Related Posts
Bowl Leader
Advice needed - boyfriend has almost 3.5 years of finance experience at a bank. Interviewed for PwC valuation senior associate and now recruiter says they want to hire him at “experienced associate” because he has no valuation experience. Is this too big of a step backwards in career? Should he push back and see if it gets him anywhere? If he does accept Associate, is it reasonable to ask for written, definitive timeline (1 year?) for promo to Senior upon meeting standards? Help!
More Posts
Rising Star
Conversation Starter
Additional Posts in Advertising
Got any jokes?
Best work of 2019 so far?
New to Fishbowl?
Download the Fishbowl app to
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
Chief
If we’re working late, like 11pm, and I pass you in the hall and groan because you’re a moody POS that kills the vibe, I wouldn’t want to work with you even if you had a room full of gold lions and Dan Wieden’s v-card. I’ll take the person who is excited to work and keeps the morale alive.
There’s the answer we’re looking for. Hire someone who is fucking excited to create and will relish the opportunity to do so.
I work with ass hats. They generally steal ideas and throw a fit if they’re not on a brief with award potential. Who’s to say the “talented one” is the one actually coming up with the ideas?
Exactly my thoughts. Asshats are usually asses all around. Creative geniuses rarely are “geniuses” all on their own. They require a tremendous team that picks up all the pieces the “genius” is too lazy, arrogant, or privileged to manage. Including coming up with the idea that actually works and letting him take the credit so he stays happy and his ego is secure. I’ve seen it happen over and over. There is no single person behind a brilliant idea. Ever. End story. Anyone who thinks differently is probably an asshat and considers themselves a “creative genius”. If you want the rest of your team to be miserable hire the jerk.
There’s also a third option-don’t hire either of them and wait for the creative who is wicked clever and understands the value of others. They do exist and it is magical.
My agency always goes for #1. We don’t hire egos.
Award culture is what keeps diversity out of agencies. Being at the right agency with the right award-winning clients isn’t just about talent, a lot of it is luck. If you think someone has the potential to be a star and know they’re a hard worker, I would give them a shot. But if you don’t see potential and look at them mostly as a workhorse, just assess if that’s what you need.
Ass hat, but talk with him about culture and relationships before he starts. Be honest. You’re helping him and your existing team. If he declines the offer you dodged a bullet. Cocky or kind, if you can’t receive considered feedback, you’ve already peaked.
My team hired a more experienced writer with some impressive accolades a few years back. It felt like a chance for me to learn, which I wholeheartedly embraced.
Unfortunately they were a complete jackass. They forced their vision through every project, despite what the client’s wants, and our leaders turned a blind eye because of their experience. But mistakes happen, I get that. What really hurt was the lack of willingness to hear the rest of the team. When I finally broke through with them, actually training alongside them, I realised the gap between their skills and ours just wasn’t all that big.
IMO talent doesn’t mean ego. There are absolutely candidates who can deliver real skill without discouraging the team.
First.
Are these two things mutually exclusive?!?!
Long term, what’s more important? If the nice person is teachable, but isn’t to the level that you want him/her to be at a certain time, will your opinion of that person change? Will you have enough patience to keep teaching? If not, then the nice person ends up losing and will probably not fit into the culture at the end because at the end of the day, the work has to be done.
Good kind people can still perform incredibly well and produce award-winning work. Our industry is stressful and people aren’t two dimensional. Even a kind person has bad days and snaps at people. Mistaking kindness or a team ethic for weakness and a lack of drive is asinine. In my experience, the ass hats last a year before no one wants to work with them and they leave.
I’ve also been thinking a lot about how easy it is to give in to the impulse to be a jerk. Anger is an easy cop out and it doesn’t equal authority. It’s much harder to remain calm, supportive, and constructive. It takes a lot more self control to stay humble and look at every aspect of a project for what it is. It also requires showing strength and steel when necessary and building a team that works well together. Unfortunately, it’s also an overlooked superpower
Well u want rockstars. And they know they're rockstar and will expect to be treated as such.
But unless they're truly acting solo, which is rare, then their rockstar output relies on a team, and d baggery inhibits that and the associated exceptionalism.
So to me yeah I'm down with giving passes to high performers, but in a team setting the greats aren't alienating that team.
Well like anything else it can be done well or badly.
But I think we can all agree that talent varies, retaining good talent is generally beneficial, and it makes sense to deploy resources to things that are beneficial.
In this case that resource is the time/energy/thought for a more bespoke set of expectations.
Is the cocky ad star too big for their britches? I’ve worked with some good ones who are the worst, but can at least take feedback.
And I’ve fired some good ones who are the worst, but can’t seem to take any feedback (including from GCDs/above).