The Inevitable Rant: Gaming the System

At these quarterly meetings, I spend 8 hours a day in a room surrounded by ad executives, and every time, I find myself brooding about something I've heard or witnessed that really gets under my skin. I should be used to it by now, but certain things still bother me. I can deal with people disagreeing with me. I can deal with people not understanding the cultural context of certain work, and thus not being able to judge it correctly. I can deal with people who are incapable of contributing anything of substance to the collective conversation. What I can't deal with are people who see a group that has gathered primarily to improve the work of our company, and to use this context as a means for advancing their own agenda. The committee I'm a part of exists primarily to support and educate our peers to the standards we expect for anything produced by Leo Burnett. It's a tool designed to teach and refine. Yet as with all judging systems, there are those who seek out ways to game the system. People inevitably find ways to lobby for their own work, and to seek out rewards for themselves. Every form of democracy has its special interests. Here, I find myself burning on the inside when I see committee members docking points for other people's work for no rational reason. I cannot stand watching people pull other people down simply to inflate their own egos. It's something that happens in advertising all the time, and its part of the competitive nature of the business, but it takes a certain mentality to engage in it. I don't believe there's any role for that in the GPC, and it's largely absent, but every now and then you can sense it in the room if you're paying attention to the score breakdown. Some people use their vote to be vindictive and petty: this is the scourge of representative democracy the world over. I should be used to it, but I can't make peace with it, especially in this context. I believe that mentality reflects a certain ignorance of the heritage of Leo Burnett. It's not just a company, it's also a man, with a definite ethos, and very strong beliefs about how to do business. And make no mistake, there is a right way to do things... I believe the GPC exists not to diminish or criticize, but to build up the network. We are brought together not to pat each other on the back, but to pull everyone up to the same level, so that we're all eying the same horizon. We are a global team, not a collection of individual agencies laboring under the same logo. Your contribution to this group is only as good as how much you can help your peers. This is what I believe, regarding the GPC, but this kind of constructive approach isn't always found amongst every panelist. Instead, there's a lot of horse-trading, a lot of furrowed brows, and a lot of jockeying for scores. It's never overt, but you can see it in the score breakdowns... People who enter into communities and strive only to advance their own interests need to be checked. Or, if no such rebuke is forthcoming from anyone, I simply wish they'd take a long look in the mirror to contemplate what they are looking for in the accolades they are seeking. This is a business where people want to be validated, affirmed, and praised for their work. There is a deep need for awards. The GPC, however, is not an award show. The work that scores lowest needs the most attention, and I wish more panelists recognized that this is where the problem lies. Great work already has smart, driven people behind it, who know how to produce great communication. I wish our focus was more on the work that clearly needs a compass, an idea, or direction. A collective brain trust is not assembled to polish already shiny pieces. It must also serve to fix the most pressing problems...