I don't see those intro lines as "planning to fail". It is simple courtesy not to assume that you know everything and admit the POSSIBILITY that you might not be 100% right (there is such a thing as having something useful to say without it being the whole truth)...and deferring to the fact the listener MIGHT know something themselves.

Sorry but as a non-American I hear those intro lines far TOO INFREQUENTLY here. The usual line is a pretty open statement that I need to know what you're going to tell me because you know everything and you are 100% right so there's really no point in my responding I should just sit there and take your pearls of wisdom. And this from JDs without the years of work experience that I've had in my own legal system (which has at least SOME similiarity and experiential value). To me when I hear the intro lines you mention I do not take them as insecurity but as politeness and honesty about your level of contribution. I can stomach the "I know everything" tone from partners only because they DO in fact have the experience and knowledge, or ought to have it.

So frankly my dear I think your grandfather was either exaggerating to boost your self esteem or he was a bit of a prat.

I think the point is that there is really no need for self-minimizing politeness in a professional setting.  I agree with Jessie's grandfather and this advice lines up with much of the self-help literature aimed at helping women to be successful -- don't apologize too much, don't give the listener reason to doubt your assertions before you even make them, don't take blame for other's mistakes just to reduce confrontation, stand up straight, project your voice etc, etc. 

Here's the thing, men don't make failing introductions nearly as often as women.  Right or wrong, the legal profession favors making arguments and defending them.  If you start off your "argument" conceding anything you've started off behind the power curve.

Men may not make as many polite introductions to their know-it-all statements. They also look like total fools when they come across someone who knows more than they do. It is a high risk, potentially high return strategy depending on how impressed the listener is by bravado and ego.

I think a lot of what you are describing is an American valuation on ego and bravado. Why else do promotional brochures from law schools say "learn to talk like a lawyer"? instead of "learn the LAW and to BE a lawyer"?

 If you ever deal much with clients or professionals from outside the US you will not be respected for such a strategy. You'll just be thought of as a know-all prat (whether you are right or not) and an idiot if you're wrong.

No one expects you say "oh please breathe on me I am not worthyI know nothing but here is what I think maybe perhaps I should say".... but phrasing things in a non-bossy non-assertive non-aggressive way is a much more likely way to get a positive response.

I love the expression "well have you considered X?" as a way to get across a new idea. Chances are they haven't. If you're wrong you haven't invested your reputation in it. If you are right they're more likely to listen because you haven't talked down to them.

 I've worked in a NY firm and the summer associates had serious cases of an ego beyond their knowledge with no sense at all of how to phrase their contribution for its rightful place. Yes the partners let them get away with it, probably it was expected. But even a small incident of not being correct in your aggressive assertions and you are not likely to get asked back. I can think of 2 examples right now of summers who weren't asked back because of failed strategies they persauded others to adopt by framing them in a way that made them sound like they knew their stuff. Attorneys who made the same mistakes but framed them as "would you like to hear about another approach?" were more likely to have errors spotted in time by seniors and therefore didn't face the non-hire consequences.

Don't turn your learning curve into a brick wall by slamming up against your own ego.

I have to agree with the prior post - your grandfather's point might have been a nice ego-builder (and there's a right time for that) but it is not good career advice if you take it literally. If you did that in the firm I worked for you'd be labelled a know-all fool in a couple of days after it was clear you were a normal graduate after all and not the super-lawyer you talked like.

Peg said "no need for self-minimizing politeness in a professional setting"

I could not disagree more. As a professional who has worked 8 years in firms in 2 different English speaking countries (including the US) the value of politeness cannot be overstated in getting your own way (and that's just 1 good thing about it).

And while there are times to insist that you are right without backing down, there are plenty of times when self-deprecation works wonders and there are times when it is simply appropriate. A graduate who does not defer to a more senior lawyer in manner (though you can stick to your guns on the substance as much as you like) is not going to get respect for that.

I think you're wrong to call it self minimizing. Self deprecation is not minimising. It is your negative perception that sees it that way, many would see self-deprecation as making you the more professional and mature person.

Anonymous, I think there is a huge difference between the samples that Jessie gave:

• "maybe this is a stupid question, but...";
• "I don't know that much about this, but...";
• "I'm probably wrong, but..."; 
• "well maybe this wasn't a good experiment, but ..."

and: "have you considered, X?"

kateeb, I think you may be upset with American business people and lawyers that you see as generally rude, compared to your home country.   However, what is rude or arrogant in another culture may be not only acceptable here but encouraged.

There is certainly a place for politeness and humility in the legal profession.  But to somehow say that this means that women (or anybody) who couch their statements with self-minimizing introductions have the keys to success is absurd.  If you have to start a sentence with "I am probably wrong, but..." then 1) you haven't done enough research into the subject to even be having the conversation or 2) you are likely in a situation that is over your head.  If we are talking about giving opinions or advice to law firm partners, how does starting with "I'm probably wrong" achieve any purpose whatsoever?

A book that comes highly recommended (but that I can't seem to get through myself) is called "Nice Girls Don't Get the Corner Office" by Lois P. Frankel, Ph.D.  There are many mistakes that she identifies that relate to our conversation here.  Mistake #62: Using Qualifiers. 

Speaking of self-minimizing, I was recently at the first board meeting of a new company and before the meeting officially began everyone went around the room to introduce themselves to the new outside director whom many of the company's officers had never met.  The COO/Secretary of the Company, had to follow the Chief Scientific Officer in the order of introductions.  The CSO had very impressive experience and, in what I think was an effort to be funny, the COO gave his job title and then said something to the effect of, "basically, I do everything else, like I got the water for the meeting and made copies of these materials".  Everyone in the room new that he wasn't serious and everyone appreciated the enormity of his actual role in the Company.  However, I wonder what people would have thought if it was a woman that gave herself that introduction.  Might they have had to think twice about whether she was being serious or not?

I think your cultural prejudices are showing. I did not say I hadn't observed the same phenomenon back home and in fact I have. It is rude in either country and iin my experience you ultimately come a cropper. Your cultural pidgeonholing is way off - I've had this before when posting comments actually - people assume kateeb is foreign, non-English speaking, and usually Indian. In fact I'm British, and culturally pretty similar to you I suspect (except I sometimes forget to use "z" instead of "s" in words!).

While it IS an American characteristic in business to be pushier and more self-promoting, that has LONG since been imported to the UK. That doesn't mean it works, in fact I think many people are unaware about how much it puts people off, especially women. A good friend of mine who came to the US some 15 years before I did and is now a partner, confided how much the "peacocks" irritate her and how she tends to give them the boring work more often just to bring them down a peg or two. Also it gives her the satisfaction of hearing the drudgery work described as "the biggest deal on the books" in the tearoom.

I don't see that much difference between what I was saying and the earlier post. I probably wouldn't say "stupid" but I would say something like "I know I'm not an expert in this area but" or "I know I'm new to this but" or "I've never done this before but". Acknowledging where you fit in the hierachy is important to getting credibility for your proposal. If you sound like you're trying to be a senior associate when you're a new graduate you'll get laughed at behind your back no matter how you gloss it.

The big exception - if you're working for the exception - the partner who WAS that peacock and got away with it. Even then you should tone down your self-trumpeting with the rest of the team oryou'll sound like a brown-noser trying to copy the boss. And its no credit to any firm that such people make partner, and they usually don't. I've worked in quite a few firms over the years and only met 2 such men, both widely disliked by both their senior and junior teams. I guess if you are smart enough you can get away with anything even being a self-trumpeting smartarse, but it isn't what we should be encouraging in ANY young attorney, man or woman.

I think its quite sad that Peg has bought the line that that is what women have to become to succeed. My female mentors (in both countries) were always women who were inclined to wait and hear the know-alls speak first and then, with characteristic self-deprecation come down the outside and quietly do the work more competently and more tenaciously, with more perceptive, if less self-promoting, comments.

In all fairness I think you assume people won't listen to you or will tune out if you start with a self-deprecating opening line. I find the opposite is true. People are so attuned to expecting young attorneys to bignote themselves that when you take your rightful place as making suggestions with due deference to your lack of experience you're likely to be remembered, and your ideas as well.

Whether you agree with me or Peg, there is not just 1 way to see the technique. What some people call confidence other people call arrogance and what Peg calls self-minimizing, some people call politeness.

I am sorry that you interpret prejudice from my comment.  (I have a number of European friends and colleagues that are insistent that Americans are without manners.) 

I would say that some posts from anonymous on this thread are most certainly trying to say that just because something is rude elsewhere it is also rude here.   My point was definately that American culture when it comes to social graces does not translate well in other countries, and vice versa.  As somebody who has lived and worked abroad (in Asia), I know this first hand.  I would also argue with your point that the UK and US are the same when it comes to professional behavior.  There are vastly different ways of insulting somebody and hugely different types of humor-- for two examples.  The very first comment was obviously from a British commentor, from the use of the word "prat" -- I have no idea what that means but it probably isn't a very nice thing to call somebody's recently-deceased grandfather. 

I am afraid that you and I will never draw the same line between polite and self-minimizing behavior.

I think Peg's last comment - that different people will interpret the same behavior as meanng different things - is the bottom line. Some people will interpret disclaimers as a sign of some kind of inadequacy, either professional or personal. Some of those people will be in a position to help or hurt you. So to be safe, find a way to appear confident in your work without being so aggressive as to turn off those with sentiments closer to kateeb.

It doesn't just come from the way you introduce yourself or your ideas.  Slouching, mumbling, limp handshakes - these are all steroetypical ways to get yourself ignored at the office. Like the disclaimer, they're things to be conscious of, if nothing else.