I saw the below image recently and it got me thinking about how it is a perfect representation of how most – but not all – ‘multi-agency’ relationships really work.
As I said, it’s not always the case, but it increasingly feels ‘the norm’, often influenced by a procurement process that places more importance on ‘who will do the most for the least’ rather than who is best equipped to lead.
Just for the record, I’m all for collaboration.
Done properly, it is a powerful way to achieve incredible things in collapsed time.
However to stand a chance of achieving this needs a lot of careful thought and pre-planning.
For a start, you need to ensure the people in the room all have similar standards, experience and seniority or you end up only being as good as the least experienced person in attendance.
Or the loudest voice.
Too often there is a view that all you have to do is shove different organisations inside a room and tell them to get on with it.
And while companies do want the best for their clients … they all have their own agendas, definitions, remuneration structures and egos and to expect that to all be put aside because you want them to work together is naive.
It’s why curation, transparency and clarity on the ultimate goal are vital in enabling a strong outcome … but the problem is too often, collaboration is used because of timing pressures rather than seizing opportunity, which is why so much of what comes out of it feels like the worst of ‘committee thinking’.
When it works, everyone wins.
When it doesn’t, everyone – at best – stands still.
Of course, with companies increasingly turning to AI to ‘optimise’ every element of their business, the future of collaboration will be through bots rather than people. And while that may be music-to-the-ears of leaders who view employees as an frustrating expense … the result of this will be even more ‘lowest-common-denominator thinking’ because in the World of AI, everything is a summary of something else – whereas with well-run human collaboration, it doesn’t conform to where we’ve been, it builds to where we can go.
Comments Off on Collaboration Doesn’t Happen By Itself …
One of the most special times of my life – not just career – was working at Wieden+Kennedy.
Specifically Wieden+Kennedy Shanghai.
Of all the adventures and experiences I’ve had in my life, it stands out highest simply because I feel a deeper sense to China and its people than any other place I’ve ever lived.
It helped that I was there during a time where the World needed China more than China needed the World – so I found myself invited into meetings and situations that frankly, few people – let alone strategists – would ever get to experience.
Wieden were amazing to me personally and professionally but I paid them back in droves.
But that said, leaving was very difficult.
They wanted me to stay.
A big part of me wanted to stay.
But I’d been there for a lonnnnnng time, I’d done pretty much everything that could be done – including starting and running The Kennedys – plus I had a young boy who needed a different environment to grow up in.
So with very bitter sweet tears, I said goodbye to a magical place in a magical country. Except I said it in a way where they would forever remember me. Specifically as the pain-in-the-fucking-arse I’d been to every single person in that place for seven fucking years.
You see about 6 weeks prior to leaving, I had 600 of these stickers made.
I then proceeded to spend the next 5 weeks hiding them everywhere.
From the – then – refurbished Shanghai office to all the local W+K hangouts, like Baker & Spice, Jamaica Blue, Little Catch and, of course, Nike HQ.
It made some people furious. Specifically one person. Which made me especially happy because in terms of making a final decision whether to stay or go, they were the determining factor on why I left.
And over the years, people would send me a photo where they had come across one or two.
And despite it now being 8 years … there’s still some there.
In fact, there’s now more than just some.
You see a few weeks ago, I was in Shanghai and was invited to visit the office.
I had not been in the place since I left … but given I’d now been away longer than I was there, it felt OK to go in.
And it was lovely and familiar.
But then it was a place where I did a lot of growing up.
And made a lot of friends … friends who are with me for life.
Which is why it was extra special for me to see some familiar faces from my time there.
And because of this, I wanted to honour the place and give them something new to show my gratitude and love.
So I gave them this:
That’s right, I made a new sticker to accompany the old ones.
“But how many stickers?” I hear you cry.
Well I couldn’t possibly divulge that information because it would ruin the fun of finding all of them, but in the interests of friendship, here’s a clue:
Now I fully appreciate this act of ‘love vandalism’ may result in them never inviting me back, but I do hope they see it as my own special way of showing my deepest and sincerest respect to a place and country I truly love.
Because Wieden Shanghai and China wasn’t just a place I lived and worked …
It was where I was reborn.
Comments Off on Sometimes You Just Have To Stick Around Even If You Outstay Your Welcome …
This is a long post, because it has been written by a lot of rage. Mine.
So buckle up and read it, because while most of what I spout is utter shite. This is important.
Recently someone I know left the company they had been working at for a few years.
When they announced it on Linkedin, they were flooded with supportive, celebratory messages. As they should be.
But there was one other thing that was common among the comments, and that was people writing “what a good run you had”.
I don’t know about you, but when I hear that, it immediately conveys a company who has a reputation for letting people go … and so ‘what a good run’ really means is that you lasted longer than most. That your achievement was as much about staying in the role as it was about what you did in the role.
And to me, that all feels toxic as fuck.
Not by the people saying it.
Or the person it is being said to.
But the organisation who seemingly doesn’t give a fuck about letting people go.
Of course – like US politicians who ask for ‘thoughts and prayers’ after another mass shooting – their corporate mission statement only talks about their belief in their people …
How they’re trying to build a thriving, collaborative community and culture …
In fact, they say a lot of things except one: ‘when people leave, they will be cushioned by comments saying they ‘had a good run’.
So how do they get away with it?
Cash.
They pay significantly more than market rate and so there’s a steady stream of people who are willing to go work there either because they need a gig, they have fallen for the hype [and not checked it first] or they believe they can be the exception to the rule.
That’s not a judgement on the people, I get it … but it is a judgement on the org.
Especially as – in the big scheme of things – the money they pay comes at a huge cost.
The talent they’ve burned – and burned through – is extraordinary and yet no one, be it past of present employee, says a thing.
On first impression, it can feel like they’ve all agreed to collectively gaslight society, but on closer inspection you soon realise the real reason for that approach is far more due to fear than delusion.
Fear of losing your position.
Fear of never working again.
Fear of inviting more abuse.
One look at Corporate Gaslighting and you see this is not an uncommon – or unjustified – view. What’s even scarier is it is seemingly happening more and more … to the point where I swear some companies think ‘salary’ means they fully own their employees.
OK that’s a ridiculous view … a totally over-exaggerated and overblown view … an over-exaggerated and overblown view that is almost as ridiculous as:
Zero-hour contracts.
No overtime payments.
No training and development.
Expectation you are always ‘on-call’.
Personal social media monitoring.
Yes, I get those ‘work practices’ are still more the exception than the rule … but the fact they are there at all, is madness.
I get companies have to make money.
I get we live in a highly competitive world.
I even appreciate not every person is good for every company.
But come on …
What bothers me more is this is quickly becoming standard work practice.
STANDARD!
It’s like someone read a book on Victorian-era ‘workhouses’ and thought, “That sounds fun”.
And so, they’re trying to create a new set of beliefs for the ‘modern’ workplace.
Culture will not be born from the employees but dictated by the leadership.
Opinions can never be expressed; they must always be silenced.
Growth is not measured by personal development, but corporate conformity.
Success is not defined by personal achievement, but individual survival.
Failure is always – ALWAYS – to be aimed squarely at the shoulders of the employee.
[As an aside, if anyone is visiting Nottingham, they should check out the Workhouse in Southwell and go back to the future]
It’s like an episode of Black Mirror if Black Mirror was a documentary, not satire.
It’s here we’re taking a commercial break, because as much as this post has been about bullshit behavior – at least the people it’s about got paid well. But over the last 6 months, I’ve met many, young, lowly-paid, talented strategists be burned out by the expectations, pressure and demands of their employees.
As we highlighted in our 2024 book, Dream Bigger, too often people of my generation look at the young and say they don’t have the right work ethic … they expect too much … they are lacking in drive and skills … but apart from the fact that’s bullshit, even if it wasn’t, could you blame them given how they’ve seen so many of us invest so much in the promises of ‘hard work’ and then end up with nothing. And at least we had options available to us that could actually help. These poor fuckers don’t have any of that and yet we hold them to even higher expectations.
But that’s different to burnout because burnout is criminal. Actually criminal.
How are companies letting this happen? What are the fucking HR people doing?
What makes it even worse is the 5 people I met all worked at companies who talk big about ‘how their people are their greatest asset’. More like burning asset.
You want to know why we find it hard to attract the young to our industry? Because too many companies treat them like cannon fodder – and then when they’ve been battered, broken or bruised. we turn around and say ‘they couldn’t cut it’. Bastards.
Back in 2021, when we did Dream Small, we highlighted how this was a generation tolerated rather than welcomed. Then a few months later, I wrote how the ‘great resignation’ was actually – for many of the young – the ‘great reset’. But as much as they have pushed for change, this shit is still happening to so many – as demonstrated by the fact I’ve talked to 5 people in the past 6 months who could be great, but have literally been burned and no one seems to give a fuck.
All their bosses do is throw them some compliments or cash, believing it will ‘shut them up’ when what the person actually needs is to be thrown a fucking life raft of compassion, care and change. But what makes this even worse is that when the bosses discover the cash and compliments no longer have any sort of effect – when they have wrung the person out completely – they get rid of them while doing all they can to make sure the individual feels they have done something wrong to shame them for life and to keep them quiet.
It’s horrific and shows nothing has changed in the 4 years since I was featured in The Guardian about this corporate practice of employee shaming. Or the attempt of it.
What are we going to do when we have no one want to come to our industry?
We don’t pay many fairly.
We don’t train them well.
And then we work them to the point of exhaustion.
Seriously, in terms of analogy, there is no better one for this group than Workhouse attendees.
We can try and claim their attitude sucks all we like, but we’re the fuckers who need to take the long hard look in the mirror.
And with that, I end the commercial break and take us back to ‘regular programming’.
The reality is we’re getting to a point where there’s no bigger red flag about an organisation than when employees get congratulated by ‘the run they’ve had’.
Some may be well paid ‘middle management’.
Some may be poorly paid ‘young talent’.
But all of them are out-on-their-ear … surplus to requirements or drained of all life.
Which is why – and I appreciate the privilege I say this with – if you find yourself in a company like the one my mate has just ‘left’, then maybe the best thing you can do for your future health, well-being and career is to ‘run the fuck away from them’.
Comments Off on Run For Your Life, The 1800’s Are Coming …
A little while ago, A few months ago, the ‘25/’26 Premiership football season started.
Following an incredible season the year before – which saw Forest get into Europe for the first time in 30 years – their first match was against our bogey team, Brentford.
We won. 3-1.
But this post isn’t about the victory … nor is it about the implosion of the team thanks to the ego of the owner and his disastrous and potentially ruinous hiring of Ange Postecoglou who, at this point, has not won a match in 7 attempts and has seen our European and League dreams already end because he’s shit, arrogant and never cared about Forest, just the money he would get from the job [can you tell I’m bitter?] – it’s about the goal Forest scored when Nuno was still our wonderful, beloved manager.
Specifically, THIS goal.
Now I should point out this post is not about the outrageously brilliant pass from Elliott Anderson to Chris Woods that allowed a goal out of nowhere.
Nor is it about how Chris Woods started sprinting towards goal before Elliott had even reached the ball, let alone made the pass.
It’s actually about what Chris Woods did next …
Yes, he scored, but it’s how he scored that I found interesting.
Truth be told, if it hadn’t been for a post-match interview with an ex-Nottingham Forest player, I may not have realized the significance … but when I heard him talk about ‘the successful strikers mindset’, I suddenly realized how valuable – and relatable – this could be to strategists.
You see in the interview, the ex-player – Gary Birtles – talked about how decisive Chris Woods had been when running towards the goal. How he had decided very quickly how he was going to deal with the on-coming keeper. How once he had made his choice, he was going to stick with it which, according to Gary Birtles, gave him an immediate advantage over the goalie. He went on to say how Brian Clough – the iconic and ridiculously successful Forest manager he played under in the late 70’s/early 80’s and someone I’ve written copious amounts about, over the years – had always told him this:
“When you’re in a one-on-one situation with the goalkeeper, make your decision immediately and don’t second guess it. It might not always come off, but if you wait or hesitate, you give the competition the split second they need to adapt and then you lose the opportunity of even having an opportunity”.
I love that.
I love that because it gets to the heart of what sometimes strategy needs to do.
Because contrary to what many say – especially those who make their money flogging for-profit systems and models – the reality is the ‘answer’ very rarely reveals or presents itself, you come to a point – once you’ve done the hard work and rigor – of making a call on what you think is best.
It may be to enable a fast result.
It may be to enable a more effective outcome.
It may be to enable a more interesting solution.
But at some point, you have to decide which side of the fence you’re going to jump on and back yourself.
We don’t talk about that enough.
We don’t talk about the importance of the independent mind.
We don’t talk about the value of experience, perspective and belief.
Right now, everything we talk about is systems, models and processes. And while there is a role in those – or at least some of those – if we are outsourcing all decisions and choices to that, then not only should we be asking exactly what the fuck we’re adding to the outcome, we also have to ask why on earth we think we’re going to get to a different outcome that every other fucker following the same one-size-fits-all, the-computer-told-me-to-do-it approach.
Look, I appreciate what we do costs a lot of money.
I also appreciate that means companies are seeking more and more certainty in their lives.
But while some may say allowing someone to make a call on what should happen next is a sign of insanity, I’d argue the crazier thing is to do nothing and let others make the choices and decisions for you.
Sure you need to have experience.
Sure you need to have put in the rigor and work.
But at the same time, you can’t play to win, if you follow a system designed to play not to lose.
Given all the gurus in our industry flogging their system on how to do the job – despite having never made any work of note – it probably can’t hurt to repost a talk I did years ago about what we can learn from Brian Clough about how to ‘win better’.
Comments Off on What We Can Learn From Brian Clough About Identifying The Strategy To Run With …
It seems that as an industry, we care more about frameworks than what they are supposed to help create.
Actually, it’s worse than that …
It seems we aspire to be known for the creation of a framework rather than the work.
Nothing summed this up more to me than an article I read on Linkedin …
I must admit, I read it a few times to try and comprehend what I was looking at …
Trying to work out why my initial response was shock and – to be honest – disgust.
After all, they’d received a lot of positive comments from a lot of smart people, so surely I had got the wrong end of the stick?
But then, after a lot of consideration, I realized I hadn’t read it incorrectly … this person really had put forward a framework on how to interact with colleagues having a tough time.
Which is why I responded with this …
If truth be told, their write up on why this mattered to them, made sense.
Too many ‘managers’ DO jump to solving problems rather than listening to them.
But the great irony to their proposed solution is that they had inadvertently just put forward a methodology that is part of the reason we have these problems in the first place.
Because business has equated professionalism with optimised efficiency rather than human emotion.
Conveniently – or deliberately – forgetting that while frameworks may help create the consistency, it’s humanity who creates the value.
Or said another way:
It doesn’t matter what business you’re in.
It doesn’t matter who you conduct your business with.
It doesn’t even matter how you make your business operate.
At the end of the day, whatever line of work you’re in – business is always personal.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Apathy, Aspiration, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand Suicide, Collaboration, Colleagues, Comment, Communication Strategy, Community, Consultants, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Politics, Professionalism, Respect
I saw the below image recently and it got me thinking about how it is a perfect representation of how most – but not all – ‘multi-agency’ relationships really work.
As I said, it’s not always the case, but it increasingly feels ‘the norm’, often influenced by a procurement process that places more importance on ‘who will do the most for the least’ rather than who is best equipped to lead.
Just for the record, I’m all for collaboration.
Done properly, it is a powerful way to achieve incredible things in collapsed time.
However to stand a chance of achieving this needs a lot of careful thought and pre-planning.
For a start, you need to ensure the people in the room all have similar standards, experience and seniority or you end up only being as good as the least experienced person in attendance.
Or the loudest voice.
Too often there is a view that all you have to do is shove different organisations inside a room and tell them to get on with it.
And while companies do want the best for their clients … they all have their own agendas, definitions, remuneration structures and egos and to expect that to all be put aside because you want them to work together is naive.
It’s why curation, transparency and clarity on the ultimate goal are vital in enabling a strong outcome … but the problem is too often, collaboration is used because of timing pressures rather than seizing opportunity, which is why so much of what comes out of it feels like the worst of ‘committee thinking’.
When it works, everyone wins.
When it doesn’t, everyone – at best – stands still.
Of course, with companies increasingly turning to AI to ‘optimise’ every element of their business, the future of collaboration will be through bots rather than people. And while that may be music-to-the-ears of leaders who view employees as an frustrating expense … the result of this will be even more ‘lowest-common-denominator thinking’ because in the World of AI, everything is a summary of something else – whereas with well-run human collaboration, it doesn’t conform to where we’ve been, it builds to where we can go.