Director who doesn't spend any time in the editing room

[Jimmy Pierce]

I work for a company where the creative director is also the producer. They have directed several projects for the company, but spend little time in pre-production and almost none in post production. The resulting effect is some of us (myself included) don't take the work quite as seriously. Pretty much all of the notes I receive are by phone call, text or email, and if it isn't done "right" by the creative director's standards, we get a theoretical quick slap on the wrist. If I ask them for their input in person, they treat it as though they have limited amount of time and I have to be quick. Now their personality by nature is laid back as well as anal depending on their mood and the events of the day. They have plenty of other work to do in running the company, which is probably why they don't spend nearly as much time with their direct staff as they should. What bothers me the most is the work I put in goes unnoticed in the end, and there's no prospective benefit other than a steady paycheck. I understand the creative director has other responsibilities, but they are avoiding their team. The quality of the work is probably never going to go up and those of us who have worked for this company the longest (I think) are deprived of greater opportunities within the company that they have actually earned.

The solution I think should be giving that responsibility of directing projects to someone who will be more hands on (hands on in general to be honest) and lead the creative team towards a collective goal.

Thoughts? Similar experiences?

 

[Cary Knoop]

The resulting effect is some of us (myself included) don't take the work quite as seriously.

I'd say that is a problem, just because someone else has no full dedication to their work is no excuse to do the same thing.

 

[rsbush]

I've been in a very similar situation. After years of trying to make it better, my solution was to leave the company. My advice is to run and run fast. Crap has a way of rubbing off.

 

[Jimmy Pierce]

I'd say that is a problem, just because someone else has no full dedication to their work is no excuse to do the same thing.

This is true, but it's the person running the company. They are the leader so they need to be setting an example. Passively micro-managing is not setting a good example.

 

[Paul F]

This is true, but it's the person running the company. They are the leader so they need to be setting an example. Passively micro-managing is not setting a good example.

Dissatisfaction with the job is always number one on any employee survey, well above pay (which is usually 3rd, 4th, or 5th). You won't be able to change anything. Talking to the boss will only make you look like a malcontent.

They are running the company and as long as they and the other executives are happy, nothing will change. If you are not happy, move on, but don't expect it to be any different anywhere else.

 

[DLD]

A lot depends on the personalities involved. Some bosses are overbearing and conceited. Others are highly overbearing and conceited. It's a company governance problem and there have been a ton of studies and books written about it. Navigating corporate waters can be a tough job.

Depending upon an individual's role in the process - from sound to editing to grading to whatever - it might be a good idea to make an isolated reel of that individual's work while seeking employment elsewhere.

And I agree with Cary that you can't slack off just because someone is doing it.

PS. A side story that may be relevant. Back in August, 1994 (that was a month or two ago, right?), I went to a comedy writing seminar that was held in the Valley by the Warner Brothers. We even got an personal opening note from Les Moonves, who was then the head of Comedy Development at WB, and were shown a few clips from a new WB sitcom that was about to premiere on NBC. "Friends" or something.

In terms of the "teachers", there were several big time sitcom writers, including the Executive Producers from "Murphy Brown" and the "Full House", as well as highly rated/ranked writers from other shows. There was some give and take from the paying audience of about 400 people. I assume that's enough of a set up.

One teacher/lecturer once was on staff of "Webster". He easily admitted that the show was not well liked or respected by the Hollywood executives and all of the staff writers on it knew that they'd have to come up with a quality spec script in order to land a job on another show, should "Webster" go off the air. Meanwhile, they took the money and tried to entertain each other while being fully aware that very little of their best material would make it on the air. Eventually, several of them got jobs working on "Night Court" and, after "Night Court", some other shows. That person did bring a VHS clip from "Night Court" that he wrote, though he did relay that the program was often written at the writers table.

Then came Jimmy Pierce's boss. I mean, someone who was then an Exec-Prod on a popular urban sitcom. She said that she worked on staff of a very popular show and thought that it would guarantee her employment for a decade. It didn't. She had to write a spec but was helped that Fox created the forth OTA TV network and they thought they needed an urban themed sitcom for the audience that wasn't served by the other three OTA's. They picked up her spec, hired her as a head writer but gave her a prominent co-head, with an Emmy to his name. But the script she brought to the show wasn't her own. Let me repeat -- a lecturer at a comedy seminar was ashamed to bring an episode she wrote herself. She brought what she thought was the best episode from her show, written by those making far less than she was.

Is there a moral to the story, you ask?

Yes. Write good scripts, make good videos, no matter who the boss is. The writers who wrote the "good script" are still working, twenty years later. Others have have made enough money to no longer need jobs. None of them would have been hired, had he blamed others for not giving it his best.

 

[Jimmy Pierce]

Taking the work less seriously may be the wrong choice of words. It’s more like being on auto pilot. We steer a straight course but don’t expect us to manuver our way out of a lightning storm like a champ. Yes as long as everyone in charge is happy, nothing will change. Several of us are aware of the constant absense of our “leader”, but let it go. Which is why nothing will change. Ideally I would like to see our boss relieve themselves of the director responsibility once in a while and just stay on as a producer when their workload is too high. I think it would benefit them to take a step back and allow someone else to “take the wheel” so to speak. It benefit the staff as well with a little more direct collaboration. I’m happy it’s not someone who is over controlling. I’ve had that experience too and I’m glad to be rid of them. I’m in no way saying I’m qualified and should have that opportunity. I’ve worked with the company and this boss as long as the company existed so I think they are aware of my qualifications. I’ve been ready to move on for a while but lack the confidence thanks to this job and moving between several of our other locations due to difficult co-workers who were constantly stepping on each other’s toes.