I've long observed that you can tell whether an animation studio has a good work environment by looking at the size of three groups: Happy and contented workers, mildly okay workers, unhappy workers.
In my experience, every studio contains all three groups. So to find out whether a given cartoon workshop is good, bad or indifferent, just quantify which group is the largest. You'll get a pretty fair idea about the overall quality of that particular studio.
Along these lines, former exec Liz Ryan has kindly provided us with a road map for making a bad cartoon studio even worse:
1. If you desire a mediocre workforce, make sure your employees know you don't trust them ...
2. If you want to drive talented people away, don't tell them when they shine ...
3. If you prefer a team of C-list players, keep employees in the dark ...
4. If you value docility over ingenuity, shout it from the rooftops* ...
5. If you fear an empowered workforce more than you fear the competition, squash any sign of individualism. ...
Obviously no studio manager in his or her right mind is going around spouting the message points above, but over the course of years I've seen plenty of execs -- many who are highly educated -- behave like they carry around Ms. Ryan's article in their back pockets. As a tech director at a high profile entertainment conglomerate said to me not long ago:
"They invite people to their 'open forum' meetings and tell them to speak their minds. But a bunch of us have noticed that anybody who takes them up on the offer and asks a pointed question is gone a couple of months later ..."
Over time, this has a ... what's the phrase? ... chilling effect on openness, collegiality and creativity in the studio workplace.
Two-and-a half-years ago, I had a smiling studio exec tell me: "It's all about improving morale and growing a studio where people want to work, that's what we're about." The studio for which he worked had (and has) about the worst morale of any workplace I visit, so obviously there's some disconnect or willful hallucination going on.
From my perspective it's really pretty simple. If your studio is headed by people who don't listen, who are thin-skinned about criticism, who fire people who won't toe the company line (whatever it happens to be that day), then the creative flow around the place is going to be way less than optimum, the product will be less than the best, and employee morale will end up crappy.
And of course anybody with the guts to point this out to the Top Dogs will probably get his or her ass fired.
* In Hollywoodland, #4 usually is proclaimed in the reverse: Studio managers will tell you, over and over, what a swell place their company is, work-wise. That's almost always a tip off that ... it ain't.
So what jazzes high-cognitive, creative workers? Mark Mayerson posted a useful video on the subject a few days ago. We crib it here:
Posts
11 comments:
Fantastic video presentation. Thank you for posting this.
This reminds me of William Bernstein's essay, "The Executioner of Excellence." One excerpt:
...were pay related to performance, then Disney, Time Warner, and Blockbuster should be the best-run firms in the United States. ...
Thank you for this post.
Another lame hr "specialist" explaining something they know nothing about, nor have ever implemented anywhere.
This chick is loaded with business school mumbo jumbo. Only person worse is the absolutely LOADED with b.s. guy "glass half full." Failed Broadway producer who now "consults" his HR b.s. for lots of money.
Liz Ryan is a business academic, with no real world experience--especially where it relates to animation film making.
According to the video; find people who like to do somethig, and they will work hard for little or no reward.
Hmmm.
Isn't that what the "contests" for artists work do? I'll have to see if Mark Mayerson noticed this.
According to the video; find people who like to do somethig, and they will work hard for little or no reward.
No. The video clearly stated that once you pay creative people enough to not worry about money, additional money fails as a further incentive. Once they earn enough money, creative people prefer jobs that offer autonomy, mastery, and purpose.
-+-
As a visual effects artist, I can vouch for this. In 2004 I worked at two wildly different jobs that paid well over $2000/week. Both jobs paid enough for me to not worry about money.
One job put me in a freezing cold ex-film vault, spilled into 12-hour days and required that I bring my own equipment. However, I could solve problems however I liked, learn new skills on the job and had terrific co-workers who all believed in the project. I loved that job. I still have fond memories of that project.
The other job gave me a professional work environment, superb benefits and top-flight hardware. However, I was surrounded with soul-killing office politics and awful mismanagement. It doesn't sound too bad in writing, but by the end of that project I was ready to quit the whole VFX industry.
To the skeptical third poster who dismisses Liz Ryan's bullet points: Do you believe she is wrong? Do you believe a good, productive workplace happens where employees are fearful, where they're constantly given the message that they're easily replaceable, where they have no idea about the future of the studio, where the only ones being advanced are the best ass-kissers?
Having worked at half a dozen animation studios, and half a dozen other workplaces, I'd say her five points are right on.
She accurately points out the things that DON'T work in the long run, and the video goes on to suggest what DOES work. The real problem, as Steve pointed out, is that too many people in leadership positions give lip service to these ideas, but they're afraid to actually put them into practice.
"According to the video; find people who like to do somethig, and they will work hard for little or no reward."
That is precisely what it means.
She's a "lip service" person--believe me. And she's not particularly good at that, either.
The article is by Liz Ryan, the video is by David Pink. You seem to be confusing the two. You also haven't said where you think Liz Ryan is wrong.
As for the video, you're completely misrepresenting what it's message is. But go ahead and conclude that it's about getting people to work for free for someone else's profit, even though it's not remotely about that.
I'm certain the video producer had no intent to create a method to rip off workers. I'm sure he wanted to find natural ways to motivate people.
But is easy to see how the same technique can be distorted into something that does take advantage of workers unfairly.
Rip-off artists are unable/unwilling to give people 'autonomy, mastery, purpose,' at least for more than brief periods of time. As soon as people see that they're sacrificing making a living so that someone else can make unearned profits, the motivation disappears. It's self-correcting.
The fact is, it's not easy to set up a system that really is motivating, and have it continue to be motivating. Whether you're trying to do it for good or ill, it's something most people in leadership positions don't really get.
I'm certain the video producer had no intent to create a method to rip off workers. I'm sure he wanted to find natural ways to motivate people.
But is easy to see how the same technique can be distorted into something that does take advantage of workers unfairly.
Perhaps. However, the video states more than once that creative people must be paid enough to "not worry about money" before they can be further motivated with non-monetary incentives.
Post a Comment