Roundtable Report: The ‘Daffy Duck’ Syndrome

Sponsored by:

www.aquent.com

Guests Attending:

Steve Hutson- Aquent
Xavier Adam- AMC
Steve Miller IAB
Carla Cotterell- Advertising.com
Melena Jacavou- Propel London
Emma Wilson- Harvest Digital
Philippe Jeanjean- Edencancan
Rob Sheffield- Aquent
Jason Loader- Fingal
Lee Branch- The Friday Pint
Sue Nunn- Aquent
Nicky Swain Digital Outlook
Robin Langford Netimperative
Davina Lines- Netimperative
Jennifer Murphy- Netimperative

Steve Hutson, European Manager for New Media at Aquent, began the debate by running through some revealing statistics. A recent survey conducted by Capital Consulting found that one in four UK employees felt ‘badly treated’ at work, while 55% tell at least 3 people about bad experiences they have had at work.  In addition, a significant quarter of respondents (25%) rates rated ‘meaningful work’ as the most important factor in deciding on a job.

Steve went on to look at a common figure found in most workplace environments. He defined these individuals as talented and driven, but also temperamental, domineering people who fail to work well with others. Hence, ‘Daffy Duck’, the smart-but-demanding Looney Tunes character, was a good embodiment of these attributes, Steve explained.

Steve then split the panelists into two teams, and asked them draw their interpretation of what they thought a typical ‘Daffy’ would look like, based on their own workplace experiences, with some very artistic results!

The major attributes that came out of the panelists’ illustrations are listed below.

Key symptoms of the ‘Daffy Duck’ syndrome:

• Not good with people, but good at what they do
• Driven individuals- But often focused on themselves
• 24/7 people- always ‘switched on’ to work, even during their leisure hours
• Often possesses ‘niche’ skills
• Have a strong network of contacts behind them
• Often make snap decisions
• Picky over details
• Can be like talking to a brick wall- Hear what they want to hear
• Fast-paced worker
• Colleagues often ‘turn a deaf ear to them’ in defense
• Owners of messy and disorganised workstations

Sue Nunn from Aquent made a distinction between ‘good Daffys and bad Daffys’, and said it was important to spot those individuals that were ultimately harming the company from those that were helping in the long term. Problem workers are easier to spot in smaller firms as opposed to big companies, where it is harder to monitor each employee’s work habits closely.

Craig Hill at Digital Outlook looked at the importance of the initial recruitment process in identifying potential problem workers. He suggested that firms create ‘core values’ to help decide if potential employees are a good fit for the company. He added that it’s far more beneficial to root out ‘Daffy Ducks’ in the interview process than to be forced to confront or sack them months into their employment.

Steve Hutson thought managers should take a ‘reality check’ when considering the benefits of keeping these temperamental employees. He said it makes good business sense to examine if these ‘Daffys’ really are benefiting the company, when weighed up with the negative or disruptive  impact they are having on the rest of the workforce. He added this takes away the fear for employers when deciding to sack someone- turning it into a ‘business decision rather than an emotional one’, adding that its ‘human nature to feel sorry for them’.

Carla Cotterell at Advertising.com highlighted a unique problem within sales departments, where ‘star’ sales people are typically promoted within a year to a management role. This creates a dilemma, as their sales talents may be put to better use making actual sales rather than training others, especially if they fall into the ‘Daffy Duck’ mould.  

Steve Miller at the IAB wondered how company structures and personality clashes come into play during mergers, such as when two MDs are forced into opposing ‘President and CEO’ roles. Speaking from her own experience of mergers, Sue said the best technique was to establish the strengths of each company and restructure the combined companies accordingly.

Session 2

Davina Lines at Netimperative began the second session by asking the panel for ideas on good staff retention strategies. Melena Jacavou at Propel London said salary raises were not necessarily the best incentives to keep an employee. She thought extra holidays were often more effective, and were also more cost efficient for the company.

Carla said that thoughtful gifts were often just as effective a reward as raises or bonuses. Steve Hutson agreed, saying the best (and most overlooked) retention strategy is simply saying ‘thank you’ in recognition of hard work, and taking time to build relationships with staff.

Rob Sheffield at Aquent said that the chance to develop skills and get promoted are often more important than salary, and cited employees wanting to leave a company when they feel they have ‘hit the glass ceiling’ with no more room for self improvement.

The panel also discussed giving employees the ability to pursue outside interests by giving them free memberships to organisations and ‘charity days’ where they spend a paid-work day taking part in charity or volunteer work. Rob also pointed out the need to match company benefits with employees, arguing that twenty-somethings are less motivated by traditional perks such as pension and dental plans.

Craig agreed and thought the industry needs to be more innovative in terms of working practices, and the ‘new’ nature of digital gave it a unique opportunity to pioneer more flexible working hours and employee benefits.

Steve Hutson cited this as a major frustration in his work in recruitment, and thought the industry is still using work practices that are 50 years old. He argued that the digital industry as a whole needed to change its mindset and offer more imaginative and modern working practices to help attract the talent and in turn solve the skills shortage.

The panel then looked at the choice of training graduates as opposed to recruiting more experienced employees.

Emma Wilson at Harvest Digital thought that putting money and effort into training graduates often lead to them being poached by rivals- meaning that the time and effort gone into training them was ultimately benefitting competitors rather than themselves. Rob Sheffield agreed this was a common problem, but and added that this is where retention strategies and incentives become vital.

Steve Hutson then looked at issues faced with immigration, citing examples of a company that expanded abroad with local workforce that subsequently transferred to the UK to work on related projects. He said these workers then did not fit in with UK teams due to cultural differences, despite having similar skills.

Craig Hill saw a similar problem with freelancers in agencies, and said it was important not to make them feel excluded from full time employees.

Steve Hutson then asked the panel for their own definitions of the term ‘work life balance’. Carla rather succinctly put it as ‘having time to spend the money you earn’ while Davina felt it meant trying to get flexibility in working hours.

Rob thought that while flexible working hours are desirable, they don’t work well in a service lead industry, such as if an agency has to meet a sudden client deadline by midnight.

The discussion concluded on the subject of references, which many in the panel thought posed a problem for bad employees, as it illegal to write negative or untruthful comments. Davina Lines said in these cases, it was best to just write the facts, and hope that a potential employer can ‘read between the lines’ that the candidate is not recommended.