We were hired by a large firm to mediate a dispute between two female associates. The firm valued both women for their hard work and intelligence, yet the two constantly tangled instead of working as a team.
Bill, the managing partner who hired us, had brought in Carol, an associate in her seventh year of practice, to support Debra, an associate in her sixth year of practice. Debra worked directly with Bill to help him with his successful, hectic legal work. Both Debra and Bill thought they had clearly explained
to Carol that she would need to take some direction and supervision from Debra, since Debra had been with the firm longer and knew Bill’s clients and work. When we spoke with Carol, however, she held an entirely different view of her role. She whined that it was “inappropriate” for a sixth year associate
to supervise a seventh year associate and that she took the job to work with Bill, not Carol. Debra complained that she rarely even saw Bill and that Carol “micro-managed” her in a way that was “insulting” for a seventh year associate.
After meeting with the women individually, we talked to Bill to deliver the common, but unpopular news: We could mediate between the two associates forever, yet the issues wouldn’t disappear. The real issue was a “beyond” issue, one that was beyond the two parties in the room. Bill needed to solve the issue by delineating the roles and working relationship of the two parties.
Once Bill faced his own contribution to the problem, and outlined roles and responsibilities, the two associates worked things out.
