The Musings Of An Opinionated Sod [Help Me Grow!]

Saying that, if you’re anything like me, you won’t hear a word he says because you’ll be starring in amazement at just how fucking huuuuuuuuge the guy is.

What did you think?

Did you hear a single word or were you just staring at his enormous jaw and hands?

I have to say I found his constant “Say I” exclamations highly annoying … but not nearly as painful as when he referred to himself as a “Crazy Mofo”.

Who the hell talks like that?

I’ll tell you … the most UNcrazy Mofo’s on the planet.

It’s like people in the pub who tell you they’re “Fucking craaaaaaaaaaazy” and then when you ask what they do for a job, they tell you they are the payroll accountant at Volvo [beige division]

Anyway I digress – however having watched this video a few times, I have now come to the conclusion he doesn’t motivate people through his words, he intimidates them into action through his sheer physical size …

Even though I found some of what the very successful and intelligent Mr Robbins said very interesting [plus he swears which means he can’t be all bad] – I personally find this mild mannered man far more motivating and inspiring.

[Yes I know I’ve shown this thing a million times before, but it’s bloody brilliant and I don’t care!]

[Youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iG9CE55wbtY&feature=channel]

Right, now you’ve watched that [you have watched it haven’t you???] do you agree with me or is it just a Brit thing that makes me like Sir Ken more?

Contrary to what you all probably think, it’s not an anti-Yank thing – how can I hate a country that is helping keep a roof over my head? – I think the reason I resonate more with Sir Ken’s speech is because he is talking about societies values and how it can make the World a better place whereas Mr Robbins seems to be focusing much more on shortcuts to personal success – which to be fair – is what he has been paid to do for decades.

I think it is a Brit thing – because as much as I want to be successful and wealthy – the thought of exclusively focusing on my own path to glory is almost bordering on distasteful, however I appreciate in many cultures, that just the normal way of life.

Explains a lot of why we’re in the state we’re in ….

[This post was NOT paid for by the British Government, but I am open to donations if they feel inclined to cough up some cash!]

How do I know?

Because of this …

As you can see, last weeks more ‘serious posts’ were an exception!

So Citibank have announced they’re getting rid of [and that’s the right choice of words] over 50,000 employees.

FIFTY FUCKING THOUSAND!

This is on top of the alleged 22,000 they discarded earlier in the year when the financial crisis … something they played an integral part in causing … started to take effect.

Apparently the reason given for this mass clearout is ‘to increase the Citibank shareprice’.

[Puts a new twist on that Citibank ad I slagged off a while back doesn’t it?]

Now whilst it would be easy to feel no sorrow for these people, the reality is that I am sure the majority of them are just everyday workers who never really prospered from the financial shenanigans their bosses were cooking up 50 floors above their cubicle … however there’s another thing that bothers me … what did 50,000 people do that means they can be kicked out and yet the company still functions as normally?

Maybe they were hired to basically ‘launder’ the ill gotten gains of the bank … maybe they were employed to process all the mortgages the bank shouldn’t of agreed to … but I reckon there’s a great opportunity for a competitor to run a campaign that says …

“When 72,000 staff disappear in a year, the level of service will disappear too”

… of course I’d rather say …

“When a bank sheds 72,000 jobs in a year, are they being prudent or desperate?”

Here’s the thing …

I don’t see why getting rid of 72,000 people would be good for your shareprice.

OK, I can appreciate maybe the shorter-term savings … but after you’ve paid them out, it’s not going to be that positive. And besides, I can’t believe Citibank employed that many people to basically twiddle their thumbs. Something is going to suffer either because people aren’t there anymore to do particular jobs or other people are working so hard, mistakes happen through tiredness or lack of attention to detail.

I’ll show my age here, but I remember a time when making people redundant was the absolutely last resort. The last.

Now it seems to be the first plan of action.

How can a company expect loyalty when its employees know that when the slightest bump happens, they’re the first out?

But it’s not all companies fault.

Photo: Galeria_Futbolera

I know quite a few people [and I’m talking about midlevel folk and above here, not the guys lower down who often are the ones who are really doing all the work!] who expect to get ever increasing pay rises even if their company is under major financial pressure.

OK, so if the company is asking its employees to suffer while the guys at the top are still living it large, I can understand – but there’s a few guys I know who think it is a right, regardless of their efforts in the year, to automatically qualify for ever increasing annual income.

Of course the whole concept of a ‘fair wage for a fair day of work’ is impossible because what one person thinks is ‘fair’, another thinks it’s derisory [Ashley Cole, take note] however we’re now in a situation where many employees/unions [and remember, I am very pro-Union] go all out to screw the company for every penny they can get while many companies go all out to wring every ounce of employee capability without any regard for their long-term well being.

Yes I’m being generalistic and I know not everyone is like this … hell, probably it’s a minority, but when you work in a blood sucking industry like mine, it’s easy to get your perspectives wrong … but to me it’s one of the major contributing factors to the demise of society and community.

Which came first – the lack of company loyalty or the lack of employee consideration?

Who knows – and frankly, who cares – but as I’ve said a few times, I hope this financial meltdown helps give people/organisations some perspective/transparancy because otherwise all the suffering that is happening and still to happen, will be in total vain.

As a sacked car worker said on a Michael Moore movie …

“How are people going to afford to buy expensive American made products if they’ve all been sacked and have a few dollars to live on?”

I guess everyone at Ford, GM and Chrysler are about to find that out …

NP wrote an absolutely super post about Boris Becker this week.

In it, he say’s that rather than focus on his opponents weaknesses, he would play them at their own game – letting his confidence and ability intimidate/undermine the competition by overcoming the best that they could throw at him.

He continues to say that too much strategy is focused on weakness rather than taking on the competition at their own game and he’s absolutely right.

Of course there are some exceptions – but in the main, a lot of strategy is more influenced by what the competition are doing than the brand’s own goals and abilities – and when you take into account how much strat is influenced by the planners and clients own personal perspectives/agendas on data/life/business, you come to realize that much of business is about personal indulgence and/or fear, than embracing the true potential of an organisation.

I cannot tell you the amount of times I’ve had clients say to me, “That sounds abit arrogant” and yet I don’t know what’s wrong with that.

Surely it’s better to be arrogant than passive and pointless?

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not suggesting arrogance is valid if there’s no substance behind it.

I remember being in a Virgin meeting where Mr Branson himself said to me, “You have to earn the right to be arrogant” and you know what, he’s right.

You see too many companies read ‘arrogance’ as rude … but if you are committed to doing what you say [and what people want] I don’t think they’d mind arrogance, infact they’d probably like to be associated with a winner.

Eric Cantona was hardly passive was he?

Steve Jobs isn’t exactly a wallflower?

Fuck, even Bono is known for being a rather ‘full-of-himself’ individual and I don’t see people walking away from them in their millions?

The thing is, arrogance is all about tone.

Che Branson by Pestkop

I believe there are degrees of it – and if you handle it correctly, I think it’s a bloody great attribute, and what would be better than taking on the establishment and winning?

Hell, what do you think Virgin do?

And the thing is, the people who think they are arrogant are the ones who are being beaten by them, not the ones benefiting from their actions.

OK, so I know you’ll come back to me and say arrogance and confidence might come from the same ‘family’, but they’re not the same – and you’re probably right – but then my response is one man’s arrogance is another man’s hero so I guess we’ll go round and round in circles on that, ha.

No, I’m not talking about simplifying it to the lowest common denominator – I’m talking about simplifying it in such a way that it can be easily understood BY THE MASSES, whilst still being motivating and pragmatic.

Contrary to what seems to be happening far too often, planning IS NOT about making the simple complex … well not unless you work for one of those agencies who has sold creativity, imagination and insight so far down the river that the only way they can make any money is by pretending they’re either one of those state-the-obvious-but-use-85,000-corporatewords management consultants or a make-outrageous-claims-about-what-a fucking-logo-can-do-for-business, branding consultants.

What set me off on this little rant was this …

For those who don’t speak corporatewank, “Leveraging on inverted pyramid thinking to capture the loyalty and attention of the low income segment you want” basically means “get the poor to buy and endorse”.

I am sure the 18 word version appeals to the wannabe intellectuals out there, but I reckon my 7 word version would be better understood by the average man-on-the-street, and given our job is to actually motivate these ‘normal’ folk, I’d say it’s better to talk ‘plain’ than ‘corporate’.

If anyone ever said ‘Inverted Pyramid’ to me, I think I’d be close to whacking them – which is abit scary given I’m speaking at the same event as the person running this workshop and we all know what happened last time someone decided to patronise me.