Michael Pollock is an Executive Coach and Consultant for Creative and Media Professionals and has helped to build the careers and businesses of film makers and designers, TV, PR and advertising, web people, architects and composers: all sorts of people in creative businesses.
Michael has worked in advertising, marketing, Internet, filmmaking and postproduction, design and the music businesses bringing his unique set of experience to the service of creative people and businesses.
He has appeared on The CBS TV This Morning show, speaking as an expert on career advancement issues.
L&M: You have a very extensive background in the advertising world, yet your education is a Bachelor in Science, Physics. That is quite a departure; what led you to advertising?
MP: I grew up with the narrow and specialized curriculum of an old fashioned English boys school – By the time I was heading to University, my English boy’s school had only qualified me to read Physics or Chemistry. And I never really mastered Organic Chemistry – so Physics it was. There was no liberal arts program and I had no useful advisors. But my Bristol University experience opened my eyes to things I had never dreamt of and I became a stranger to the physics lab. I threw myself into running the University of Bristol Operatic Society, staging performances of rarely performed works. And I thought we should get some attention for this. So I lured the leading music critics from all the major national papers to see us. They had to travel a hundred miles from London so this was not a trivial matter. They all covered us – with almost a whole page in the distinguished arts section of the Financial Times! The BBC recorded us and excerpts were carried on European radio stations.
So I learned – self-taught - how to get attention and manage a story. A counselor in the careers office (with the aid of one of those multiple choice tests) told me about the advertising business. I had never heard of it, so I went to the library and found brochures from some of the big agencies – and boy did they made it seem attractive!
I got an intro to an ad biz professional and met him in a London wine bar (how cool was I!) He brought pages from a trade directory and pointed me tp 36 agencies I should consider, identifying the leaders to contact. This was a different era – I hand-wrote letters to these 36 MDs. But within days, the Post Office had gone on strike and after a couple of weeks I had no idea if any of these letters had been delivered. So one more trip up to London and in three days I showed up unannounced at 18 of these agencies. From that I got three actual on-the-spot interviews – and one of them took me on as an apprentice. As luck would have it, this was at CDP the most influential and exciting creative agency of the era. They never even asked me if I had graduated, or what I had been studying.
L&M: In 2001 you started Pollock*Spark an executive coaching and consulting firm. What inspired you to go in that direction?
MP: My career had taken me through ad agencies and film production and postproduction and then to Digitas, one of the new digital agencies –where in early 2001 I was their “broadband guy” – in a narrowband world. The bubble burst and I was spit out, along with so many others. As luck would have it, I was quickly called by someone who owned a creative film-making shop who wanted some consultation on how to move his business forward having seen me in a previous job helping to build business for one of his competitors. So that became a short-term gig that led to launching Pollock Spark. Over the years my practice came to include what I realized was coaching of the business owners and leaders who were my clients. So after a time I started using the Words: Executive Coaching for Creative Professionals” in my offering and that led to a whole new type of individual client.
L&M: You have worked with creative people throughout your career. Are there any that stand out to you as leaders?
MP: Hmm; creative people – yes and some terrifically talented ones and certainly a number who achieved great things, so perhaps they were good leaders in the sense of business or creative success – but some of them were not nice people nor pleasant to work for. But they do stand out and can be lauded for what they achieved. I worked for one ad agency boss who prided himself on his psychologically manipulative and bullying leadership style. He made a point of not giving praise or thanks to those who did the work – and knew just how to stick the pin in so it wounded. He was in fact extremely effective in getting the creative and business results he wanted, and he surrounded himself with people who seemed to respond to the kind of humiliation he dispensed; the absence of abuse on any given day was seen by them as a blessing to be desired. And while I watched them squirm, they kept on trying to win his favor – the turnover here was remarkably low. If you knew what heights of success this person has achieved you would be amazed – and you have heard of him! This is a style I have chosen not to adopt – but it would be hard to say he did not stand out to me!
Then there is another agency chairman running a different global firm – who grabbed me by the lapels and pushed me up against the wall in the stairwell to make his point – it should be noted that this was our first work discussion, and while he had already hired me, I had not yet started, was not yet on his payroll. I did not as it happens follow his bidding on this occasion. He however did succeed in building a dramatically large empire. I guess he is another stand out.
L&M: Has there been a leader that has inspired you?
MP: I was inspired in my formative years by a young ad agency manager –my first one – Frank Lowe (now Sir Frank), at CDP before he started his own agency. He knew how to build a business and had tremendous respect, even fascination, for top notch creative talent. He loved being around it and he created an environment where creativity would flourish. Clearly the agency had this spirit already in place – but the founders who had set the tone had moved upstairs and Frank had inherited of the mantle so he was the one I admired in my apprenticeship.
My next bosses, Terry Stone and Brian Mindel, ran a small film production company in London. They let me loose and gave me my head. I worked really hard for them and rose quickly. They had put together a small group of us and we enjoyed being together. They set very high standards of creativity – and yet they gave me all the rope I could take. And on the occasion where I did screw up – they knew I had learned from it and they made me feel better. “You’ll never make that mistake again!” This tiny company won 6 Lions and the Palme D’Or at Cannes in my second year with them. And none of us were present in Cannes – we only found out a few days later!
And then there is Shakespeare’s Henry V firing up his troops with the amazing St Crispin’s Day speech before the Battle of Agincourt. Read it again and see how he appeals to their pride and their sense of specialness – how he persuades them to “belong”. Though maybe 1600 of Henry’s “band of brothers” were to give their lives – he had successfully roused his wounded and diminished army to roundly defeat the much larger and stronger French force. Can’t be bettered.
L&M: Those bosses were in essence mentors demonstrating great leadership. Have you had others that helped you through your career?
MP: I think because of my early good experience with bosses who gave me some room in the context of the highest possible standards – this has always been the most effective method for me. Micromanagement never worked on me – I would resist or push back – and not always constructively – so this is not a part of my toolkit. I had been given opportunities and it was up to me to realize them. I suppose there was a safety net – but it never became that apparent. A couple of the creative directors I worked for at ad agency Ogilvy and Mather were great to work for: Jay Jasper and Jay Schulberg, both gave me tremendous room to grow and gain confidence in my own judgment. They were demanding creatively and gave praise when things came out well. They focused on the creative work we produced, which had to be as good as it could be if not better, and not on personalities and power plays. This may seem obvious, but too often competitive factors and apparently arbitrary taste-based standards can inspire creative professionals to great insecurities; a manipulative boss can exploit his employees fears rather than emphasizing the quality of the work and amplifying strengths. Jasper and Schulberg’s management style was based on them carefully selecting hires that they actually liked and wanted to succeed and grow. Their own success depended on their team’s success – so the motivations were all in line.
L&M: Have you been a mentor to anyone?
MP: I have never had the titular role of mentor – though people I worked with have told me how helpful I had been for them in their careers. I have hired many juniors and trained them in my own way, inspired by own training: finding out what they wanted for themselves, giving them room to grow, guiding them to solve their own problems, demonstrating good work habits and working with their strengths. I am quietly proud of the people I have helped to bring along who have subsequently become stars in their own right.
When I was Executive Producer at a film editing company I was in essence providing mentorship to the editors – working with them on a daily basis on how to manage clients and crises, juggle projects, focus on the important issues and not get bogged down with the small stuff, and often talking them in off the metaphorical ledge.
As an Executive Coach I provide mentorship to creative professionals who are moving their careers forward, or transitioning. For owners of creative businesses too I act as a mentor (albeit a compensated one!) – giving guidance on specific issues of operations or marketing and other daily dilemmas; though for my New York clients, the role has often been called consigliere rather than mentor!
Actually, as I dredge my memory, I was for a while working with a film maker shooting a film about a New York dance party phenomenon. I looked back at the business cards he made for me and the title he gave me was “Mentor, Guru”!
L&M: Like you I believe you learn just as much if not more from your encounters with bad leaders. Have you ever thought about how great they could have been if they had better leadership skills?
MP: I have to think about this.
What is the metric for good leadership in business? For a shareholder a good leader is probably one who delivers the dividend or grows share value. If they get what they want they feel they have a good leader in place.
For an employee, the good leader may be someone who gives them room, treats them with respect, assists their growth and above all compensates them well and gives frequent raises.
These two views of the leader are not necessarily compatible. Objectively I suppose an excellent leader is someone who keeps both groups happy.
I work as an Executive Coach with folk from some of the largest and biggest name media businesses – hugely successful enterprises – some of whom talk about a culture of bullying and use words like sweatshop. But I am sure that these companies’ shareholders would say that these are successful businesses and for that they credit the great leadership.
How did the employees at Apple feel working for Steve Jobs? I was working with a former colleague of Jobs when he passed away – he was disgusted at the adulation – said he was a terrible person to work for. But surely from many angles Jobs could be said to have been a good leader.
The point at which the employee loses respect for the leader is usually at the point where the larger corporate goal is no longer aligned with the individual employee’s goal. Is this a matter of hiring well so that these are always in sync? Is it a matter of helping the employee to reframe their own goals when the corporation changes its focus?
During one round of layoffs following a successful takeover when I had to give the bad news to a number of my reports, I was told by my chairman: they won’t like it today, but in a year’s time they will realize it was the best thing that could have happened to them. I think that was in fact true – since the goals of the corporation could no longer be sustainably in sync with the employees’ goals, it was time for them to find a new opportunity. No amount of good people leadership could have overcome the bottom line demands of the business goal du jour at that point.
But is the leadership that effectively delivers the short term dividend also effective in the long run? Henry V may have been terrific at leading his small army to beat the French at Agincourt, but once the battle had been won and it was on the next thing, would the brilliant motivational tricks he had used be equally effective on a second occasion? Would the friends and families of the 1600 dead archers or the wounded describe him as a great leader after the battle was done?
The great leader for the battle is often not the best one to build on that victory. As Churchill observed: “Those who can win a war well can rarely make a good peace and those who could make a good peace would never have won the war.” And he himself did lose that first post war election.
So back to the tale of the stand out leader I once worked for. You ask if he might have been more effective if he had been a good leader. Did I actually say he was bad?
I would say that the results he created while he was managing were stellar. Business wins, creative wins, low staff turnover, he ran a tight ship and even the people who might have grown more given “better leadership” were proud to be a part of it. Surviving in such a challenging environment was seen as a badge of honor. Was everyone happy? No. Were they putting their every effort into pleasing the boss? You bet they were.
The most significant area where his results fell down, where he could have been more effective – was in the succession. He had not permitted middle managers to grow and so did not have a potential successor in the company, because those kind of people did not fit his mold. The problem of succession was enormous. There was no one competent to take over when he moved on. He was extremely effective for the 7 or 8 years he was in charge – but he left an organization that subsequently drifted for years without him. So arguably the leadership style that proved strong for the mid-term turned out to have been a bad thing for the longer haul.
...to be continued...
Michael Pollock
Copyright 2013 Leadership and More.
(No part of this may be reproduced in any fashion without prior consent from the author or the subject.)