In continuing the vein of my searching for a new and/or better position, I'm increasingly amazed at my current boss' complete immunity to reality. Make no mistake, I'm a huge believer in fantasy myself, and will go the great lengths to avoid substantial work or responsibilities, but the simple fact of the matter is that at some point, self-preservation must inevitably force us to face facts. People are almost always remarkably adept at convincing themselves that they're right - and the more intelligent we are, the more elaborate and convincing our lies to ourselves become - but human survival instincts almost always pull us out of our delusions before the situation becomes untenable. Our psyches, after Milena of practice, have evolved into a form where we easily believe the lies we tell ourselves to maintain our day-to-day happiness, while at the same time not holding to those lies so dearly that we cannot abandon them the moment that a greater need must be served.
Truly remarkable, how dynamic we can be when necessary, isn't it?
But I've recently been disappointed at how slow on the uptake people can be when presented with impending disaster. One of the attorneys recently left my firm for a much more high-paying job, leaving three of us. The response from On High to those of us remaining was that the job he took wasn't as good as he thinks it is, couldn't possibly pay as well as he claimed it did, and you really should stay with us and build this place into a firm that can afford to pay you more. By the way, Young Associates, we have been inundated with resumes and been very impressed with people we've interviewed. In light of the number and quality of applicants for the opening left by the recent departure, we consider you guys to be interchangeable, and replaceable. (It's merely an aberration that the first three offers we made to prospective hires were refused, in favor of better offers.)
Presented with this, I made a call or two, and now have an offer to move to another firm, do exactly the same type and quantity of work that I do now, and earn myself a 25% to 50% pay raise (depending on how bonuses play out), simply by reporting for work at an office further down the street. I'll be giving notice tomorrow, leaving my current firm - which had four active attorneys a month ago - with only two full-time litigators. I know for a fact that another of my current co-workers, who is even more soured on the situation than I am, will be following me out the door with roughly the same expediency that I'm following the former departure out the door (about four weeks between departures).
What I wonder is if my current superiors are going to be able to pull their heads out of their collective asses to stop to bleeding? There is simply too much work here to be managed by two (soon to be one) persons, and the hiring process - even after several weeks - appears to be going nowhere, no matter what the bosses are telling themselves and each other. Barring immediate action, the Las Vegas office is going to bleed out. Will that immediate action be forthcoming? For my part, I don't greatly care about all this one way or the other; my loyalty to this firm is exhausted, and I've already decided to leave. It's largely academic, and an excellent example of behavior I should watch for in myself. But I'm curious if my bosses are going to have the realization a la Don Quixote, that they've been acting insane for the last year or so, and have nothing more to show for it than the chamber-pot they've been using as a helmet. Will they snap out of it in time? Will their need to have attorneys to handle the 120 active cases in Las Vegas be strong enough to overcome the delusions they've formed?
If nothing else, it should be fun to watch.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Jobs and Self-Interest
I've been at my current job for about three years now, and it's been fun. I sign my own work, take my own cases to trial, and I have relative autonomy about how I handle my caseload: so long as everything gets done, my timesheet is full, and I'm available to take calls between 9 and 5, nobody really gives a damn if I take a two-hour nap on the leather couch I have in my office, and then take an extended lunch-break because the nearest Chipotle is a bit of a drive. Fortunately, we ultimately moved into a new building, from which a Chipotle is only a few blocks away, and where my large windows give me an excellent view of Redrock Canyon and the Spring Mountains. This move has significantly decreased my gasoline expenses, but with no net gain, since my Chipotle expenses have skyrocketed.
But all is not well.
My firm can no longer afford me, and is unwilling to even try. I've been in the game for five years now. Law firms are able to pay salaries to mid-level associates either by pyramid-building with younger associates, or by cherry-picking mid-level (higher billable) work for such mid-level people to handle. My firm has made it abundantly clear that there will be no pyramid-building beneath me, and has no mid-level billable work for me to do. Further, all three partners - all of whom work out of our Reno office - refuse to believe that I can move to a different Las Vegas firm and make 150% of what I'm making here, to do the exact same job. The party line is that I should be working to build this firm into a place that can afford to pay me what I think I'm worth, because I'm not really getting unsolicited calls from other attorneys to come work with them; those people calling with those job offers are not serious. It was pure serendipity that I sent out five resumes one morning, and had four interviews lined up before the close of business that day. Apparently, the associates of my firm's Las Vegas office are suffering from collective hallucinations about how much the market demands our services and expertise, and how much the market will pay for that service and expertise.
In my very first discussion with my current boss, he said that, when you're in business, the biggest problem you face is finding and keeping good people. How much of that is because good people always need to move to another job to catch up to the market rate they should be getting paid already?
While it's certainly easy to quote Adam Smith as I turn my back on my current peers to look for another job, I have problems with that. First of all, I think Adam Smith had it wrong; read up on the Nash Equilibrium Theory (or just watch "A Beautiful Mind"). While it's a toss-up as to which scenario we're LESS likely to face on large scale: either the dynamic closed system envisioned by Nash, or the vacuum of relevant collateral and/or intersectional interests which would allow us to pursue Smith's selfish ways, the truth is probably somewhere in between. Besides which - while I am generally as rational as a human being is capable of being - I'm pissed off. Neither Smith nor Nash included spite in their calculations of human responses and interaction, further muddying the grey area between the two. Turns out that emotional response pretty much short-circuits any sort of rational behavior. Anyone who has ever dated a member of the female species should be acutely aware of this phenomenon.
But putting aside the psychosis inherent in X-chromosomes, and returning to my current job situation, the simple fact of the matter is that even if my current firm offered to match whatever salary I get ultimately offered elsewhere, I'd probably still leave. I'm chuckling as I imagine the response of my current bosses once I do inevitably Give Them The Finger, and leave them with 38 active case files that need to be managed by someone. Fucking bastards.
But it is what it is, the firm will do just fine without me, and all this too shall pass. And I'll be fine. And making more money, to boot.
I'm not sure what all this says about me, including that John Nash and Adam Smith do, in fact, come into my thinking as I pursue the future of my professional career. But I think it must say something.
But all is not well.
My firm can no longer afford me, and is unwilling to even try. I've been in the game for five years now. Law firms are able to pay salaries to mid-level associates either by pyramid-building with younger associates, or by cherry-picking mid-level (higher billable) work for such mid-level people to handle. My firm has made it abundantly clear that there will be no pyramid-building beneath me, and has no mid-level billable work for me to do. Further, all three partners - all of whom work out of our Reno office - refuse to believe that I can move to a different Las Vegas firm and make 150% of what I'm making here, to do the exact same job. The party line is that I should be working to build this firm into a place that can afford to pay me what I think I'm worth, because I'm not really getting unsolicited calls from other attorneys to come work with them; those people calling with those job offers are not serious. It was pure serendipity that I sent out five resumes one morning, and had four interviews lined up before the close of business that day. Apparently, the associates of my firm's Las Vegas office are suffering from collective hallucinations about how much the market demands our services and expertise, and how much the market will pay for that service and expertise.
In my very first discussion with my current boss, he said that, when you're in business, the biggest problem you face is finding and keeping good people. How much of that is because good people always need to move to another job to catch up to the market rate they should be getting paid already?
While it's certainly easy to quote Adam Smith as I turn my back on my current peers to look for another job, I have problems with that. First of all, I think Adam Smith had it wrong; read up on the Nash Equilibrium Theory (or just watch "A Beautiful Mind"). While it's a toss-up as to which scenario we're LESS likely to face on large scale: either the dynamic closed system envisioned by Nash, or the vacuum of relevant collateral and/or intersectional interests which would allow us to pursue Smith's selfish ways, the truth is probably somewhere in between. Besides which - while I am generally as rational as a human being is capable of being - I'm pissed off. Neither Smith nor Nash included spite in their calculations of human responses and interaction, further muddying the grey area between the two. Turns out that emotional response pretty much short-circuits any sort of rational behavior. Anyone who has ever dated a member of the female species should be acutely aware of this phenomenon.
But putting aside the psychosis inherent in X-chromosomes, and returning to my current job situation, the simple fact of the matter is that even if my current firm offered to match whatever salary I get ultimately offered elsewhere, I'd probably still leave. I'm chuckling as I imagine the response of my current bosses once I do inevitably Give Them The Finger, and leave them with 38 active case files that need to be managed by someone. Fucking bastards.
But it is what it is, the firm will do just fine without me, and all this too shall pass. And I'll be fine. And making more money, to boot.
I'm not sure what all this says about me, including that John Nash and Adam Smith do, in fact, come into my thinking as I pursue the future of my professional career. But I think it must say something.
Monday, November 5, 2007
Standards. And Rebellion Therefrom.
I generally dislike standards, be they cultural or otherwise, as contrary to human potential. In my experience, supported by scientific research, people are what they believe themselves to be. Those who are confident in their ability to be successful generally are successful, as a self-fulfilling prophecy. Children who are told by teachers and parents that they are intelligent and capable of solving problems show statistically higher levels of intelligence and problem-solving ability than children who do not receive such encouragement. "Fake it until you make it" does work as a personal business model, and "God helps those who help themselves" speaks for itself as a truism.
In general, conformity to standards and norms is a primary restrictor on human potential and advancement; in science, technology, medicine, politics, and any other field that you'd care to chose, advancements are made by INDIVIDUALS, rather then by SOCIETIES. As a parallel to my prior thoughts on culture, the primary reason that America has led the world in science, technology, and industry for the last century grows directly from America's lack of artificial social constructs (cultural or socio-religious) which define and restrict individuals to a specific social caste. America worships ABILITY. Regardless of who your parents are, regardless of their social station, in America, if you can, you may. And if you are good enough, we will help you. Academic scholarships, for example, and the greater the potential you show, the more you will be helped to reach it. A prodigy might be born in a Guam slum, or a West Virginia mountaintop, or in South Jersey, and the American System will find that child anywhere within our sphere of influence. We provide them with the best available education, and put them to work at whatever field in which they excel. If you have it in you to shine, not only will you be allowed to, you will be asked to, regardless of prior social or political associations. Without rigid stratification of social levels, American society is - by Old World standards - the height of chaos and disorganization. But make no mistake: the melting pot is boiling, but the cream is rising to the top.
The end result is America's propagation of two things: mediocrity, and brilliance. American mediocrity is very banal, and appears even to be sinking. Bad music, worse movies, "reality TV," veneration of pop-culture icons; the United States middle class is becoming increasingly illiterate, uneducated, and despondent under it's own weight. Apathy and welfare. Illness without healthcare. Unemployment arising from unemployability. These are facts of life of the vast middle class: While the System does nothing to hold them down, it also does nothing to lift them up from what their own means will provide them.
But the brilliant. Oh, the brilliance they show. Look at the technological and industrial growth of just the last 100 years. Digital computers were first invented in the 1940s. You can now by a computer comparable to those first models for $1. They used to take up an entire room. Now they don't even need batteries, so long as there is a nearby light-source to draw from. Jet engines were only a theory a century ago. Now you can build one in you garage. All of this the work of great minds, working free from external constraints. Einstein believed that he did his best work in "productive isolation," and fled from his native Germany (to Cal Tech in Pasadena, California) when the German government their began to take issue with his Zionist views. One of the greatest minds in human history had to flee his homeland, because of the homeland's cultural developments. Like so many other people of ability in the last 200 years, he was feeling repressed, held-back, and unappreciated in the Old World. So packed up his bat and ball and came to the New. Thanks for coming, Al; you were American culture and history boiled into one man.
Take, by contrast, China. Theoretically, Chinese economics, industry, and science draw from the world's largest talent pool. Don't tell me that genius children are not being born every day. Don't tell me that most of that nation's populace living in medieval conditions is from lack of viable alternatives. The simple fact is that China has been locked into rigid social caste system for 2500 years. It has been free of much in the way of revolutions, but the lack of revolutions includes the scientific and economic as well as the political. Thank you, Confucius, for guaranteeing that one of the worlds greatest power-bases has stood stagnant for millenia; we'd all be speaking Chinese if not for you. But there was you, and they bought in to you, and the end result is a nation who's last great contribution to science and technology was gunpowder. (Even that didn't make it far beyond use in fireworks until the more dynamic and open-minded nations of Europe got their hands on it.) Thank you Chairman Mao, for stepping in and setting up a new regime every bit as stagnant, rigid, and stratified as Confucianism. You, as a nation, are the paradigm of the "Culture" that America is so blissfully free of, and prospering for the lack. You have millenia of tradition, where that tradition is a stone around your neck, anchoring you against any change in the cultural, political, or scientific status quo. Even with a billion backs to bear the load, you cannot get out from under its weight. Truly you are a model for other nations to take heed of.
The point of all this: REBEL. Let no one dictate the limits of your growth, or the extent of your capabilities. Great minds are those that break free from constraints, because such constraints preclude an individuals rise to greatness.
In general, conformity to standards and norms is a primary restrictor on human potential and advancement; in science, technology, medicine, politics, and any other field that you'd care to chose, advancements are made by INDIVIDUALS, rather then by SOCIETIES. As a parallel to my prior thoughts on culture, the primary reason that America has led the world in science, technology, and industry for the last century grows directly from America's lack of artificial social constructs (cultural or socio-religious) which define and restrict individuals to a specific social caste. America worships ABILITY. Regardless of who your parents are, regardless of their social station, in America, if you can, you may. And if you are good enough, we will help you. Academic scholarships, for example, and the greater the potential you show, the more you will be helped to reach it. A prodigy might be born in a Guam slum, or a West Virginia mountaintop, or in South Jersey, and the American System will find that child anywhere within our sphere of influence. We provide them with the best available education, and put them to work at whatever field in which they excel. If you have it in you to shine, not only will you be allowed to, you will be asked to, regardless of prior social or political associations. Without rigid stratification of social levels, American society is - by Old World standards - the height of chaos and disorganization. But make no mistake: the melting pot is boiling, but the cream is rising to the top.
The end result is America's propagation of two things: mediocrity, and brilliance. American mediocrity is very banal, and appears even to be sinking. Bad music, worse movies, "reality TV," veneration of pop-culture icons; the United States middle class is becoming increasingly illiterate, uneducated, and despondent under it's own weight. Apathy and welfare. Illness without healthcare. Unemployment arising from unemployability. These are facts of life of the vast middle class: While the System does nothing to hold them down, it also does nothing to lift them up from what their own means will provide them.
But the brilliant. Oh, the brilliance they show. Look at the technological and industrial growth of just the last 100 years. Digital computers were first invented in the 1940s. You can now by a computer comparable to those first models for $1. They used to take up an entire room. Now they don't even need batteries, so long as there is a nearby light-source to draw from. Jet engines were only a theory a century ago. Now you can build one in you garage. All of this the work of great minds, working free from external constraints. Einstein believed that he did his best work in "productive isolation," and fled from his native Germany (to Cal Tech in Pasadena, California) when the German government their began to take issue with his Zionist views. One of the greatest minds in human history had to flee his homeland, because of the homeland's cultural developments. Like so many other people of ability in the last 200 years, he was feeling repressed, held-back, and unappreciated in the Old World. So packed up his bat and ball and came to the New. Thanks for coming, Al; you were American culture and history boiled into one man.
Take, by contrast, China. Theoretically, Chinese economics, industry, and science draw from the world's largest talent pool. Don't tell me that genius children are not being born every day. Don't tell me that most of that nation's populace living in medieval conditions is from lack of viable alternatives. The simple fact is that China has been locked into rigid social caste system for 2500 years. It has been free of much in the way of revolutions, but the lack of revolutions includes the scientific and economic as well as the political. Thank you, Confucius, for guaranteeing that one of the worlds greatest power-bases has stood stagnant for millenia; we'd all be speaking Chinese if not for you. But there was you, and they bought in to you, and the end result is a nation who's last great contribution to science and technology was gunpowder. (Even that didn't make it far beyond use in fireworks until the more dynamic and open-minded nations of Europe got their hands on it.) Thank you Chairman Mao, for stepping in and setting up a new regime every bit as stagnant, rigid, and stratified as Confucianism. You, as a nation, are the paradigm of the "Culture" that America is so blissfully free of, and prospering for the lack. You have millenia of tradition, where that tradition is a stone around your neck, anchoring you against any change in the cultural, political, or scientific status quo. Even with a billion backs to bear the load, you cannot get out from under its weight. Truly you are a model for other nations to take heed of.
The point of all this: REBEL. Let no one dictate the limits of your growth, or the extent of your capabilities. Great minds are those that break free from constraints, because such constraints preclude an individuals rise to greatness.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)