So Kevin Roberts has been suspended as the Chairman of advertising agency, Saatchi & Saatchi. This was after he agreed to be interviewed by Business Insider and was asked what he thought about gender diversity in the advertising industry.
Disastrously, Roberts gave a thoughtful and sincere answer. In no way was his response chauvinistic; it would be surprising if it had been given that 65 per cent of the staff at Saatchi are women. But he still seems to have lapsed into thought crime.
Memo to business high-ups when asked about this in future:
– Stay safe.
– Stick to platitudes.
– Recite dreary guff from the HR department.
– Never, ever, tell jokes.
Or just don’t give interviews.
Group think has spread out from academia and Quangoland to conquer large corporates. The irony is that on no other subject is there a more stringent demand for uniformity than the sensitive matter of “diversity”. Only identikit opinion can be tolerated. Truth as the basis for deviant views does not seem to amount to a defence. Personal experiences may prove inconveniently at odds with the prevailing orthodoxy. It is best to keep quiet about such complications.
In his interview, Roberts said he felt there was little discrimination against women in his industry. It was “way worse” in financial services, he suggested. He said: “We have a bunch of talented, creative females, but they reach a certain point in their careers… 10 years of experience, when we are ready to make them a creative
director of a big piece of business, and I think we fail in two out of three of those choices because the executive involved said: ‘I don’t want to manage a piece of business and people, I want to keep doing the work’”.
Thus his contention is that women are a bit less likely to want such jobs. They are not discriminated against as they do get the offers. But they are more likely to turn them down. “Their ambition is not a vertical ambition. It is 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’”.
He felt the nature of ambition should be revised: “Darwinian urges of wealth, power, and fame — they are not terribly effective in today’s world for a millennial because they want connectivity and collaboration”. Of course he may have got this wrong. It remains important to have the best people in the top jobs. If they are
spurning such offers then potential for the firm is missed. Roberts said there was “not a problem” but I think he meant it was not a problem for those who rejected the offers. It is a problem for the company if it can’t make full use of the talent available.
For all the jargon in company “mission statements” the most effective anti-discrimination safeguard is the requirement to maximise profits – to get the greatest possible return for the shareholders. Achieving that means recruiting and promoting staff on merit. Whatever you think of his analysis, it is perfectly apparent that Roberts appreciates that imperative.
For any industry – advertising more than most – robust free expression is crucial. There needs to be openness, rigour, and a clash of ideas for the creative process to flourish. How many bright young hopes – whether male or female – will look at the shabby treatment given to Roberts and resolve that Saatchis is not the firm for them?
They will look elsewhere for a company with the confidence to allow a range of opinions to be fearlessly expressed.