- Feature
Lessons to Be Learned from The Apprentice: The Scary Synchronicity between Law-Firm Life and ''Trump Land''
by Peter L. Smith, Esq.
by Peter L. Smith, Esq.
My wife forced me to watch the series for the first few seasons. Nowadays, I retire to another room while she watches. Personally, I've had enough. Apparently, though, many others haven't. In addition to the "unwashed masses"—including hopefuls who surf over to "Trump University" looking for instant riches—business school students (even those at prestigious schools) are watching the show…and they're being forced to comment on it. It seems their professors expect them to glean tips for business and knowledge of deeper trends by watching Trump sanctimoniously, callously, and superficially spout one-liners and pontificate about business values. Yawn. Curiously, a lot of lawyers have popped up as contestants on the show. Some of them have done very well, although no practicing lawyers have made it to the winner's circle. (A couple of winners have had J.D.s, however, and one completed a summer clerkship.) Unfortunately, I don't think this poor showing on the parts of attorneys means there is no correlation between the galaxy of high-stakes business (at least in the Trump constellation) and law-firm life. I believe, on the contrary, that it may be because the lawyers on that show haven't learned as well as they might the lessons that could not only propel them into corner offices in Trump's "hundreds" of businesses but also into corner offices in Am Law 100 firms. Let's think about that. Synchronicity Trump's decision making, at first blush, appears to be extremely subjective. One day, he praises underhanded, iron-fisted, Machiavellian tactics; the next, he homilizes piously on loyalty. It is kind of cute watching the contestants' faces screw up tightly as they try to withstand the shearing forces of Trump's blasé doublespeak. Big Brother was never so good. There may be a benign harmony governing the serpentine maze of Trump's logic. The bottom line is that Trump's great contribution is exposing to the light of day an arcane web of mores that exist vitally and persistently in the workplace. So what are they? Good Guys First, I agree with Trump that loyalty, fair play, and integrity matter. There is a fundamental attractiveness about strong colleagues doing the right thing. Speaking well of clients, not sniping at a colleague's expense, making a "real" profit and not a "vapor" profit, and generally acting like a gentleman (or the equivalent) are respected, even if only as throwbacks to some bygone chivalric era. These are fundamental principles that, all things being equal, are esteemed and rewarded. Winning Is Virtuous Secondly, however, is the "all things being equal" bit. I don't know if this is typically American or if it is universal, but winning really does matter. Sometimes winning means that everything that went on beforehand gets a veneer of integrity and fair play, whereas the same actions may look questionable, petty, or just plain wrong in the face of loss. This harkens back to the old chivalric code and a more superstitious era. In some traditions, fights between two opposing camps were decided in hand-to-hand combat. It was believed (or conveniently accepted) that the applicable deity would ensure that the right man won. Look at Beowulf, King Arthur—you name it. The strong are virtuous, the virtuous strong. The gods like a winner. Basically, I think the "winning is virtuous" principle stands as an independent value in our pantheon of beliefs—independent of means, that is. It is not so much that "might makes right" but that winning is a virtue in and of itself. Basically, winning gets you a certain number of points in the eyes of the beholder, as does virtue. At the very least, the promise of a big win can outdo a small or medium-sized virtue. Wise as a Fox Cunning is good. We like someone who is smart, who thinks outside the box. A person who runs into heretofore unknown territory (moral or otherwise) and makes a decision that works—or, sometimes, even one that doesn't—garners clout. This is akin to "winning," but I think it is closer to traditional notions of virtue. Our society has a long tradition of praising the smart guy. Look at Odysseus. He wasn't necessarily the strongest, but he was tricky—especially in the Iliad. It wasn't until the Odyssey that we saw his strong side. I'll go back further. Jacob, the weaselly, smooth-skinned second son of Isaac, won out over Esau, the stolid, strong, silent, hairy, and hungry type. I don't think anyone can knock creativity, as such; it all depends on whether it is your mess of pottage that has been swindled for a pittance. Making It in the Am Law Big Leagues My premise at the outset was that Trump's show, The Apprentice, has some lessons for lawyers. Well, it does. The virtues of loyalty and integrity, juxtaposed with the virtues of winning and cunning, are very much at play in law firms. The trick is to apply good judgment when deciding between strategies. I think it is clear that the "younger" you are in the profession, the safer you are simply playing the integrity card: work hard, be nice, eschew all offensive personal habits. It is when you enter the middle years that you have to start thinking strategically about winning and what that means. You know and I know that it is not the smartest associates who make partner; it is those who play the game best. At the very least, playing the game means getting to know those who have power, getting liked, getting trusted, and getting results. Good luck. You are going to need it. Pete Smith is the Managing Director of the San Francisco office of BCG Attorney Search, the nation's premier legal-recruiting firm. Pete also writes prolifically and speaks nationally on issues confronting lawyers at all levels. Check out his bio at http://bcgsearch.com/pete_smith.html |
|
 |
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
|||||||||||||
|
Popular Tags | |
|||||||||||
|
|
|
|||||||||||
| Featured Testimonials | |||
|
|||
|
| Facts | |||
|
|||
|
|
Facebook comments: |
 |
 |
|
|
||||||||
 |
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
  |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
