Discover the secrets of career suicide for yourself today!



By Neil Patrick

Are you the CEO of a global advertising business? Are you feeling out of step with the 21st century and in need of a career change? Well I have great news for you. You could transform your career faster and easier than you ever thought possible. Thousands of old white guys know this secret to career transformation. And you could too. Just follow our FREE step by step guide below! Act now before it’s too late.

Offers subject to status. Results may vary. We assume no liability for anything you say do or think which you may find has unexpected consequences. Your personal credibility may be at risk.






If there’s one thing that is guaranteed to get business leaders into trouble these days, it's trying to deny a problem exists when all the evidence points to the contrary. Whitewashing the truth might be the essence of what  advertising companies do, but in an age where media is more democratic than ever before, it's also dangerous and potentially career terminating.

And one group of people are especially vulnerable to this; people stereotyped as ‘old white guys’. I am sensitive to this because I am more or less one myself and it dismays me when I see my demographic peers damaging our increasingly fragile standing in the world.

Last week, via an interview on Business Insider, an old white guy who ought to know better, Chairman of Saatchi and Saatchi, Kevin Roberts got into a spat about his views about women’s careers in advertising and for expressing his opinion that the issue of gender was “done and over.”

He was confronted by Business Insider with the challenge that the advertising industry is sexist because not a single CEO of the six largest advertising agencies in the world is female.

You'd expect that a man at the head of a large global business whose very nature revolves around communication, persuasion and sophisticated messages, would produce an elegant, visionary and inclusive response.

But he didn't.

Having spent about 20 years of my career working almost daily with advertising firms, I've observed at close quarters that the advertising industry is sexist for many reasons, not just its attitudes to the women it employs.

Moreover, its ‘creative’ output for clients is often ageist, elitist, patronizing and worst of all, frequently devoid of any sort of moral compass. Changes to the law have been necessary to stop tobacco advertising and control advertising to children. Basically, provided your business isn’t illegal, almost any advertising company will gladly take (a lot of) your money and spend some of it to promote and lavishly entertain you whilst pocketing the rest.

Commenting on Roberts' fall from grace, CEO of 20-first, Avivah Wittenberg-Cox pointed out in her Harvard Business Review post that:

“Roberts’s kind of willful blindness (in Margaret Heffernan’s wonderful phrase) is widespread. Those who explain the dominance of men in leadership by citing women’s “personal choices,” which of course they respect and have no wish to influence. Others who make a fuss of visibly promoting alpha females (usually without kids) to prove their gender neutrality, while alienating the next generation of women. Those who proudly say they hire the best candidate regardless of gender, without ever considering that their definition of “best” might be rigidly male.”

This blindness and denial is not only unconscionable, it's harmful to business effectiveness. Avivah goes on to say:

“That’s where many managers still are, mostly unconsciously. Denying differences. Some, like Roberts, use the differences to rationalize the gender gap. But without understanding all the issues that affect, influence, and irritate women, it’s pretty hard to create gender-balanced workplaces or to connect with female consumers sustainably.”

“Rather than ignoring gender issues, it’s increasingly important for 21st–century leaders to understand them — deeply. When you can speak to both men and women, without alienating either, that’s “gender bilingualism.” It has nothing to do with Men Are from Mars–esque stereotypes, and everything to do with embracing gender differences along a whole range of masculine and feminine career cycles, communication styles, and differing attitudes to power. And in the world Roberts describes, “a world where we need, like we’ve never needed before, integration, collaboration, connectivity, and creativity,” gender bilingualism is increasingly a leadership skill.”



This is the first reason that Roberts got it so wrong. He didn't just suggest it is not an issue, he clearly stated that the problem is solved, because he believes that women who think and behave just like the worst kind of stereotypical old white men, are doing just fine in the advertising industry.

Mainstream and social media were quick to cotton on to Roberts’ expressed views in the interview and he was promptly suspended pending internal disciplinary processes. He resigned on 3rd August.

Advertising agency creative work is collaborative, fast paced and can be great fun. Agency leadership roles managing business and people usually isn’t. But this is hardly solid grounds to conclude that no women really want to make this transition.

Historically, the principal measures of career success have been rank and pay. The default generalisation is the higher we climb on these particular ladders, the more successful we are assumed to be. And the more fulfilled and happy too.

But this is a way too simplistic view. Reality is different. It is nuanced and often it is entirely the contrary. I know a lot of other old white guys who hold senior positions and would gladly give them up if they knew how to survive without them. They are tired, disgruntled, cynical and burned out. They have little or no fun at all in their work. They’d gladly hand their jobs over to another man, woman or hermaphrodite if they were given half a chance.

This disengagement is because too many organisations have retained cultures which place a premium on Alpha-male competitiveness. Cultures where only lip service is paid to collaboration and inclusivity. Cultures where there is tokenism. Cultures where a winner takes all mentality prevails.

Why do we continue to define success simply in terms of positions on an org chart and pay scale? The millennials have it right. Success is about doing the things at work from which we derive most satisfaction. Whatever those things are and whatever gender we are. But implicit in Robert's comments is that connectivity, collaboration and gender appreciation might be useful for his staff but are not terribly valuable characteristics for industry leaders. It reflects an old world view, not the reality of 21st century business leadership.

He said:

“So we are trying to impose our antiquated shit on them, and they are going: ‘actually guys, you’re missing the point, you don’t understand: I’m way happier than you.’ Their ambition is not a vertical ambition, it’s this intrinsic, circular ambition to be happy. So they say: ‘We are not judging ourselves by those standards that you idiotic dinosaur-like men judge yourself by’. I don’t think [the lack of women in leadership roles] is a problem. I’m just not worried about it because they are very happy, they’re very successful, and doing great work.”

And this is where Roberts committed hara-kiri; he asserted that there is no problem, because women are choosing to work to different definitions of success. Not that these definitions are essential to everyone at all levels of the organisation.

The thing that astonished and disappointed me most though was that a man who is (was) at the very top of a huge global business which specializes in media and communications somehow thought that he could express these opinions and not get killed for it. He more than most people should understand how the media, his peers and the public would be likely to react to any statement of denial on this topic.

It seems to me that the real issue for organisations in the 21st century isn’t how to make organisations blind to gender, measuring 'equality' using old world metrics of  pay and seniority; it is how to harness and fulfill the unique talents and aspirations of all employees regardless of age, gender or race. And to recognize that leadership teams exclusively reserved for alpha men are at a serious competitive disadvantage in the digital age.

But then I’m an old white guy, so what do I know?



Cut and paste catastrophes – revisited.



By Neil Patrick

This feels like a topic which is going to run and run. But I couldn’t let today’s latest job description/cut and paste catastrophe that reached my desk pass without comment. It's time for yet more car-crash HR...



We want one of these and we want it cheap.


This latest example is so mind-boggling that I cannot even begin to add my usual line by line commentary. In fact I really don’t need to – anyone who's had a job in business can see that this job description has been written by madmen (or women).

It’s a job for a digital marketing manager allegedly. In reality, it’s a job for a whole department of specialists.

To perform this role effectively, you’ll need to have solid evidence of accomplishments in:

Coding, digital and traditional marketing, media planning and execution, search engine optimisation, market analysis, sales strategy development, marketing planning, data warehousing and analysis, software evaluation, PR, research and testing, creative skills, content writing and proof reading, outsourcing management, oh yes and hands on experience of the legal, property and conveyancing industries.

How anyone at the proposed salary level in this massively under-resourced jobs sector is expected to have acquired all or even the majority of these requirements is quite beyond me.

Whilst doing this, you’ll be held accountable for high quality and high volume results i.e. generating a lot of sales leads, all the while maintaining a cool head (despite your complete mental and physical exhaustion).

Obviously the people responsible for this job posting think such skills are so abundant in the marketplace that there will be an eager queue of qualified candidates, because the salary for this job is…wait for it… £25k-£30k a year – around $32k - $39k.

This is the natural outcome of what some have called the hunt for the purple squirrel. The self-defeating hiring strategy where a job is so massively, intensely and minutely specified that no-one could possibly come close to meeting the requirement – at any salary level.

How could any self-respecting HR or hiring manager sign off this job description? It almost appears as if someone has laid off a whole department and come up with the brilliant idea of replacing everyone with just one polymath (presumably supplied with large quantities of amphetamines) to do everyone’s work.

I really hope no-one I know is ‘lucky’ enough to get hired for this job. Perhaps some of my recruiting and HR friends who read this blog would care to provide your reactions in the comments section below – even if only to confirm I haven’t lost the plot?

Anyway for your delight and entertainment here’s the posting in full:



Digital Marketing Manager

Permanent, full time.



The Role:

To support the Sales and Marketing Director in the delivery of Company marketing strategies; with the main focus on managing online presence and supporting the long-term successful promotion and deployment of marketing initiatives of the businesses.



Responsibilities:

Plan and execute all web, SEO/SEM, marketing database, email, social media and display advert campaigns.

To manage PPC strategy constantly - reviewing performance and return on investment.

To oversee the online reputation management of all companies as required.

Design, build and maintain social media presence.

Measure and report on the performance of all digital marketing campaigns, and assess against goals (ROI and KPIs).

Identify trends and insights, and optimise spend and performance.

Brainstorm new and creative growth strategies.

Plan, execute, and measure experiments and conversion tests.

Collaborate with internal teams to create landing pages and optimise user experience.

Utilise strong analytical ability to evaluate end-to-end customer experience across multiple channels and customer touch points.

Instrument conversion points and optimise user funnels.

Evaluate emerging technologies. Provide thought leadership and perspective for adoption where appropriate.

Arranging the effective distribution of marketing materials.

Maintaining and updating customer databases.

Create, develop and deploy effective marketing plans and strategies.

Monitoring competitor activity.

Managing the production and distribution of marketing materials, including leaflets, posters, flyers, newsletters and e-newsletters.

Writing and proofreading press releases and copy.

Liaising with designers and printers.

Supporting the Sales and Marketing Director wherever needed.

Work closely with PR agencies to build strong relationships with the press and managing all aspects of PR for the business.



Education/Skills/attributes required:


Essential;

Proven working experience in digital and traditional marketing.

Experience leading and managing SEO/SEM, marketing database, email, social media, websites, news feeds and display advertising campaigns.

The ability to produce high quality, high volume results.

Highly creative with experience in identifying target audiences and devising campaigns that engage, inform and motivate.

Experience in optimising landing pages and user funnels.

Experience with A/B and multivariate experiments.

Solid knowledge of website analytic tools (e.g., Google Analytics, NetInsight, Omniture, WebTrends).

Working knowledge of ad serving tools (e.g., DART, Atlas).

Experience in setting up and optimising Google Adwords campaigns.

Working knowledge of HTML, CSS, and JavaScript development and constraints.

Strong analytical skills and data-driven thinking.

Up-to-date with the latest trends and best practices in online marketing and measurement.

Experience in managing the production of marketing materials, including leaflets, posters, flyers, newsletters and e-newsletters.



Desirable;

Experience of the Property/Conveyancing Industry.

Relevant marketing qualification (CIM etc).

Experience handling high volume digital campaigns in the legal sector.



Personal Qualities


Managing Yourself;


Self-motivated and willing to take the lead and be personally accountable.

Copes effectively in demanding circumstances showing confidence in own ability and judgment.

Able to manage priorities and time effectively adopting a flexible approach to work, willing and able to delegate as appropriate.

Demonstrates persistence and commitment to completing tasks and objectives.

Pays attention to detail and quality of work.

Demonstrates a commitment to improving working practices and supports company plans and policies.



Working with People;

Ability to build and maintain excellent working relationships with others.

Confident, logical and articulate in oral and written communication, including giving formal presentations to groups.

Ability to project a dynamic and positive image of themselves and our organisation to those outside the business.

Uses effective skills to present a case clearly and succinctly to achieve a positive outcome.

Operates effectively as part of a team, encouraging others to contribute ideas and seek improvements.

Willing to offer help to all colleagues to ensure company success.



Managing Commercially;

Understands the commercial environment and has a clear vision of where the business needs to be, developing creative and innovative marketing plans to achieve commercial success.

Shows strong focus on satisfying Introducer and Client needs, taking positive action to ensure needs are met.

Understands the importance of business targets and how they impact on their responsibilities.

Makes sound commercial judgments based on issues key to the success of the business.

Knows when to seek guidance or further input from others before taking action.



Salary is £25,000 - £30,000 per annum



My suggestion is that this job description can be streamlined to a much more truthful and effective description:

"Company with poor understanding of marketing operations seeks broadly skilled and energetic marketer with good digital skills. You should be ambitious and resilient and know how to generate a lot of sales leads via online media. Should thrive in a chaotic environment. Salary highly negotiable and will be generous to reflect the scarcity and high value of these skills".

But then HR would never sign this off would they?





The trouble with tech is wealth destruction



By Neil Patrick

I love tech. But I hate what it is doing to jobs and wealth creation. Any voice of concern on this subject risks being shouted down as Luddite. But being branded a Luddite is not the worst thing that can happen; a whole society sleepwalking over a cliff is a far greater worry.


Robert Ludd: NOT my role model

There's a great deal of corporate and government spin about the impact of technology on jobs. If I didn’t default to the notion that cock-ups, not conspiracies, are man’s most common failing, I’d be signing up for the Loony Tunes’ New World Order Conspiracy news feeds.

At first, it was argued that technology would just enable higher quality and less costly goods. Then, when the first layoffs due to automation started happening, it was argued that only tedious and repetitive jobs would be displaced. As disruptive business models, artificial intelligence and robotics become increasingly advanced, both these defences have crumbled.

Then the really big changes started. Whole industries began to be disrupted by new tech-enabled business models. Travel agents are being disrupted by Trip Advisor and Airbnb. Cab drivers by Uber. Retailing by Amazon. Banking by PayPal. And worse, every successful disruptive business replaces a job heavy industry sector with a jobs-lite one.

The last remaining argument for tolerance of the jobs carnage created by the tech tsunami is that the Wikipedia version of history tells us technological progress is inevitable, and has only ever resulted in greater wealth and a better society. But this assertion doesn’t bear much scrutiny if you have even a basic knowledge of economic history.

The latest piece of expert group think I stumbled upon comes from none other than Deloitte. They published a paper in December 2014 entitled, ‘Technology and people: The great job-creating machine’ by Ian Stewart, Debapratim De and Alex Cole - all economists working at Deloitte; experts by most people’s definition.

An interesting footnote is that whilst the document is branded as Deloitte’s, it contains a disclaimer that the report is merely the personal views of its authors…do Deloitte’s legal team sense these views could be a bit controversial? Why would Deloitte wish to distance themselves in this way?

Anyway, the document makes the same old arguments that there is no historical situation which has shown that technology has done anything other than create more jobs and greater wealth. And by inference, anyone who argues that this time it’s different is a Luddite.

History can be an unreliable teacher. Is it really a good idea to place our faith in an argument, just because something has never happened before? That this ship is so vast and splendid it is unsinkable?

And just as a little reminder, the first industrial revolution in Britain didn’t actually create more jobs. It merely absorbed the millions of unemployed agricultural workers put out of work by Jethro Tull’s seed drill and other agricultural innovations.

When I looked at the evidence based on UK data presented by Deloitte, they helpfully show us how whilst some jobs are disappearing fast, others are growing rapidly. But looking at this data I also spotted a massively frightening detail. Here’s the table in question:



Notice anything about the nature of the jobs gained versus the ones lost?

It’s this. Almost all the new jobs are low pay and/or mostly in the public sector.

And most of the shrinking occupations are in the private sector.

By far the largest growth sector for jobs between 1992 and 2014 was nursing auxiliaries and assistants. The reason is simple and we all know that the aging population is driving this. Over this period, more than 270,000 new jobs materialised in this field. The second biggest growth sector added almost 420,000 extra jobs. Too bad then that these jobs were for educational assistants i.e. people who earn even less than teachers.

Low pay is bad enough, but public sector jobs pose an even bigger economic problem. They are paid for not by sales to domestic and overseas customers, but from taxes collected into the treasury. Public sector jobs support our society but are simply terrible as engines of economic growth. And growth is the one thing that economies worldwide are desperate to find these days.

Public sector jobs do not create economic growth and sustainable household wealth, they merely spend government (and our) money. Money taken from us and businesses in tax (unless you are Google or Amazon). It is then spent for us by the government on the things they decide we want and need. Sure some of this government spending trickles through to the private sector, but  there's a dreadfully expensive and inefficient pile of government bureaucracy acting as the middleman in this business model.

What is worse is that public sector jobs don’t make the nation richer. They are not exported. They are horribly complex to manage and operate not because the people are dumb, but because all large organisations struggle with efficiency. And more of them add to an already swollen and debt-burdened state which must borrow endlessly to sustain its spending.

You may well disagree with me. You may well trust that the experts in our governments and corporations have our best interests at heart. That the frequent cases of greed and exploitation by ruthless capitalist businesses are a more than adequate reason to reject my argument.

So in the interests of presenting a balanced view, here’s a quotation from the Deloitte report:

Change is the prerequisite for improving welfare. Until the eighteenth century the organisation of work was largely fixed and the material condition of the masses was miserable. It was the wrenching change of the industrial revolution, the application of steam power to production, urbanisation and the rise of manufacturing that brought improvements in material conditions and life expectancy for working people. Technology has transformed productivity and living standards, and, in the process, created new employment in new sectors. Machines will continue to reduce prices, democratising what was once the preserve of the affluent and furnishing the income for increased spending in new and existing areas.

Machines will take on more repetitive and laborious tasks, but seem no closer to eliminating the need for human labour than at any time in the last 150 years. It is not hard to think of pressing, unmet needs even in the rich world: the care of the elderly and the frail, lifetime education and retraining, health care, physical and mental well-being. The stock of work in the economy is not fixed; the last 200 years demonstrates that when a machine replaces a human, the result, paradoxically, is faster growth and, in time, rising employment. The work of the future is likely to be varied and have a bigger share of social interaction and empathy, thought, creativity and skill. We cannot forecast the jobs of the future, but we believe that jobs will continue to be created, enhanced and destroyed much as they have in the last 150 years.


The trouble with this opinion is that the first technological revolution merely transferred labour from the agricultural and subsistence existence of the rural poor, to the impoverished drudgery of urban manufacturing centres. The owners of capital flourished and became wealthy. Cities expanded and became wealthy. Central and local government expanded and became wealthy. Workers did not. Urban slums and squalor replaced rural shacks and poverty.

So the first industrial revolution, didn’t actually create more jobs or better standards of living for workers. However, the second industrial revolution did. This was when mass communication in the form of TV, radio and the telephone enabled the rise of truly global businesses. These businesses coupled mass production economies of scale with vast global markets.

They needed huge numbers of middle managers to support and supervise their activities. And these are today the vast global corporations that are slowly but surely being disrupted to death by thousands of niche start-ups and new business models. In the US and Europe in particular, this is why the middle class is becoming an endangered species.

The key difference between this historical perspective and the reality of today is that the monetary basis on which society is built is different. And the biggest and most critical difference is debt. The debt of businesses. The debt of citizens and governments.

A debt burdened society can only survive when it has a stable and growing income. Stable to ensure debt repayments cans always be met. And growing to help lessen the total burden of debt as a proportion of income. Just like when we take out a mortgage to buy a house, we are gambling that our future income will be stable and reliable enough to meet the repayments for the next 25 years.

But today’s incomes are less stable and secure than ever before. A cotton mill worker might have endured terrible working conditions and low pay, but at least their work was relatively secure and they were not crippled with debt. Today, the combination of housing undersupply (not helped by the debt burden of house builders) and prices inflated by overseas speculators keeps young people out of home ownership. Student loans mean young people are hobbled by debt before they even land a job.

This financial dimension is inextricably linked to the nature of the threat of technology. And it’s something that cannot be unknown to anyone with even a basic grasp of financial and economic matters. Let alone someone working at Deloitte.

Which begs the question, ‘Why might the experts want to persuade us otherwise?’

That’s a question I am not going to attempt to answer. You can call me a Luddite if you wish. That I can live with. But I really have no wish to be classed a conspiracy theorist. For now at least.