I explained that he should have just done what was asked of him—he was a soldier and not a general at this point in his career. The partners assigning him work were paid based on how much work they assigned to associates like him and on how much work those associates produced. Those partners were excited about the opportunity to make money and the associate was not supposed to question their ideas. He was preventing the partners and the firm from making money by questioning his assignments. He was a liability to the firm because he was not doing the work he was assigned in the way it was assigned. The firm wanted to make money. The firm did not want to deal with an overly clever first-year associate. How could he expect to advance in the firm if he stood in its way?
AGREE/DISAGREE? SHARE COMMENTS ANONYMOUSLY! We Want to Hear Your Thoughts! Tell Us What You Think!!