Why Covid Was Less Destabilizing Than The Plans Some Tech Companies Have For Us …
March 17, 2026, 6:15 am
Filed under:
2026,
A Bit Of Inspiration,
Agency Culture,
AI,
Ambition,
Attitude & Aptitude,
Billionaire,
Brand,
Brand Suicide,
Business,
Comment,
Communication Strategy,
Community,
Complicity,
Confidence,
Conformity,
Consultants,
Creative Development,
Creativity,
Delusion,
Details,
Effectiveness,
Efficiency,
Experience,
Innovation,
Insight,
Leadership,
Management,
Marketing,
Marketing Fail,
Mediocrity,
Professionalism,
Relationships,
Relevance,
Reputation,
Resonance,
Respect,
Strategy,
Success,
Tactics,
Technology 
A few weeks ago, Jack Dorsey – ex-Twitter and now Block – laid off 40% of their staff.
They say this was not because they were doing badly, but because it allowed them – thanks to AI – to be even better positioned to take advantage of future opportunities.
He also said that he suspects most organisations will follow suit in the near future.
He’s not wrong … for many, reducing headcount is the ultimate commercial dream. Which got me thinking …
What will happen when every company is ‘AI’ led/driven/managed and there’s no more employees who can be ‘restructured’ to satisfy the C-Suite and/or share market?
How will companies exist when the people they once sold to, no longer have an income to keep buying their goods? How will companies compete when they all follow the same AI-led protocols, all learned from the same aggregated models and practices? How will companies build value when they’ve turned everything into a commodity? How will companies exist with ‘access per user’ business models, when AI removes the need for users? How will companies justify their price premium when they keep promoting their use of AI lets them do things for less? How will companies build trust and loyalty when everyone knows they’re being outsourced and managed by an algorithm?
One possibility is employees will suddenly be back in vogue … allowing companies to talk about how their products and/or services are now much more personal, hand crafted, and/or curated than their AI competitors. The other is – as many tech bros have suggested – we enter a world of ‘universal credit’ … except no one talks about where that money will come from and who will control the amount of money given to people.
Given there’ll be a lot less money available to be raised from taxes – as there won’t be enough people earning money from jobs – and the wealthy have an incredible ability to avoid governments taxing them appropriately, are we going to be reliant on the ‘generosity’ of the tech companies and should we feel good about that given they value power and control over a healthy society?
However none of this is AI’s fault. We’re now in a world where the obsession for short term results and/or PR headlines means everything is tactics, not much about strategy.
AI is incredible – as is its possibilities and potential – which is why when companies make a big song and dance about how they’re using it to ‘fast track’ growth and efficiencies [read: efficiencies] I can’t help but think it reveals far more about their narrow and limited thinking than the technologies.
What makes it even crazier is how the share market rewards companies for dismantling their operational structure and knowledge …
Oh I get it if you look at it in a vacuum, but not only is this behaviour often a short-term reaction – designed to boost share price at a time where bonuses or evaluations are due to take place … but why are these so called shit-hot analysts not questioning the leadership who put their company in the position of having so many alleged ‘excessive’ staff in the first place.
Because they don’t really care about anything other than the illusion of radical action.
Actions that allow them to say to themselves, ‘we were right’.
Remember Citibank back in 2008?
Forget condemning the leadership who encouraged their people to engage in a level of economic recklessness that contributed to the global financial crisis, and instead, congratulate them for firing 72,000 employees in the name of ‘efficiency management’.
As I said, I am not blaming AI for this, nor am I saying Jack Dorsey is the poster child for this attitude in management. At least in Jack’s case, he is in tech and recognises his own self interest in what he’s doing/publicising. That doesn’t make what he’s doing any better, but it at least explains his actions with more clarity than a lot of companies who have jumped into AI without seemingly realizing [or choosing to be deliberately ignorant] to the longer term implications they’re creating their own company, category and individual role.
Of course not all company leaders are like this – or doing this with AI – and I obviously appreciate it’s a competitive world out there … but to see them viewing efficiency and speed as the only levers that matter [and that is what AI is for] is pretty tragic. Add to that, many seem to have forgotten this technology is still in its relative infancy, so are basically buying into the ‘dream’ of what AI can do – as being heavily pushed by its creators/investors … which helps companies justify their heavy adoption of it, even though many of the C-Suite in those companies don’t have a clue what it is or how it works but just see the financial rewards of pretending they do … and we’re facing the very real prospect of organisations discounting or ignoring the ‘small stuff’, even though that’s what will determine if the ‘finish line’ is positive or destructive. [For more info on this, see my post about the ‘O Ring’]
As a friend of mine said, “it’s like buying a jet to do the school run”.
Mind you he also said, “beware of people selling promises they’ll never be accountable for, but will always benefit from”.
Unsurprisingly, he’s a lawyer.
In a technology firm. Haha.
When Did Professionalism Become About Celebrating Bad Taste?
October 3, 2025, 5:15 am
Filed under:
A Bit Of Inspiration,
Advertising,
Agency Culture,
Attitude & Aptitude,
Authenticity,
Comment,
Contribution,
Creativity,
Culture,
Details,
Pretentious Rubbish,
Process,
Professionalism,
Reputation,
Respect,
Systems Over the years, I’ve had people call me ‘unprofessional’.
Never for the work I produced, but for how I have approached the work.
Whether it’s the way I’ve dressed.
Whether it’s the way I’ve proved a point.
Whether it’s the way I’ve asked a question.
Whether it’s the way I’ve countered an objection.
I should point out this never came from people you would think could take exception to it.
Over the years I’ve found myself in the ridiculous situation of presenting to – and working with – some of the World’s toughest and best CEO’s and CMO’s, be it Richard Branson, François-Henri Pinault, Phil Knight, Elizabeth Warren, Myley Cyrus or even James Hetfield.
And not one of them had an issue with me. Not one.
If truth be told, I think they quite liked the fact I was ‘me’ … to the point I presented to Phil Knight wearing Birkenstocks and then I was sent some Nike’s that had been adapted into a ‘birkie’ for me. [which I sadly lost in one of our country moves]
No, the people who labelled me as unprofessional were almost universally ‘middle-men’ … people who thought their position in a company meant they could dictate how people acted, not just presented.
[The exception to this was Anthony Kiedis of RHCP fame, but as I have documented many times – given how much of a prick he is universally acknowledged to be, I take that as a badge-of-honour rather than a personal slight. Plus the others in the band were lovely]
Anyway, the point of this whole rant is that it seems professionalism is becoming more and more about appearance and process adherence than the standard of the work and the rigor that went into it.
Don’t get me wrong, ‘presentation and process’ has a role to play … but when the people who are the most focused on it tend to be the people who’ve never made anything significant with it, you start to think they maybe use professionalism as a label to hide behind rather than a standard of work to live up to.
But here’s the other irony …
Often the companies who claim to bang on about ‘professional standards’ the most, are the ones with the most questionable behaviors.
And while that could lead me to talk about companies like McKinsey …
Or the financial institutions and their complicit, self-serving actions relating to the Sub Prime Mortgage bullshit …
I thought I’d highlight something else …
This.
Seriously Linkedin, why – of all the images you could have created to represent ‘a new job’ – did you choose this?
It makes Google’s logo look like it was designed by Picasso, rather than – arguably – Stevie Wonder.
But at least Google’s has charm and charisma. And represented who they [once] were …
But this?
What the fuck does this represent?
I’ll tell you … a company who loves to talk about professionalism but increasingly behaves in ways that are the antithesis of it.
A dumbing down of standards and behaviors in an attempt to gain increased popularity.
Hell, even Microsoft’s ‘Mr Clippy’ is arguably less offensive given that had an alleged degree of usefulness associated with it.
Empashsis on the word ‘alleged’.
Which is why if anyone ever questions your professionalism in the future, reply with “you’re welcome”, because you’re not only likely doing something right, you’re doing something they never could or that anyone in their right mind would ever aspire to.
What Freddie Mercury Can Teach Strategists About The Importance Of Words, Details And Understanding …
As you all know, I love the band Queen – or should I say Queen up to, and including 1984, when they were still rock stars rather than entertainers.
Anyway, I found an article recently where Freddie talked about the way the band operates behind the scenes … specifically why there is a difference between leading a band on stage and leading the band as the boss.
While it is true Queen was definitely a band – with all 4 consistent members contributing songs/hits to their repertoire as well as each member having a specific role within the bands operations, for example bassist John Deacon was in charge of their financial interests – you do get the impression that while all 4 members may have been equal, Freddie was maybe a little more equal than all the others, ha.
That said, what I love about what he says is that it’s a beautiful reminder words matter, details matter and understanding matters … and given our industry seems to be at a place where every man and their dog has ‘hot takes’ that they spout liberally with all the definitiveness of God – despite many not having had any direct experience or knowledge on the subject matter they’re claiming expertise in – the value of precision has never been so important.
[Case in point: all the people smugly hating on Liquid Death because they’re re-evaluating their roll out into other markets … as if [1] they’ve never made a mistake in their life and [2] they’ve launched a brand that in just a few years is worth over US$1 billion. The delusional, egotistical, condescending imposters]
And just in case someone thinks it, I did not write this post to simply justify showing off my latest tattoo …
Probably.
Filed under: 2026, A Bit Of Inspiration, Agency Culture, AI, Ambition, Attitude & Aptitude, Billionaire, Brand, Brand Suicide, Business, Comment, Communication Strategy, Community, Complicity, Confidence, Conformity, Consultants, Creative Development, Creativity, Delusion, Details, Effectiveness, Efficiency, Experience, Innovation, Insight, Leadership, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Mediocrity, Professionalism, Relationships, Relevance, Reputation, Resonance, Respect, Strategy, Success, Tactics, Technology
A few weeks ago, Jack Dorsey – ex-Twitter and now Block – laid off 40% of their staff.
They say this was not because they were doing badly, but because it allowed them – thanks to AI – to be even better positioned to take advantage of future opportunities.
He also said that he suspects most organisations will follow suit in the near future.
He’s not wrong … for many, reducing headcount is the ultimate commercial dream. Which got me thinking …
What will happen when every company is ‘AI’ led/driven/managed and there’s no more employees who can be ‘restructured’ to satisfy the C-Suite and/or share market?
How will companies exist when the people they once sold to, no longer have an income to keep buying their goods? How will companies compete when they all follow the same AI-led protocols, all learned from the same aggregated models and practices? How will companies build value when they’ve turned everything into a commodity? How will companies exist with ‘access per user’ business models, when AI removes the need for users? How will companies justify their price premium when they keep promoting their use of AI lets them do things for less? How will companies build trust and loyalty when everyone knows they’re being outsourced and managed by an algorithm?
One possibility is employees will suddenly be back in vogue … allowing companies to talk about how their products and/or services are now much more personal, hand crafted, and/or curated than their AI competitors. The other is – as many tech bros have suggested – we enter a world of ‘universal credit’ … except no one talks about where that money will come from and who will control the amount of money given to people.
Given there’ll be a lot less money available to be raised from taxes – as there won’t be enough people earning money from jobs – and the wealthy have an incredible ability to avoid governments taxing them appropriately, are we going to be reliant on the ‘generosity’ of the tech companies and should we feel good about that given they value power and control over a healthy society?
However none of this is AI’s fault. We’re now in a world where the obsession for short term results and/or PR headlines means everything is tactics, not much about strategy.
AI is incredible – as is its possibilities and potential – which is why when companies make a big song and dance about how they’re using it to ‘fast track’ growth and efficiencies [read: efficiencies] I can’t help but think it reveals far more about their narrow and limited thinking than the technologies.
What makes it even crazier is how the share market rewards companies for dismantling their operational structure and knowledge …
Oh I get it if you look at it in a vacuum, but not only is this behaviour often a short-term reaction – designed to boost share price at a time where bonuses or evaluations are due to take place … but why are these so called shit-hot analysts not questioning the leadership who put their company in the position of having so many alleged ‘excessive’ staff in the first place.
Because they don’t really care about anything other than the illusion of radical action.
Actions that allow them to say to themselves, ‘we were right’.
Remember Citibank back in 2008?
Forget condemning the leadership who encouraged their people to engage in a level of economic recklessness that contributed to the global financial crisis, and instead, congratulate them for firing 72,000 employees in the name of ‘efficiency management’.
As I said, I am not blaming AI for this, nor am I saying Jack Dorsey is the poster child for this attitude in management. At least in Jack’s case, he is in tech and recognises his own self interest in what he’s doing/publicising. That doesn’t make what he’s doing any better, but it at least explains his actions with more clarity than a lot of companies who have jumped into AI without seemingly realizing [or choosing to be deliberately ignorant] to the longer term implications they’re creating their own company, category and individual role.
Of course not all company leaders are like this – or doing this with AI – and I obviously appreciate it’s a competitive world out there … but to see them viewing efficiency and speed as the only levers that matter [and that is what AI is for] is pretty tragic. Add to that, many seem to have forgotten this technology is still in its relative infancy, so are basically buying into the ‘dream’ of what AI can do – as being heavily pushed by its creators/investors … which helps companies justify their heavy adoption of it, even though many of the C-Suite in those companies don’t have a clue what it is or how it works but just see the financial rewards of pretending they do … and we’re facing the very real prospect of organisations discounting or ignoring the ‘small stuff’, even though that’s what will determine if the ‘finish line’ is positive or destructive. [For more info on this, see my post about the ‘O Ring’]
As a friend of mine said, “it’s like buying a jet to do the school run”.
Mind you he also said, “beware of people selling promises they’ll never be accountable for, but will always benefit from”.
Unsurprisingly, he’s a lawyer.
In a technology firm. Haha.