Under King Henry II in the twelfth century, England established a common law. This was a body of law that was common to all parts of the country. Throughout Europe at the time, there was a wide body of law that was applied—there were feudal customs, Germanic customs and other differing customs. For example, French King Louis IX was well known for having allowed each province of France to have its own laws and procedures after becoming part of France. He created a Parliament of Paris to hear appeals from the feudal lords around France.
Each year, King Henry sent out circuit judges to hear various civil and criminal cases. One of the more interesting sorts of trials that developed during the time was in criminal law. If a person was accused of a crime and there was no specific accuser, witnesses, or written evidence, and the judges believed the person had a bad reputation, they held a “trial by ordeal”. Under this sort of trial, a person was bound by their hands and feet and dropped into a body of water, such as a river or a lake. Water was believed to be something that was pure and would reject any foul or unclean substance. Accordingly, it was believed that the innocent person would sink, and the guilty person would float. God was believed to determine guilt or innocence and not people.
Because this procedure was something that the King believed often resulted in people who seemed to be guilty beating the system and not being punished, King Henry did not like the system. In the thirteenth century, a trial by a jury of 12 people was eventually developed. Here, many people were initially suspicious since people, and not God, were determining guilt and innocence. Eventually, the idea of a trial by jury was something that was accepted by people and became part of how things were done in the Western World. We have come to appreciate and believe that the most important thing for the accused, and in disputes between two parties, is that they be understood.
When I got out of law school, my first job was for a judge inside a federal court. There is a process that happens when cases come into any court, and the process is very similar in every court across the United States. In fact, in one form or another, this process has been followed in courts in England, the United States and other common law courts–a law common to and accepted by the entire country– for hundreds of years. This entire process is set up so the court and/or the jury can eventually understand what is going on in a dispute between two parties. It is amazing the work that goes into understanding disputes. I think this process has developed the way it has because we believe that it is exceptionally important to understand where two parties are coming from before passing any sort of judgment. It is a foundation of our justice system that two sides need to be understood as well as possible before we can make any judgment one way or another:
- Someone typically files a complaint of some sort with the court about something they are upset about. It could be a contract dispute or the violations of a copyright statute, for example. In other cases, a prosecutor may charge someone with a crime in the court. In many cases, the parties will file various motions regarding the complaint and whether or not it is even valid.
- Following the filing of a complaint, and assuming the complaint makes it through this stage, a period called “discovery” typically ensues. Here, both sides will seek to understand the information (people, documents, etc.) that the other side has to prove the validity of what they are seeking to prove in the complaint. The sides will exchange documents, question each others’ people and more. During this entire process, the Judge will typically moderate everything. This process may involve the parties coming before the judge to argue the validity of various forms of information they are seeking.
- Following discovery, one or more of the parties will generally ask the court to throw out the case after doing what are called summary judgment motions. If the case is scheduled for trial, they may do what are called motions in limine to throw out various causes of action.
- A case will go to trial after all of these aspects of the case have been adjudicated.
- Following a verdict in the case, the case may be appealed.
This is essentially, in a nutshell, what goes on in most cases that go to court. This is something that costs companies, individuals and others an incredible amount of money to consistently go through and manage. When you step back and look at this what is happening is pretty simple. Essentially, two sides are seeking to be understood and a decision made about a particular misunderstanding:
- A company may believe a contract means one thing and not another.
- An individual may believe that someone has wronged them and want justice.
- Two people have have a different interpretation of one event than another.
We are appalled when judgments are passed on people and individuals without due process and taking the time to understand them. For example, I recently saw the movie Changeling with Angelina Jolie. This is about a mother who is wrongly thrown in a psychiatric institution without due process. The movie Rambo is about a man who is wrongly imprisoned and then escapes without due process. I watched 60 Minutes last night and the biggest story was about improper witness identifications, and one being wrongly thrown into prison due to a mistaken identification. I read the New York Times this morning and a lead story on the cover was about people being wrongly imprisoned in China without due process. Our culture is obsessed with people being understood before judgments are made about them. We want to ensure that everyone is understood and the right thing happens. This is something that is part of the fabric of our society, who we are, and what we believe.
When I got out of law school, I started practicing law with law firms. What I noticed is that most of the disputes that companies and individuals spend millions of dollars in legal fees could be taken care of by the two sides sitting down over a cup of coffee and discussing the issues and being willing to understand the other side. In almost every case that I saw, the lawyers actually get in the way of the two sides working things out. The lawyers do not want people to communicate and understand each other because, if this happens, then the lawyers will have nothing to do. Accordingly, the lawyers go back and forth with motions and arguments for months until the client eventually decides it is not worth paying for and settles or until the case goes to trial. Most disputes can be settled quite easily.
The reason I know most disputes can be settled quite easily is because I saw it in action. When I worked for the Judge, he would generally put the two sides in separate rooms right before the case was about to go to trial and discuss the matter with each of them individually. He would try to get each side to see the other’s point of view. In almost every single instance, he managed to settle the conflict right there, and the case never went to trial. I often wondered why this particular thing never occurred before the case was so close to trial. In more complex cases that involved multiple plaintiffs and defendants, he would bring in to what was called a “Settlement Master”. These were typically portly men in their early 60s who looked like they had just had a good steak dinner with friends. They were friendly men who were all smiles and everyone liked. They would always settle cases. They would just get people to understand one another. This is an incredible skill.
This brings me to you. I think a lot of the current economic crisis this country is apparently going through could be solved if people learned to understand one another better. When it comes to our jobs and what we feel we believe, however, we are more likely to dig our heels in and not understand the other person’s point of view–or our employer’s point of view.
Lately, I have seen a lot of businesses closing around my neighborhood. This is due to the economic downturn, of course, but businesses are always closing in all parts of the country at all points in time. The reasons businesses close is often due to the people within them just not being able to understand the point of view of the employer. Usually, these businesses are closing for reasons which are pretty stupid and generally unnecessary. This is upsetting to me. I want to see people working around me and businesses be successful. Whenever I can, I try and step in and see if there is anything I can do.
I am not an expert in saving businesses by any stretch of the imagination. However, something I have seen time and time again is that virtually any business can be saved and does not have to fail. Literally any business can work and survive if the right actions are taken. Businesses do not need to fail and jobs can be saved quite easily.
There is a business up the road from me that just went out of business. It did not take me long to figure out what was wrong with the business-the employees were being paid too much. This was a good business, with good people, providing a good service. The business also has a tremendous upside. It is a small business that does about $1,000,000 a year in revenue. The problem is that the salaries of the people working there are more than $1,000,000 a year. The business was paying virtually everyone working in the business far more than it needed to pay them. The business had some part-time work that it could have had someone come in a few times a week to do. Instead, the company was paying full-time people $70,000/year to do many of these jobs. The business had other jobs that in many companies would pay $30,000 a year for. However, this business was paying $60,000 a year for the same type of work. The more I looked at things the more disturbed I became.
I called the owner of the business and looked at the books. The business was doing $1,000,000 a year and had plenty of revenue coming in.
“All you need to do in order to run the business is pay people market rates instead of paying more than they are worth in the open market,” I told the owner. “You also have a bunch of part-time jobs that you are paying people to do full-time. Eliminate all of this overhead and your business will be fine.”
The employees of this particular company did not want to be paid market rates. They wanted to be paid “what they were worth,” and now they do not have jobs. The company is out of business. The employees had no solution to fix the problem because they were the problem. Now the company is completely out of business. Most of the people from the company are not working and are collecting unemployment.
The employees blamed the owner for not bringing in enough business. They did not want to listen to the employer’s side of things.
The owners blamed the employees for not being flexible with their wages. They did not want to listen to my suggestions.
Here, if I were the owner of this company, I would have cut all of the wages and explained to the employees there was no way the business could survive unless this was done. There is nothing wrong with not being paid two to three times what you are worth. The employees did not want to listen to this, however, and because of this they are yet another casualty of people who are out of jobs. A good business has failed.
All over businesses are failing and, more often than not, many of these businesses do not have to fail. The problem is that people want things to be a certain way and are afraid to listen to what needs to be done to change this. Auto companies have too many costs and need to eliminate costs. Certain businesses have too much space and need to eliminate space. Often, the easiest changes can have a massive impact on fixing broken down companies. In order for this to occur, however, people need to be willing to listen.
I stepped in and tried to talk to the employees about this situation even after the business had been closed. I felt I could still rescue the business. None of them had jobs. Still, none of these employees were flexible with their wages even after losing their jobs. They explained that “good people need to be paid good wages.”
One of the biggest mistakes we can make is failing to listen to another person’s point of view. Here, had the employees really been able to listen to the concerns of the business owner, the business would not have failed. The failure to listen to others is something that is almost at a crisis point in many circles. We assume we know what people want and need.
- Governments do this with social programs.
- We do this when we speak to others.
- We reach conclusions about people, places and things without first getting all of the information we need.
I see this in the recruiting world all the time. There are numerous recruiters out there who take one look at a candidate and assume they know exactly what this person does or does not need. This is something the least successful recruiters do. The best recruiters spend a great deal of time getting to know the people they are working with and gathering information. It is only after gathering a great deal of information that most recruiters are even remotely in a position to make a recommendation about someone’s career.
When I look at companies and people, I see something that repeats itself over and over again. People assume they know what someone else needs or what they are entitled to. People do this without having any information whatsoever about where the other person is coming from. This never works.
We put a great deal of faith and energy into ensuring that people are not falsely accused without due process. We require that people be understood. The most important thing you can often do to keep a job, get a job, and more is take the time to listen and ensure you understand the other person’s point of view.
The post King Henry II and Workplace Strategy: How to Align with Your Employer for Career Growth appeared first on Harrisonbarnes.com.
Click here to read more of such interesting articles from our CEO Harrison Barnes.
| Tell us what you're thinking...
|
Facebook comments:
|
