The Quest

Looks like my coffee addiction has returned. I think I picked it up while thesising last year, but after the glorious condensed-milk coffees I downed like water in Vietnam, nothing else was palatable. While it's not fair to judge countries like Cambodia on their lack of coffee-brewing and growing prowess considering they still haven't properly recovered from the 20th century's other genocide, I just took that as an opportunity to be healthy and try to kick the dirty habit.

I'd been drinking various white, red and green teas for a while after I got back, but really needed something stronger and tried to be satisfied with Clipper organic Indian Chai. 'Tis delicious and warming and soothing, but I dunno. I was still falling asleep.

So, despite knowing that coffee is bad for you, and that none of the CBD places seem to use fair trade beans, I kept sneaking into Rosso Espresso on my way up from the SCt carpark to grab a skinny mocha with two on the way to work.

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. So freaking good. There is a line out the door and onto the footpath every morning at that place, even when it is raining, for a REASON.

Best. Coffee. In. Perth.

Or is it?

I decided that I should shop around to see if I could find better since they're not fair trade (yes, I'm a hippy), kinda pricey, and yeah, the fricking line.

This survey is extremely under-researched, just saying what I happen to see in relation to everything but what the mocha tastes like.

So.

This morning's sample was from jango in King Street. They sell fair trade chocolate and all their food packaging is recycled-looking cardboard or recyclable plastic, and they have cool juices and drinks and stuff, and they take EFTPOS, but the mocha? Bah-bow. (Think Bert's Family Feud, here, people. Survey's not happy.) Bitter, totally not sweet enough, and the large is way too small.

Next.

Networkers and Gen Y (or: "The Blind Leading the Bionic-Visioned?")

Networking (v): 1. to establish communication links with other people as a means of exchanging ideas, information and useful contacts;
2. schmoozing and oozing general creepiness at functions when most (normal) people are quite happy to be left alone to their own devices.

Last week I attended a 'networking' function organised by the Law Society of WA's Young Lawyers Committee.

Aside from the fact I was totally exhausted (urgh, friggin' 9-5; I'm usually failing to retain normal levels of consciousness by Wednesday mornings, and this was on a bloody Thursday night) I really enjoyed the opportunity to catch up with people from high school and law school who've also entered the legal 'profession', as aptly described by The Hon Chief Justice of WA, Wayne Martin.

The CJ's speech was pretty funny, and although it was a little long since he'd spent the first 5 minutes talking about how he knows we must get bored from long speeches from old grey-haired dudes when we would rather be drinking and catching up with mates, at least it was semi-inspirational and entertaining.

The main speaker was a chap called Ron Gibson, Managing Director of Go Networking. Apparently he was there to impart some wisdom and 'networking' tools and tips which may put us young'uns in a better position for advancing our careers.

The invite to the function describes him as a "networking guru". A google (v) of the guy reveals that this he is

the country's foremost [self-established] authority in the field and subject of business networking - the art and skill of forming and cultivating those all-important business connections. Ron's presentation offered proven techniques and approaches that you can use to network effectively and socialise successfully in any situation, to network within your industry for maximum effect and to cultivate your new contacts into profitable, long-term business partnerships.

I (and I may speak on behalf of a significant portion of the attendees) would describe him as a bit of a git, but I suppose he's just doing his job, and I shouldn't diss what people have to do to put food on their families.

But I just as I don't want to have to deal with some drug dealer trying to peddle me WizzFizz while I'm chatting to my mates, I'd rather not have to listen to some motivational-life-coach-guy try to teach me about what I should and should not do at parties when I just want to be chatting to my mates.

Because that's what this networking guy was trying to do.

One of the blogs I'm really enjoying at the moment made some interesting comments about networkers the other day:

Networkers always struck me as overenthusiastic people, the sort of people who want to be your friend right away. They want to know everything about you, where you were born, what your first boyfriend’s name was, what color your childhood blankie was and whatever happened to it. They come off a little creepy, and remind you vaguely of your mother at the dinner table the first time you brought a boyfriend home.

Sounds horrible, dunnit? Well. It could be worse. Some old guy could be standing on a podium trying to tell you that this is what you should be doing every day if you want to get anywhere in life now that you're out of the playpen that was university. Yep, that stuff was essentially the gist of what Mr Networking Guruji was trying to get us to do to improve our Brand Recognition rating or something. Not many people were impressed.

Tei at Rogue Ink goes on to explain that she now likes networkers despite the fact they are freaks because they are "lovable, wonderful, indispensable" variety of freaks. But, I guess since I haven't had a networker help to set me up with helpful people who may want to give me bags of money/opportunities, I still consider them, and the whole concept of what they do, to be just plain annoying.

It just seems so smarmy to "network" in the way he was trying to "teach" us.

There were several times during Gibson's "lesson" when he could not be heard over the rabble of people who had lost interest after he explained that his credentials for teaching young lawyers how to network stems from his being the step-grandson of the founding partners of the Perth firm Gibson & Gibson.

While it was pretty embarrassing to have him try to talk over us like he was a teacher trying to re-gain the attention a rowdy class of Year Fours (especially when the Chief Justice was in the room observing it all*) it made me wonder a couple of things about this whole business networking thing as it relates to us i.e. Kids These Days.

Firstly, does all this schmoozing actually work, and secondly, because it seems to have worked for people who are currently In the business world (if it hasn't why the hell are we still hearing about it?? Have they all been duped???), do we really have to learn how to be a schmaltzy tool, or can we get by doing things our way?

By our way, I mean the Gen Y way. I realise that that the Baby Boomers in management and our Gen X co-workers hate us, and I'm sure we can learn a few tips from our elders, but I have a tip for them too. If they want to impress us, in terms of trying to recruit us or offer their services to us, they should bloody stop talking at us and rather talk with us.

Because we're know-it-alls and we freaking know it. So if someone tries to treat us like idiots, we'll probably lose respect for them quick-smart. Which definitely what happened the other night.

So back to my ponderences on networking... what I was wondering the other night was whether we really need to be taught about making small-talk and the importance of 'making contacts'. It just seems to me that we've grown up having those sorts of ideas as a given, and we're pretty capable of introducing ourselves to friends-of-friends, or even randoms at parties or gatherings, and keeping in touch. And not to mention our aptitude at using the internet to establish and "grow" our network connections.

By the way, I can't seem to find this "networking guru's" website, so I think his Brand Recognition efforts totally suck on the whole internet issue.

I don't know. Maybe I'm just being a Gen Y brat. Thanks to the YLC for organising the night; I'm sure if we were less full of ourselves we would've gotten more out of it.

- - -

*Speaking of the CJ. At one point in the night, when I managed to find myself in a little group with a fellow Judge's Associate and His Honour, he tried to introduce himself, as any good, nice, polite person would do when seeing someone they've never met before standing an the group you're chatting with. "Hi, Wayne Martin" he said, extending his hand out. "Yes, I know you, Sir," I replied, shaking his hand, "I work for you." He looked down at my name tag, which had "Supreme Court of WA" under my name, and went "Oh right", clearly not having any clearer idea of who I was. Me thinks I need to work on my Brand Recognition. Or at least spend more time in the main building.

Women @ Work

So the glass-ceiling thing comes up again. Another study, another article, another blog post asking the same old questions:

WHY are there so few women at senior levels in Australian corporate life? How is it that women, who are at least as well educated as men these days, represent only 12 per cent of ASX 200 executive managers? Why have women been appointed as CEOs of just five ASX 200 companies since 2004?

The Leadership Challenge: Women in Management study by Hannah Piterman presents some interesting observations, and I look forward to reading Aunty Jan's response to this in the coming days, but I figured I'd have my say first so that I don't spend a whole entry being angry at her, rather than the topic.

One participant in the study, a female senior manager, commented that

A lot of women don't want to be senior women in corporations because they want to have more flexibility and more choice and dedicate more time and focus to other elements of their life".

The author of the article I read, Jennifer Hewitt, responds:

Fair enough. It's certainly a sensible alternative to the competitive fixation with titles and offices and status shown by so many men. But, particularly given the growing shortage of skilled employees facing Australian businesses, it's worth figuring out if such choices have to be so rigid for so many women.

While I totally agree with that, I don't think it's fair enough that giving up a career because it's incompatible with kids is the only 'sensible option'. Surely there's a sensible option to deal with this work/life problem if it means sorting the skills shortage?

I've been watching Cashmere Mafia recently (I know, I know, in the last post I referred to City Homicide, but bear with me here) and while it is mostly SATC: Married With Higher Paying Jobs, I think there's at least one storyline that touches on a real issue highlighted by this study -- nothing has changed in the corporate world which makes it easy to be a woman in management.

Frances O'Connor's character is middle-management in a finance firm who also happens to be a mother. Every aspect of her arc is basically about her family v work dilemma. In two episodes, colleagues trying to out-do her for promotion fix meetings and projects with the hope she won't be able to make it due to family commitments. According to Dr Piterman:

Working mothers are excluded from key roles, projects and opportunities due to a work structure and a culture that does not accommodate their needs

and the author of the article I read points out that

A number of the most successful women in the study either don't have children or have a very supportive partner or engage in complex juggling acts that are not sustainable.

I've been naughtily watching eps before they're on TV here, so I won't say any more on the CM stuff, just that it got me thinking about the glass ceiling over the weekend when, lo and behold, here is this interesting study which notes

Female talent is ultimately lost as working mothers fail to achieve effective flexible work arrangements and abandon demanding corporate careers.

I've spoken to a men running large corporate business who agree that this is a massive problem that needs a creative solution.

Determining what that solution is, or even where the impetus for finding this solution will come from, is not so easy as identifying the problem. I mean, if it's on a Manhattan-based dramedy, surely it's old news.

So, who's it going to be, kids?

Who's going to just throw their hands up and admit that there's a serious problem, and that working on the dooms-day skills shortage we currently have may just have to include getting rid of that gosh-darn glass ceiling as well as more TAFEs and 457s?

Because unless someone gives everyone a good kick up the backside, I have a feeling we'll just sit around twiddling our thumbs and whinging.

I'm not going to say it'll be easily. It's not just more childcare centres or paid maternity leave that's going to fix this problem. The attitude of people in business and the corporate world has to change, because no amount of CBD creches will change stuff like this:

It's not just because most women tend not to be around as much for the networking ppportunities like the drinks at the pub or the games of golf.

It's also a more subtle shading that means male executives feel more comfortable with men like them while women who try to emulate that masculine model encourage suspicion, derision and cultural isolation.

"The communication and decision-making styles attributed to women, such as being inclusive and collegial, are seen as incompatible with desired leadership traits of decisiveness and expediency," the study summarises. "Women's reluctance (and/or inability) to enter into a game of strategic survival and aggressive personal politics is perceived as weakness and lack of ambition."

So I'm not just looking at you, Tanya, but also at the guys running all the businesses out there (because, yes, they are guys).

We've got the research, we know what's wrong, we've got the impetus... so how about we try and change that whole 'corporate culture' thing, shall we?