Can a headline get you cancelled?

There is a very good saying regarding pilots and their flying aptitudes and capabilities that I think applies to so many other professions and industries.

It goes as follows, “there are old pilots, there are bold pilots but there are no old bold pilots!”

In our industry there seems to be a growing sense that ‘old pilots, i.e.,white haired, male Advisers, over 60 shall we say, should no longer have a place in giving advice.

They have seen a lot, done a lot, learned a lot - especially regarding gaining professional qualifications later in life; have founding and grown businesses, employed younger advisers and helped develop their skills but for some with less time served, it seems this counts for very little.?

I now suspect the message from many younger advisers may be, you’ve had your time old man, you are a misogynist, you miss-sell, worse still you engage in office banter, bully and intimidate those around you.??

Why the thought process?

This may be giving us a clue as recently, I highlighted the?outcome of a CISI?survey that concluded:“Banter is seen to negatively impact 97% of financial services professionals?while HR departments have an image problem”.

To get attention for this survey, along with similar concerns we have highlighted over the years, it is important to use an attention-grabbing headline. In this case, after reading the survey, the headline “Snowflake generation hits the workplace?” seemed just about right and asked for your thoughts around this.

It worked a treat, getting record reading numbers and receiving a lot of feedback from community members who saw the profession and industry they work in somewhat diminished in stature due to what could be seen as the generational trend in the UK of a workplace going soft.

However, later in the day, I received an email from a younger female adviser asking “whether the title of your article was intentionally triggering to get ‘a rise’ from people opposed to you being part of the ‘old guard misogynists who still take their seat at the table in our industry?”

I continued reading, somewhat open mouthed to say the least!

Her email went on to say that she was?“happy to be a snowflake who doesn’t abuse other people for one-upmanship or a cheap laugh”?and?emphasised that she believed that the title of the survey indicated that we, at Panacea, felt that?“‘Banter’ and people’s lack of acceptance of it is somehow showing weakness.”?

It was her view that she would prefer to see the complete ban of banter from the industry “as?soon as?these people are replaced”!?

TBH, I was rather taken aback and felt an explanation may help with some clarity and I responded as follows:

“I did not write the article, but I did write the headline with a view to see what the feedback would be.

As per the header dictionary definition image: Banter is the playful and friendly exchange of teasing remarks, exchange remarks in a good-humoured teasing way. Offensive behaviours/comments are not ‘banter’ - I really wonder in today’s world who or what has changed this meaning or understanding of the word.

And in what world are we in when someone cannot at least attempt to make a good humoured joke, without the fear of being referred to HR as a hate incident?

Something not mentioned in the article from CISI was the age demographic.?

Most impacted by what they see as negative office banter was the age group 25–44 at some 48%. I did not have numbers on gender splits.?For those older and younger it was not seen as much as a problem.

I had an IFA business for 18 years, Panacea for some 16. Prior to that I had a number of years in the City within the Lloyds market and also 9 years life altering sabbatical experience as BOAC cabin crew in the 70’s:) So I guess that is heading toward some 45 years ‘before the mast’ in financial services and frankly I am horrified at seeing this.?

I think in many workplaces today ‘Woke’ is winning the day and this survey I suspect emphasises that feelings trump everything. There are no such things as facts anymore, just feelings!

As I said, I did not write the article, but I think if this is the world of woke, over the next 20- 30 years it will be a very miserable, litigious environment. I think that WFH will have seen very many actually miss the cut and thrust of office banter, and given today’s heat the aircon:)

I do not see the world as you do but why would I and vice versa. What must be realised it that everyone is different in views, perspectives and life experiences. That does not make you or I better or worse people and we can very politely of course, agree to differ- a cornerstone of a free society. I think it was Voltaire who said that ‘common sense is not so common’. With this survey he may have a point.

Are you happy for me to place your view below the article”?

It seems that the response she received from me was not acceptable in any way. This was a gasoline and fire moment for her. She was not happy for us to share her complete response, hence we respected her wishes and did not post it in its entirety. But the vitriolic response was surprising to say the least.

“The fact that you wrote the headline for the article but not the information in it confirms to me your agenda. Why would I give you consent and trust you to post my comment.”?She responded.

I was then enlightened that the term banter for a younger generation has become tarnished in the same way “that Endowment mis-selling and DB transfers will haunt my parents’ generation – that was acceptable in the 80’s too and look where that got us!)”

But the rant didn’t stop at “us” mis-selling in the 80s as both British history and the Royal family got a kicking…

“You refer to the term WOKE. I personally see nothing wrong in alerting people to discrimination and racism and calling it out to stop persecution. There is a reason why colonial countries all over the world are kicking back against the attitudes of the ‘Kingdom’ and rightly so! Prince Phillip wasn’t the only one guilty of this!”

As it continued,??I got sworn at:

“Simply put I’d rather not use my energy being an arsehole* to others (whatever you wish to label it).”

*Apologies, a verbatim lift but I think it illustrates that “Woke Snowflakes” seem quick to abuse anyone whose views do not align with their own thinking.

Now, I believe there is room for all types in this industry or profession but this very well-qualified Adviser with relatively short time served has, by a number of sweeping statements, accused half an industry of misogyny, mis-selling, being a-holes. But it’s a headline, a question no less, that gets you cancelled?

So let’s ponder on my opening analogy with a slight twist: “there are old advisers, there are bold advisers but there are no old bold ones’!?

I wonder how this lady will be judged in her older age? Any thoughts anyone?