OT: DKos thread about lawyers, Eric Holder, and workplace environment.

[MonteLukast]

{warning: long and a little personal at the end)

There's been some grumbling among Kossacks about the fact that Obama's new AG, Eric Holder, worked a number of years in a big corporate law firm. Noweasels, a corporate lawyer him/her self who's applying for a job with the Obama administration, then posted one of the best accounts of a large-firm lawyer's life that I've ever read.

After that, Timaeus launched a scathing response: "But the balance is not in favor of the good. The balance at all of the big firms is in favor of evil. Lawyers who stay in that environment for an extended period are nearly all ethically compromised and corrupted, and I think that probably includes this earnest diarist."
For that, Timaeus was barbecue-grilled: unlucky for him, Noweasels happens to be one of the most cogent and popular members of DKos. This criticism even extended to some Kossacks deriding his occupation and salary-- "I bet you can't help too many people making 30K a year as a Target associate". But even so, Timaeus continued to have his defenders-- and he continued to make some good points.

*~*~*~*

Some of the points, however, that were lost on everybody, Timaeus included:

Remember how we excoriate Hank Paulson? How we say he puts Goldman Sachs first and the American economy second? Well, he's probably that way because he HAS to be. They wouldn't allow him any kind of leadership position there unless he put Goldman Sachs front and center, before family, before country-- they'd say he "doesn't have the right attitude" or something.
Increasingly, companies are not even letting applicants get a foot in the door unless they pass the personality test-- which can only mean that the American workplace as a whole has become "Goldman-Sachs-ified": company before family, before country, even before ethics. (Yes, even Target; as an aside to that Timaeus-heckler.)

People pounced all over Timaeus for sloppily making a point that is very painful and very true: yes, our workplace environments make us; in fact, they're the biggest shapers of our characters and personalities I know. (I'm even sloppier at making this point than he has been, so that's why I'm posting it here instead of there.) Employers are demanding harmony between the employee and their work environment to a degree I had never anticipated in my life, a degree that goes far beyond "getting along". Hank Paulson himself would probably not get a foot in the door at Goldman Sachs today, if during his interview he came across as insufficiently confident in Goldman's mission.

Many, many kudos to Noweasels for being an example of somebody who worked in corporate law and still kept their progressive values and compassion-- because, quite frankly, I tend to agree with Timaeus: most progressives believe that corporate law tends to weed out, especially with your bosses and co-workers serving as the personality and attitude police, most people with compassion for the little guy's justice. Just as the Wall Street environment weeded out anyone with compassion and long-term financial orientation.
In corporate law (which many of our poor law school grads HAVE to go into to pay off their student debts, because it's the most lucrative), your job is to enable large corporations to justify their abuses and keep committing them. No wonder most progressives have a jaundiced view of them.
Which is why I appreciated Noweasel's thread all the more. Not only did s/he make the case eloquently that corporate lawyers are good people too, there's even the hope that maybe, just maybe, you CAN work in corporate law and STILL be a progressive-- which is what some young law school grads are dying to hear, seeing as how they have to work in a "corrupt" and "evil" environment just to survive. (Just like some educated people, yes you heckler, have to work as Target associates to survive, and I can't believe that you would make that kind of crack after all we've been through, and all the crazy-making and doubting of our own judgment we've suffered at the hands of those in power.)

*~*~*~*

OK, here's where it gets personal-- and, in fact, a little bit about JK after all:

Gail Collins' crack about JK's sociability was painful, because perceived lack of sociability is a career death sentence. There are a lot of fields closed to you if you have a reputation for being un-sociable... would JK even be elected to the Senate today? Not only that, the quality of the work of a person thought to lack social skills is frequently deemed inferior to the quality of work of a person thought socially adept. (Penelope Trunk said it a while ago in her column, and I can't find the link; she said "you can't make up for a lack of people skills" or something.)
I was considered socially awkward for much of my youth. All my adult life, I have been obsessed with proving I have good social skills. I've wondered if not playing sports in college, even though that was years ago, could put me at a disadvantage in the workplace today, because sports teams are a great place to learn social skills. Every activity I undertake that is solitary, feels less worthy to me because it's not with other people. I unproductively go over and over my past, what I did do and what I didn't do, and I see everyone who has had a better, more exciting, more social past than me as competition-- someone who will get the good job while I won't.

Forget the Senate-- would JK even get into Yale today, if the admissions director was a Gail Collins type?

If the sociability focus has made me doubt my values, my character, and many of my everyday decisions, then how many others feel the same way?
Because while we snicker about them on this board, the fact is that, in our everyday lives, many of our employers are Gail Collinses, ready to make life-changing decisions for us because of their emotional whims. And for the most part, even progressives just shut up and take it. We take it as given that employers can do whatever they want. We even empathize with employers' swift and brutal decision making.

The result: our distrust of corporations and institutions is deeper than you ever imagined. If they can treat something as important as the ability to earn a living so cavalierly-- and so confidently justify their actions-- then they are not to be trusted or believed, end of story. The degree to which one has to fit in with these environments, also makes whoever works for these companies, untrustworthy.
Corporate lawyers, therefore, epitomize the worst of both the everyman who has to fit into their workplace culture; and the spokesperson whose job is to say only positive things about their organization, truth be damned. You know what happened in the Bush administration; every government employee was expected to be a representative of their "company", just like in real life working real jobs. Anyone who deviated from their spokesperson role, in other words anyone who disagreed or told the truth, was rewarded with a pink slip! Again, just like in everyday life in real jobs.

Noweasels, of course, complicates everything.

*~*~*~*

The point that everybody seemed to miss over there, was that our anxiety over Eric Holder and our antagonism toward certain employees is a direct result of the increasing requirement that you BE your job, even in your personal life; and that this requirement is, spiritually and emotionally, killing us. If there were more room for different personalities in different workplaces, if there wasn't so much pressure to have your personal attitudes and values be a certain way, we wouldn't be so much in arms over this.
We'd also be able to more objectively assess Holder's fitness for the AG job. (Personally, I love that he'll go after Bush admin abuses, but I'm worried about his stance on marjuana.)

I go by a different handle on DailyKos-- both to not put all my Internet eggs in one basket, and with the idea of starting my own blog someday. I have not posted a single diary under that handle, and the last comment I posted was months ago. I got good recommendation for what I wrote, but I would NOT be considered a credible enough source, lacking sufficient posting history, TU status and whatever markers mark one as a person who can be trusted. What I wrote here is even sloppier than Timaeus put it, so there's a better than average chance I would've gotten troll-rated or worse.
So... I'm here, and not there.

[beachmom]

1. My experience in corporate America is not so unlike what they say

about politicians: there are work horses and there are show horses. Corporate America tends to reward the show horses more so than the work horses. Time and time again. I have seen it, and I hear about it from friends and family. The ability to bullshit in a meeting and pretend you are doing a lot of work add up to more than actually fixing things. I will say, though, that a lot of the work horses are a pain in the neck to work with, because they are permanently grumpy. They know that they are doing all the work while Sarah Palin types are getting all the credit. That makes them mad, and they often end up being not very sociable. Sometimes they are fired, because they bring down morale or at least in one case I witnessed, have had nervous breakdowns. The ones who really go far are the combo work/show horses. They are a rare breed, and you don't see them often.

I think Kerry is both. But he has had periods of grumpiness, when he saw the gross incompetence of the Bush Administration (NONE of them seemed to be able to get any work done). For that, he is penalized by the press. But since when he is among constituents or dealing with his colleagues or world leaders he is quite amiable, charming, as well as business like, this will cost him nothing at the ballot box. Mass. voters know better, and that is why they voted for him 66% of the time.

[MonteLukast]

2. Wanted to wait until I finished one of my finals before I responded...

I've always believed that if you take something that "everybody" believes, and turn it just slightly, you'll find the truth. And time and again, this keeps getting confirmed. (See my Kennedy-Nixon example below.)

Excellent account of how the "work horses" don't help their own case. I wonder if that's the real, unacknowledged reason why show horses are more rewarded? The attitude and morale factor?

I will say, though, that a lot of the work horses are a pain in the neck to work with, because they are permanently grumpy. They know that they are doing all the work while Sarah Palin types are getting all the credit.

Guilty! :blush: :hi:

Something I've struggled with for years: the message that you can be fired up about injustice, but sooner or later you'd better put a smile back on your face... and if it means voluntarily dropping your ideals, so be it.

I see where they come from. But, :eyes:

Look at all the good works that had to be interrupted or dropped altogether, in the interest of preserving harmonious relationships with those around us.

We should NOT have to choose between the two.

Being able to have both should NOT be the exclusive province of those who can walk into a room and instantly make others like them.

I have ALWAYS thought Americans were too eager to "let things go" for their own good. Letting things go, and justifying it as necessary for their own emotional health.

So yes... I look like one of those "overly grumpy work horses."
But I want to work well with others. I want to become one of those work/show/horse combos.
Even though I'm the ripe old age of early 30's and the younger you start new habits the better, I want to become one of those best-possible people.

I'm different from other Americans. I care about where my happiness comes from. I am not willing to get to happiness by turning a blind eye to inequality and subtle discrimination.
I refuse to ignore the fact that making yourself into more of a "show horse" costs time and money. It would be irresponsible to look at my generation, saddled with student loan debt till we die, and tell them "tough toenails; you've got to do and spend whatever it takes to look like a winner."

If I don't come up with a real solution, a non-costly and enjoyable way to become stylish, I am helping to perpetuate classism and lookism. I am helping to ensure the lizard brain reigns supreme.

I want to prove to people that you don't have to feed the lizard to be happy.

The sad fact is that regressive behaviors appear to be very attractive socially, and especially sexually. Sexist men make more money... even after judging the validity of that argument, that says it right there. There's something about the subconscious mind that inherently favors the regressive choice... and I see it as my job to help wean people away from that.

[MonteLukast]

3. How happiness can be the enemy of the good fight.

"Happiness comes from letting things go" gets 316,000 Google hits.

"Don't worry about things you can't control" gets 6,110,000 Google hits.

I wonder how many times Martin Luther King Jr., Betty Friedan, or Harvey Milk heard these nice words-- not from their enemies, but from their friends and families, those who cared about them. Who cared about their happiness. Who cared about their health and life.

These nice words can stop social action in its tracks as surely as the hostile words of a bigot can.

Burnout is one of the biggest problems facing social activists-- and too much of the advice for getting your emotional balance back, what you must actually do, looks too much like avoidance. Instead of renewing your connection to the spirit of the poor and disadvantaged, you're too often encouraged to break it.

This site answers this question better. As does this one. Truthful acknowledgment of the problem, while having the imagination to suggest ways to get happier while staying in the game.

[MonteLukast]

4. Kennedy and Nixon, proving my theory.

The age-old story about JFK beating Nixon in the debates because of his better looks, obscures the deeper meaning here: Nixon's distrust, even disdain, of the press, which went back at least as far as the early 1950's.

That link makes the case that television DID work for Nixon-- for a while. Which would explain bewilderment on his part when it didn't work so well for him in 1960.
As what's been going on in California demonstrates, the hardest thing to deal with is having something that used to work for you, suddenly not work anymore... or get taken away.

Also, he refused makeup, thereby refusing the advice of seasoned television employees who knew what they were doing, which became yet another example of his antagonism to the press.
So to me, the lesson learned is not "You've got to be good looking to be President," but "Don't diss the press, and don't diss the expertise of people who know what they're doing when you know very little, if you want to be President."

[karynnj]

5. I agree with most of your comments here, but I do have a major problem

with one part. Collins, Maureen Dowd and NYT reporter Jodi Wilgoren (A Daily Howler take on her in 2004 - http://dailyhowler.com/dh042804.shtml) all have written these comments about Kerry. The fact is that even if he is more introverted than the average politician - politicians, as a whole, are all far on the extroverted side. In terms of the whole population, I suspect he is not far from the middle, possibly on the extroverted side. He clearly speaks very easily to all non-reporter people.

Wilgoren was called on her "social loner" designation that she used at least twice. The NYT ombudsman, Okrent actually backed her, accepting her response that she wrote this after speaking to over 20 life long friends of Kerry. (Okrent was then - justifiably attacked by some on Daily Kos, which he whined in another column was unfair. To me, if I believed it, I would be very disheartened - I don't have anywhere near 20 lifetime friends from high school/college. Not to mention, I was struck reading the Kerry blog - how many of those friends choose him as a God Parent of their babies. These were not casual friendships. (In googling to get Wilgoren stuff, I found that she covered Dean first - and completely trashed him as well.)

The problem is that all these people loosely used these terms that have very real meanings - even though they didn't fit. You mention that that designation could have kept Kerry out of Yale. The fact is - it would never had been given. Although he was not a musical prodigy, the only reason to include someone not likable, he was in a rock band. He also started 2 clubs - a literary club and a debate club that people joined - that still both exist. He was on 4 sports teams. Not to mention, he was dating Jackie Kennedy's beautiful popular sister. By many accounts, he was NOT super popular - but he was clearly was social and had good friends.

If you read Tour of Duty, there are accounts where in his first assignment, not only did his superior write of his intensely loyal group, but that Kerry was seen as so good with people having problems - he took on an extra responsibility of talking to some who did have problems. As an anti-war leader, he was able lead a very diverse group of really angry people. He also got elected to both the LT GOV and Senate job without being the party favorite.

[MonteLukast]

6. Objectively, being social *enough* is enough for me.

But it may not be enough for my culture, or my employers.
There is just SO much pressure today to be social, so many slugfest competitions as to who can be the most likeable.
It's even gotten to the point where I wondered if it would help to be married, to prove not only good social skills but good emotional health in general, kindness, empathy, ability to nurture, etc.

I think I'm roughly the same sociability level as Kerry-- more introverted than most politicians, but moderately high extroversion on the scale of the population as a whole. (I got ENTP on Myers-Briggs; only slightly higher on the E side, but on one measure, N for intuitive, I'm off the charts. :) )

I actually WAS a loner in high school-- I wish *I'd* started a rock band and a debate group. I have about 10 friends from high school, and 15 more from earlier in my life-- but a good number of them were teachers instead of students, or were old enough to be of my parents' generation, not my own age; and to this day, I wonder if that counts. I really didn't start becoming more sociable with my own age group until about 5 years ago.

I have no desire to go on MySpace or Facebook. But do I have no choice but to, or be considered socially inept? Do I also have no choice but to if I want a richer social life?
I'm not there for three reasons: I'm addicted enough to the Internet as it is; I would rather have an actual political/social commentary blog; and, perhaps the most important reason: if I'm being social I prefer to be DOING something, even if it's just having a spontaneous adventure; I don't exactly like hanging out for no reason at all.
(Maybe I should reconsider Facebook, so I can become one of David Sirota's friends so I can go to his meetups; and the same for other progressive figures.)

The whole, fundamental issue in all this is that the main mechanism for proving your social skills is out of your control. You can't make others invite you to the prom, join your rock band, marry you, or hire you.

I have a fundamental lack of faith in relationships because so much is out of your control, so much rides on what others think of you-- and yet, you're held responsible if others choose not to be with you. Talk about a raw deal.