don't think it's odd. I'm a bit like that myself. I find people who can handle a bit of confrontation or who are opinionated far easier to handle than most other people.
I'm better with the shouty, too. No second-guessing where they stand. Everything at face-value.
As to the larger question presented by the post, this is really tough. On the one hand, I think dishing does help a professional relationship, but in a bad way. I had a coworker last summer who got really buddy-buddy and engaged in all kinds of firm gossip with several of the associates. It irked me because I thought it was a pretty unprofessional way to get professional currency.
Don't worry, LB. You can still build a professinal relationship with this guy even if his dishing makes you uncomfortable. Badmouthing a partner to another partner doesn't sound like a good idea at really any point.
You could try to defuse the situation with humor -- something lame like,"Well, as an associate coming up for partner I think all the partners are the most amazingly perfect group I've ever encountered!"
The trouble is, the people you want to know/get along with/trust include both, and so do the people you don't; this is no basis for judgment we should be satisfied with however congenial.
Huh, I generally don't like the casual shouty people. I feel much more relaxed when people are formal and polite.
As for the particular situation, saying nothing substantive was absolutely the right move; the only other thing you might have done in addition is to have made a joke about not being able to continue the conversation, which would make the situation less awkward and also make him think that you were sympathetic to him, without actually saying anything that could come back to haunt you.
Chiming into agree: you did fine, you certainly aren't in a position to dish about the partners, and 10 is a good alternative.
Huh, I generally don't like the casual shouty people. I feel much more relaxed when people are formal and polite.
Ritualized politeness probably helps keep the beheadings to a minimum.
Beheadings are quite formalized.
(I don't think they actually have beheadings in Iran. You're thinking of those crazy fucking Sunnis.)
mini-hijack: Hey, real quick, does anyone remember whether there's wireless access (free or for pay) at JFK airport? I have a long layover there on Saturday and am trying to figure out whether I will be able to do work.
I don't think they actually have beheadings in Iran
Having watched video of both Saudi beheadings and Iranian stonings, I declare decapitation the more humane execution method.
16: Googling indicates that they have free wifi at the JetBlue terminal (terminal 6), and perhaps pay services elsewhere, though not throughout the entire airport.
Iranian stonings,
I thought it was the Lebanese who were the groovy stoner/killers.
16: Given the existence of the Internet and your desire to do work, are you hoping that there's Internet or that there's not Internet?
I think it's for pay at JFK.
I'm underimpressed with the partner who put you in this position.
I'd tend to give the partner the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps the partner was genuinely trying to make a friend and had no agenda? Maybe the partner is the kind of slightly insecure (but not bad person) who thinks some interesting dish is necessary to close on a relationship? And now, after the silent treatment, rues the overreach? Wait a minute, we're talking about lawyers here, aren't we? You can't assign normal human traits to 'those people'.
Regardless, the only prudent way to handle the situation was silence.
Iranian stonings,
I'm sure there are some. Look, I can't be responsible for what people do in the backwaters. We're more of a hanging people, generally.
(I don't think they actually have beheadings in Iran. You're thinking of those crazy fucking Sunnis.)
Dude, you've got to get back in touch with your roots.
More recently in Iran, the mullahs have cut off the heads of some political figures. The Beirut CIA station chief William Buckley was kidnapped by Hezbollah and sent to Iran, where he was beheaded in 1986. Agents were sent to cut off the heads of the shah's last prime minister in a Paris suburb in 1992 and an Iranian pop star in Germany in 1993.
We're more of a hanging people, generally.
In Iran, hangings are conducted by hoisting criminals slowly from the ground with a mobile crane connected to a nylon noose. Iranian hangings can take half an hour to complete.
Dude, the early 90s? We had a few beheadings, you had Boyz To Men. Who has sinned more in the eyes of God?
26: Nice. One of your better ones.
Ok ok, I don't actually want to defend the mullahs. Genuinely awful regime, that. But don't bomb my country!
I second 12 -- there should be a middle-ground between "conversation-killing-Mmmmm" and "career-damaging-rumor-mongering." Something along the lines of "I'm going to shut up now, but I'll tell you that I'm shutting up, and we can take this conversation up to the next meta-level about how it's crazy that we can't about these things."
Or something, right? Professional communication seems like it should be like communication-within-a-relationship. More talking, at a somewhat more abstract level, is usually a good thing. Right?
"can't about" s/b "can't talk about."
26: Nice. One of your better ones.
Indeed.
Back on thread (a-hem), seems like #10 was the right call, esp since I know too many associates who saw their careers stall or hit bumps after becoming - god help me - too aligned with certain partners. That may not be the case with you, but regardless, it's a dangerous trap as partners can become extraordinarily jealous over who gets to work with what associates. The GF used to be a partner at a giant mucky-muck firm and her descriptions of various associates - and the battles over them with other partners - confirm what I had experienced as a junior associate.
Discretion is the better part of valor, yes?
I also agree with 10, but there's a whole big wide range of ways to handle this conversation. I find myself in this situation almost every day at my grad school, because I am intimate friends with some people and despise others, and each of those people has their own list of intimates and despiseds, and they never overlap, exactly. So about 10 times a day, I hear, "God, don't you HATE x? Isn't she an evil c***?"
I'm actually a fan of going ahead and engaging in those conversations, but just enough to show that I don't judge my interlocutor for feeling that way. If it's someone I like or fear, I'll say, "Oh, she's not so bad. She's got a temper, but she can be really helpful/her ideas are really important/she is really kind to her advisees." Then you can make it into a little shouty match, if that's what you're good at.
If it's someone I also hate, I will go ahead and agree with that person, but dial back my anecdotes to the level of "Yeah, she has a tendency to walk past even her best friends without saying hello. She's a little bit of a space case."
I'm loath to miss out on that bonding moment, because they're important, and losing rapport with a colleague is not good at all. So I'll join in the conversation, but not in such a way that I would be ashamed if it got back to the object of our disdain.
I'd agree with that except it seems in my case someone inevitably wants me to agree with them on some point which indisputably paints the object of their hatred as "an evil c***". And which would inevitably get back to said c***. So I find myself changing the subject to something less volatile and potentially damaging to my career/office reputation. Like abortion or religion. Failing that, there's always sports or television. People like to talk about television.
Iranian hangings can take half an hour to complete.
You can either do it right, or fast and sloppy like the Iraqis and have to scramble around in the pit trying to find the head while slipping in blood puddles.
29 - I don't want it bombed either. It must hurt to hear that neocon nincompoop stuff. Hope it never happens.
As for the original subject. Yes, 12: is right, the trick is to let the other person think you would join in if you only could.
One of my advisors does this to me a lot. He doesn't say c***, but when someone is rude to him (which is often, actually), he has a tendency to pull me aside and rather loudy ask, "When did I shit in her cornflakes?" or something of that nature. Then I'm really stuck, because his feelings were obviously hurt, the person was rude, and I really care about him and hate the way people treat him. So I laugh. But my laugh will probably also be heard by the cornflakes-shitee, who is excruciatingly famous and powerful. I go ahead and laugh, though, since everyone around us is sensitive to the position I'm in.
I tend to find that mean, haughty people tend to know that they're mean and haughty. It's not a surprise to find out people think that about you.
I tend to find that mean, haughty people tend to know that they're mean and haughty.
I go a step further and believe that unpleasant people know they're unpleasant and suffer for it in some way or other, any appearances to the contrary notwithstanding. It's probably bullshit, but it keeps me going.
That's what my ex used to say, Dave. I'd get all outraged at someone rude, and he'd say, "But AWB, she has to be herself every single day. Can you even imagine how awful that must be for her?"
I know it's turning rage into pity, which is an annoying and bourgeois emotion, but it does prevent fistfights.
This article from the current New York magazine about this big discrimination case makes me think that law firms and parter/associate relationships are particularly difficult cases when it comes to this kind of thing. Lawyers being assholes and all.*
I'm pretty careful about talking smack about people because academics is so small and incestuous and reputation based, and so many senior scientists are truly disfunctional assholes** who will totally seek professional retribution for personal slights. I NEVER put any trashtalk into print/email form, and never do any trashtalk in the bathroom or in stairwells. It's painful, too, because boy, do I ever work with a lot of crazy people.
*I kid, of course!
** Not really kidding this time!
I've never succeeded in turning rage into pity, and I have a sense of myself as the most bourgeois person here.
What I think of as bourgeois is my is my deeply felt reaction, which I know I was raised to, that rudeness, even brusqueness and what might be nothing more than directness, are morally wrong.
33: God, yes! And while it sounds flattering in theory to have partners fighting over you, in practice its a horribly uncomfortable place to be.
Ah yes, memories. This kind of thing is why I probably never could have had a career. Seriously.
A professor for whom I had a lot of nervous respect once in front of a small intimate seminar trashed another, more junior professor. The first professor left the university, but left behind a vague negative impression of the second professor. It was a real fucking shame because I should have started working with that second professor instantly, rather than four years down the line. I used to enjoy the gossip and dishing, but it has real consequences.
And yet, to my way of thinking, the first professor did as much if not more harm, not just to the second professor, as if he had stabbed him with a knife.
It's funny, socially I like polite, pleasant people. It's just in a work context -- this is going to sound like a gender issue, but it's likelier to just be an individual personality problem -- I tend to feel squashed by it; that I can't successfully express disagreement or interject a fresh idea while staying with in the parameters of appropriate behavior. Shouty people (and there are shouty nice people as well as shouty mean people -- I prefer the former) I can interrupt and talk over if I have something necessary to say.
I can sympathize with that, actually, and find it related to the issues I've had with team environments. It's clear how a raucous environment frees you from what would otherwise be inhibitions.
I've accepted that on sports teams and some physical jobs I've had, "giving people shit" comes with the territory, however uncongenial it is to me. I used to imagine a team without it, as a kind of paradise, but I've abandoned thinking it likely, or maybe even possible.
You know, I tend to be "frank" at work, and especially with grad students--they have no power over me, so there's no risk. I assume that's what the partner was doing, and a charitable interpretation would be that he was inviting you to trust him or at least to recognize that partners are human too.
But. When I do it, I also explicitly say that I'm being unprofessional, and I don't "trash" people--I'll say things like, "so and so's pedagogy isn't really up to date, in my opinion." I won't say anything I'd back down on if it got out, and I won't say it to a student who I haven't already formed a decent relationship with.
I think the partner was being kinda uncool, and you did the right thing, and that any awkwardness (if he's got any brains) served perfectly well to let him know that he was putting you in an awkward position.
I pretty much am a polite, pleasant person most of the time, which means that I need to have enough shouty people around to keep the conversation going.
I assume that's what the partner was doing, and a charitable interpretation would be that he was inviting you to trust him or at least to recognize that partners are human too.
Oh, I think he was being cluelessly friendly in exactly this way, rather than machiavelianly trying to trap me into saying something nasty about another powerful partner. I just wouldn't trust him not to pass on anything entertaining I said about the head of the department.
I don't remember LB reporting her job as any better than "not too bad" or "sort of OK". I think that the real lesson for all of us here is that it is a terrible mistake not to have arranged to be born rich. If I could be a trust-fund baby I'd be willing to pay the price of constantly being sneered for my fake, self-indulgent idealism.
as if he had stabbed him with a knife.
I keep reading this and then thinking, "In the FACE. In front of a BABY."
I mean, come on. Talking about other academics is rude, and what they guy did was wrong, but everyone knows professors do this, all the time, especially in front of grad students, and no one really puts much account to it. JM realized the guy was wrong after she got to know the object of his scorn.
I say this as someone who knows people say awful stuff about me behind my back. No one listens to shit-stirrers, especially when the motives are obviously political, and I've always gotten a chance to live those comments down, much to the discredit of the gossipers.
That is, I'm not defending gossip, but people always put others down out of insecurity, which is pretty understandable, or out of a desire to bond, which rarely works in any deep way. Gossip sucks and can hurt, but most times it's either accurate, and therefore potentially important (like, "Prof X fucks freshmen! In his office!"--people may need to be aware), or else it's petty or untrue and will come back to bite the gossiper in the end.
57: I think it's a little bit different dynamic in law firms, or at least the ones I've worked in. Partly it's a matter of bonding over the shared recognition of how fucked up the whole operation is; IMO a significant piece of what law firms do is to provide peer pressure to get people to work and live in a way that they wouldn't absent a strong mechanism for fucking with their heads, and many of those people are capable of recognizing more or less what's going on but continuing to participate. And partly it's about status and alliance-building within the firm, which, among other things, can have a pretty direct relationship to money, partnership, and continued employment. It's not just about people being bitchy for the sake of being bitchy (although that's there too, of course).
Don't you think it's a little more serious when the gossip is both unfair and directed at someone you outrank, as in the JM example? It's pretty low to undermine those in a weaker position than yourself.
So JM's vague bad impression of professor 2, which kept her from working with him for 4 years, to who knows what effect, is ultimately her fault, for not realizing how trivial and self-defeating gossip is?
59: People do this to me a lot, actually. I was working in the home of an elderly emeritus who would sexually harass me, then threaten to tell my department bad things about me. After I finished the job (I needed the money), he stalked me for months, calling and threatening me and my reputation. I went to my department head and quietly explained the situation. He calls various people in the department sometimes, trying to discredit me or urge them to get rid of me, but they know me. The guy's a prick, like a lot of profs, and is unhappy with the short shadow his career has left. That's all. I think I've won the PR battle just by being undramatic in response.
61: Didn't she admit as much? Like, that Prof 1's reputation was a little too bright and blinding to see how petty the people we admire can be? Sounds like a good lesson learned to me.
63: That is, I'm not saying it's JM's fault that the situation arose--that's ludicrous--but I think it takes a blow like that for grad students to come to the important realization that the people we admire as distant, elegant creatures of class and brilliance are just as petty, whiny, self-serving, and disingenuous as anyone else, if not more so. And regret about working with the wrong people passes. You go with the committee you have, at a certain point, and your work will always be your work.
Um, yes, it would have been an excellent lesson to learn, if I hadn't been so incredibly vulnerable to the consequences of it.
Also, it's funny: both professors were women.
Whoops! Sorry to stereotype. Most of the gossipy profs at my current institution are dudes.
47 and what follows (Is "et seq." the right phrase?).
I had the exact opposite experience. My undergraduate thesis advisor was incredibly brilliant--his obit described him as the gretest literary critic of his generation of American X-ists, (all things considered) fairly humble, kind and generous. I saw a Junior professor whose background was in linguistics trash his ideas. It was so obvious that she was terribly insecure and really uncomfortable with literary interpretations of literature.
He was so secure that he wouldn't have minded. I mean, he'd have given her a hard book review if he didn't think that her book was any good, but it wouldn't have been personal.
I'm struck by the gender thing as well. Most of my favorite teachers have been men. One of my favorite teachers in highschool was a woman, and I chose her as my advisor. She was great, but then she left. The others--in highschool, college and law school--were older (late 50's and early 60's) men.
Often times these were Professors who had reputations for being very hard on students, but they were really kind to me.