SLACK.

Sorry. I could make a series of pathetic excuses, like "I had to go and eat pizza for Valentines Day because I hate it", or "I had to see the Blue Man Group in my first visit to the O2", or "I went shopping in town for sushi and came back with Fopp in a bag", or "my gran might die", but then only the last one is a valid excuse and is the only thing that's really stopped me getting on with things, as facing your mortality isn't much fun.

Brighter things then. Or at least more interesting.

I went for a meal with an old friend and colleague last night. We had a great time (can heartily recommend the Viet Garden near Angel for a £5 dinner) and chatted about all manner of serious and silly issues. This particular friend I met whilst working at an unnamed-here agency which specialised in brand marketing. Both my mate and I had never met and were put forward for the same role. We both ended up getting it (which then becomes a fable in and of itself, as we were both heartily conned, but that's not for here). Oddly, we had the same design background and the same production experience with the same passion for involving 'customers' (put in inverted commas as I'm using it to abbreviate delegates, colleagues, businesses, etc.) in a way that makes them understand it better and make informed choices on how they feel about the 'product' (god I hate these commas - but here I mean the sales pitch, idea, seasonal haircut etc.). We both ended up leaving this company, and took this away with us:

WORK WITH PEOPLE YOU TRUST. TRUST THE PEOPLE YOU WORK WITH.

Both of us found in this particular agency, everything was analysed, scrutinised, picked apart then damned. It's fair enough to maintain a high standard in your output, but in an environment where putting your hand up and asking a stupid question (something I believe everyone has the right to do, as you'll only ask it the once) gets you disciplined, it's no wonder other agencies overtook it. Marketing can be brutal and, frankly, wanky at times, and though it's very important to ensure your output is stronger than your competitors, you should not do this to the detriment of your staff's morale or sense of community. If a team doesn't work, shift it, shake it, turn it upside down, and you'll either find the right combination or the weak spot. In the current climate, the main thing any company can offer its workforce is security. When you remove that, it adds fear, and since when did anyone do better in their work by expecting to fail?

Fortunately, my friend and I both got out and continued freelancing. Through our twenties, we gained broad and valuable experience, and got to see many different environments and how they function (and she's f***ing ACE at her job, FYI). I don't know if it's a trait exclusive to freelancers (I doubt it, though it's possibly honed better), but you can usually tell the ethic of a workplace seconds after walking in. You really can spot contentment and therefore drive, from a place that has a dog-eat-dog policy.

It's not the 80's. I'm not a banker. Hell, bankers aren't bankers anymore. It's time everyone had a bit of a navel-gaze. So, if you work for an agency, do you feel that your colleagues' input to your work is positive or negative? Or a balance of both? Nobody likes being mollycoddled or being put down, you know.

What about simple things? Have you been for a drink with your team? My boyfriend works in computing, has just joined a large company, and discovered that until he arrived, they had never spent any time with each other outside of the office floor. Not even a group lunch. He's begun to change this, with the full support of his seniors - perhaps unsurprisingly, the only person who didn't interact with the team, ever, is the one who got made redundant. This isn't to say OOH-RAH! OR DIE, but that sense of community isn't just helpful to making your overlords see you working together. And it doesn't have to involve drinks. It's more about getting that efficiency level hit, where you're much more likely to helpfully-point-out-a-problem-to-a-friend-and-get-something-done-about-it, than you are when some-twat-you-work-with-told-you-you-did-something-wrong-and-should-fix-it. Which system would you prefer?

So, cows. Case in point. Naming them has been scientifically proven (lordy) as a way to get a higher yield of milk. Cows aren't completely stupid. They're not thanking us for all the fish or anything, I'll grant you. But you don't refer to your cats/dogs/fish/conkers in nothing more than the definitive article or plurals of their genus, because then how would they know who you mean? They might not know the word, but they can recognise the sound as your call to them. And what does this mean?

"By placing more importance on the individual, such as calling a cow by her name or interacting with the animal more as it grows up, we can not only improve the animal's welfare and her perception of humans, but also increase milk production."
Dr Catherine Douglas of School of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development at Newcastle University

Jiggle that sentence around a bit, and it becomes even more obvious than is possibly neccessary for a scientific paper to be done on. Interacting with the individual, rather than a broad generalisation, makes things work better. It's something technology has just begun to touch on (another day, another rant), but has been intrinsic to the way human communities have operated for millenia. Treat your team as a group of individuals, who need to interact with one another on their own terms and gain the neccessary trust, and from that a partnership will grow. And look. I made the point with COWS. Fuckin' A.

I had another really, really, much better point to make here, but I've lost it. If it occurs to me again, I'll put it in. Right here.

I recently came off a contract where someone in-house took a dislike to me. Personality clashes happen, fair enough, but all I'd done was my job. Efficiently at that. I was looking shiny. She didn't like it, as she was a relatively new team member and had intended to prove her worth on this job, she embarked on a sabotage mission. Sadly for her, she put these signals out very publicly and extremely inappropriately, and whereas I came up smelling of roses when all was done, there was the distinct eau-de-behatch left on her. And, believe it or not, her boss apologised to myself and the other freelancer for her behaviour. And here's why: in behaving this way, she isolated herself from the group. Myself and the other freelancer got our jobs done, and had a good time doing it. Our enthusiasm was infectious, the in-house team loved it, and we got a hard job done well. *SMUGS*....

So, trust. It is cheesy, but it does go both ways. But more importantly, it can be created. Right now, speculating finances is more important than ever (which I think I'll talka bout in more detail tomorrow), and having teams that can allow this process to happen smoothly and efficiently by being (like the names suggests) teams, means it will be more productive, quick, efficient and economical.

I'm tired. I will finish this rant tomorrow morning when I'm better able to think straight.