…and in conclusion---this is a story of a specific workplace experience, but why?
I’m going to begin this at the end to try to provide a context for this exercise. This is a story about workplace conditions but they specifically describe the conditions that I encountered (which of course is all I can describe). My experiences are shared here to the extent that they mirror common regular encounters in workplaces around the city, state and country. The commonality is the point of focus, and in that regard, common problems lead to common solutions, or if not solutions, at least common grounds for discussion by shining light on the situations. So here’s my story:
arbitrary or reality based judgments?
I worked as a secretary in the New York office of a large law firm, Mayer Brown. When first hired I was assigned to two partners. The secretarial managers made this assignment so there was never the typical meeting with the attorneys in advance of being placed and the attorneys making the selecting for you to work with them.
One of the attorneys I was assigned to was almost 100% non communicative beyond good morning or good night. He prided himself on having very little use for a secretary and so I performed the work I did for him with the barest, minimal verbal communication. The work I did for him included: entered his time, opened his mail, ordered supplies, did some filing and managed files in LegalKey, ordered cars, made some travel arrangements, created out-of-office itineraries, did some outlook contact work, did new matter related tasks, set up conference calls, occasionally mailed out letters/packages, facilitated communications when the attorney was out of the office (which he was frequently), answered the phones and handled the occasional odd additional task. Given this minimalist communications context, I made it a point to ask directly if there were other ways I might be of assistance and expressed clearly that I stood ready to respond to any requests, when and if they were forthcoming.
The second partner to whom I was assigned was somewhat more communicative with instructions. I essentially performed the same complex of previously listed tasks for this attorney as well, with some minor variations, and similarly with partner number two, I also made it a point to request additional work or to seek out other ways I might better assist him. The first year passed. I entered the first round of performance evaluations at the one year anniversary. Non communicative partner #1 did not submit an evaluation. He was a very busy attorney and probably just didn’t have time. I received overall positive evaluations from the associates I was assigned to, as well as from the secretarial managers. Partner #2’s evaluation, much to my surprise, included checks in the “marginal” column for the following:
- Demonstrates common sense judgment
- Identified problems, responds quickly, takes or recommends actions, selects best solution
- Ability to handle multiple tasks at once
- Is reliable
- Answers telephones promptly and professionally and takes accurate messages
I was befuddled as to where all these “marginal” designations were coming from because they were not preceded by any indication of dissatisfaction, verbal, written, body language including disapproving scowls or otherwise. I had/have no problem accepting negative evaluation if you tell me what I did wrong. After serious reflection, I was at a loss to identify instances where I had committed any of the listed offenses, let alone all 5 different types and certainly with regularity to warrant such “bad marks”, if you will, even conceding one or two to faulty memory.
Additionally, to my way of thinking,
- an accusation of a demonstration of a lack of common sense should call to mind some non-sensical or silly action;
- problems that were repeatedly not addressed should have been easy to enumerate or a least one should be;
- a multiple task flub should be citable as in “I gave her x, y and z and she blew y and z”;
- unreliability is also not vague --- as in: she doesn’t come to work on time, she is always late for work, or my messenger-ed package was not delivered as instructed; and
- last but not least, if your secretary consistently screws up your messages, (or even inconsistently) you might be able to recount the pattern or one particular instance or provide some substantiation or simply just mention that you have expressed dissatisfaction directly to her when or after it happened.
I asked the evaluating secretarial managers for such substantiating evidence for these marginal marks, but they were unable to provide any. Their methodology was to speak to and be the conduit for the attorney’s comments.
That being the case, in my pro-active effort to hone in on what this was all about for the future, I resolved to identify specific instances where I committed such offenses. Since this attorney was also very busy, I tried to make it easy for him to alert me to my marginal missteps by sending him a daily summary of every task I performed for him with the very polite request to point out any instances of the big 5 offenses. I essentially did this every day for the succeeding year. No offenses were ever identified via email or otherwise, however, when it came time for the next evaluation, that partner chose to change secretaries.
The next year (my second at Mayer Brown) I continued on with my work for the remaining partner I was assigned to, the minimalist communicator. The assignment proceeded apace and at the end of that second year, this primary partner also did not submit an evaluation for me. Otherwise, I received positive evaluations from the associates I was assigned to as well as from the secretarial managers. The other partner in our “bay” for whom I provided back-up services on an “as-needed” basis gave me an excellent evaluation writing about how I am always willing and eager to help, which I was.
When the third year rolled around and I still did not receive an evaluation from this partner who was the primary person for me in terms of evaluations, I insisted on receiving the evaluation. Although my evaluation took place in November of 2007, the partner finally submitted an evaluation for me in March of 2008. Non communicative partner gave me “marginal” checks in these columns:
- Demonstrates common sense judgment[1]
- Organizational skills, keeps attorney organized
- Answers telephones promptly and professionally and takes accurate messages
His overall additional comments were: “…she is pleasant to work with. There are problems of judgment at times and things are not always done with the necessary accuracy but she seems to try her best.”
Once again, there had been no indication of any of these problems throughout the (now) three year period I had worked for this gentleman, even as I continued to periodically seek out input and direction from him. Always open to constructive criticism based on actual things you can tell me I did wrong, no specific instances or examples of any of this marginal behavior was given. As a matter of fact, when I asked the secretarial managers to give an example of “not demonstrating common sense judgment” she listed one of her own[2], but nothing from the partner in question. She also said she was sure there were more instances, but she just couldn’t think of them at the time and that she would get back to me!! She never did get back to me, although I followed up with her by email on several occasions. My other evaluations from my associates as well as from the “bay” partner for whom I provided backup services on as as-needed basis were all excellent.
Movement to a different group
Not long after this negative evaluation from my partner came in, a restructuring of the secretarial department was implemented to respond to the economic contractions taking place throughout the county, and all secretaries were encouraged to find a place within a new group or teams by applying for newly created spots which came with new titles. The 3 available titles were administrative team lead, document specialist and administrative assistant. Since I could hardly call myself a document specialist, given the paucity of document work available at any given time on a day to day basis, and since I had no interest in being a team lead, by default I moved into the only remaining possibility… an administrative assistance spot. This was on a litigation “team” with a completely different group of attorneys.
The team at work
In this litigation group I’d joined, I reported directly to the Administrative Team Lead (ATL, who had worked with the attorneys in this group for years. There was great respect and admiration between these attorneys and their secretary, the ATL. Here I had no direct work association with the attorneys. All tasks were meted out by the ATL. The tasks I was given to perform were: printing documents, making copies, expense reporting, entering contacts and travel itineraries into outlook, mailing out a random package here and there or occasionally some document filing in the legalkey system and answering associates phones[3]. When the team system was initiated the administrative assistant spot was never marketed as a drastic demotion but that it what it turned out to be in actuality. Anything more complicated than making a copy was what I was limited to, nonetheless, that would come a time when the administrative team lead would attempt to paint a picture of me as incompenent to performing even these menial tasks. What preceded the devolution into that place I can’t say except to say that I know I did nothing wrong. I always did the few things assigned to me and that was it. When it came time for my 4th year evaluation, the attorneys on this team (with whom I had no association you will recall) gave me positive evaluations (amazingily, they didn’t even question my common sense). That means that they got all their input from the ATL who became my defacto boss although it wasn’t designed to be that way. Sometime between when I got my evaluation in November and the end of December I did something to run afoul of the good graces of the ATL and she commenced a campaign against me. I began to be under hyper scrutiny. Before the end of December I was called before the secretarial manager and it seems the same attorneys who had just positively evaluated me a month before were now saying I’d suddenly plummeted in my performance (which again, I didn’t do anything for them directly, everything I did was for the ATL). Thankfully however, at least I was finally being charged with 3 concrete allegations. Two of those allegations were blatantly false, but I conceded my error in the third instance and accepted responsibility for it. Of the two allegations that were false, no proof was presented for one and the other was an amazing attempt to frame me up by giving me a huge job to do with a ridiculous deadline and then claiming that I hadn’t worked on the job. I submitted irrefutable evidence that I worked on the job until I left work that day (than God for computer timestamps) and furthermore, that this so-called “rush” project that had to go out the next day never went anywhere and remained sitting on her desk for literally months (I even took pictures).
Back to the conclusion
So, bottom line, what is the point of this? It is certainly not to parse the vagaries of office politics. Unfortunately, I had to work thru presenting my specific gory details simply to present a picture of some of the problems I dealt with, if in fact what I’ve written has any truth[4]. I said that in the wider world of ethical workplace behavior, some professionals do attempt to hold themselves as well as their employees to a standard. Regardless of what side of the table you find yourself on (top dog or underdog) I have no doubt that all everyone can agree that they at least are in favor of ethical standards and fair treatment for themselves and their loved ones.
In a right to work world where we realize we can be fired for any reason or no reason at all, is there anything to be gained from giving consideration to such issues with a view toward improvements. How can employees, especially in the staff and non-exempt realm have a say in their workplace experiences, or can they? Is there any value in reviewing what a conscientious employee should look for in a desirable workplace and how? Does such a thing as a toxic workplace culture exist, and if so how would one identify such a place – are there telltale signs to look for or questions that could be asked, preferably prior to employment? Can employees evaluate their employers? What about employee networking – does that hold any promise for providing insight? Are there currently exisiting organizations, listservs, blogs or other employee based affinity grouping that might help provide answers?
While we all want to and must move past any negative experience we may have had, it remains instructive to analytically review what went right and wrong. Often other professionals can help with that and provide a guide for the future, especially for our children who can look forward to repeating our experiences if we don’t take to time to try and raise the bar to simple fairness.
[1]And may I say I have never sustained so many disparagements to my common sense in my life as I have had in my short tenure with Mayer Brown
[2] Her own example of my lack of common sense was my not knowing that she and her partner (the secretarial managers) had reassigned one of my associates to another secretary without advising me, a common practice.
[3]And when one of the associates made partner I was told not to answer his phone anymore, although the document specialist who joined the team after my arrival was not given similar instructions.
[4]Regarding truth, I tried to rely heavily on the only factual information I had, which is the performance evaluations. I also documented the proof I presented when I was finally called into the secretarial manager. Documentation doesn’t help when you’ve been placed on a hit list, however it helps in the world of public opinion that operates outside of the limitations of any company.
