Fear mongering or shock tactics have long been the preserve of public information campaigns that attempt to drive behaviour change, or charity campaigns.  Most brands, however, tend to avoid aligning themselves to the emotion of fear.  That doesn’t mean that it isn’t a powerful motivation in a lot of consumption decisions – fear of missing out, fear of loss, fear of being left out etc. – but brands tend to want to put a positive spin on things, promising empowerment, confidence or control instead.

Here are 5 of my spooky picks.  Three are for public information campaigns, and two for brands, one of which unwittingly scared the living daylights out of people.

Kinder Surprise, 1980s

I doubt very much whether Kinder intended their Humpty Dumpty character to frighten a nation of small children to their very core.  I was one of the people who saw it for real, on air during the children’s afternoon TV schedule, and I’m not sure what lasting effects it has had.  It was banned almost immediately from our screens.

Chip pan fire prevention advertising, 1970s

I was tiny when this ad was on air, but I will never forget it.  Anyone whose mum had a chip pan would recognise the simultaneous rush of excitement and fear when that puppy was produced from the kitchen cupboard.

That poor woman (who bears an uncanny resemblance to Mrs Brown) being ‘mansplained’ by some sanctimonious didact. And check out how he suddenly takes a very accusatory tone. ‘If you don’t let it start, you won’t have to stop it.’ You can almost hear the disdain in his voice for anyone who would ever dream of using a chip pan.

Anti smoking ad ‘Natural Born Smoker’, 1980s 

This ad took Bladerunner as its inspiration. It created a dystopian future vision of the human race, distorted by evolution because of their addiction to smoking. It was utterly terrifying when it appeared on our TV screens, but also incredibly clever. Forcing people to confront the grotesqueness of what smoking could do to them, not by preaching or holding up a mirror, but by creating a character so repulsive, any sane person would want to run a mile from a cigarette.

TV license evasion, 1980s

There wasn’t a family in the country who weren’t terrified when they heard that a ‘Detector Van’ was in their neighbourhood. The Royal Mail was responsible for collecting TV license revenue at the time, and they’d put adverts in the local paper saying “TV detector vans are coming to your town”. They would drive around with their huge aerials revolving, to make sure they were seen. Whether they actually worked or were a threatening PR stunt is still the subject of speculation.

Corsodyl Mouth Wash campaign, 2016

An example of a brand that isn’t afraid to play into many people’s irrational fear of losing their teeth to make its point. The brand Corsodyl boldly positions itself as the mouthwash for people who spit blood when they brush their teeth. No skirting around the problem here. This is use it or lose it advertising.

Happy Halloween! 

McQ Thinking is a boutique brand and communication consultancy that partners with the marketing and advertising communities. Find out more at www.mcqthinking.com.

The post When advertising plays the fear card appeared first on McQ Thinking.

Now we have another example of cultural patronage with the new Fondazione Prada in Milan.  A magnificent 19,000-square-metre space, designed by “starchitect” Rem Koolhaas, which includes a cinema, a 1950s retro cafe designed by film director Wes Anderson, and a series of exhibition spaces, housing some of the 900 works that Miuccia Prada and her husband have collected over several decades. It truly is a magnificent space.

Miuccia Prada has spoken of wanting to be “an active part of shaping culture” and resists the patronage angle, which is why she says the brand has always resisted sponsoring exhibitions.

Milan has been rather devoid of the world-class art attractions that London, New York, Paris and Berlin have to offer. It’s interesting to see that it has taken a private enterprise to fill the gap, as the Italian economy struggles to rebound from its longest recession on record.

In the same vein, we have the Fondation Louis Vuitton, designed by Frank Gehry and located in the Bois de Boulogne of Paris.

Michael Burke, the chief executive of Louis Vuitton has said “if the 20th century was about manufacturing, the 21st century will be about intangibles”, meaning concern for things like heritage, the arts and the environment.”

It’s interesting to note that the global powerhouse luxury brands , Louis Vuitton, Prada and Gucci are all experiencing a downturn in business fortunes.  These flashier and more ostentatious brands are even waning in popularity with Chinese luxury consumers, who are now seeking more understated luxury alternatives. (Smaller, less ubiquitous brands like Bottega Veneta and Saint Laurent are, in contrast, doing very well).

Perhaps the likes of Prada and Louis Vuitton will benefit from “ennobling” their brands by putting them at the centre of art and culture.  For these brands that have spent years building retail temples to themselves, perhaps these new kinds of temples – foundations – will imbue them with a richer and more valuable type of meaning.

McQ Thinking is a boutique brand and communication consultancy that partners with the marketing and advertising communities. Find out more at www.mcqthinking.com.

The post The new way to worship luxury brands: from retail temples to art temples appeared first on McQ Thinking.

This was an extremely clever campaign that leveraged characters from the Lego movie, showing them slowly drowning in oil in order to leverage  the public’s support to persuade the Danish toymaker to cut its longstanding sponsorship arrangement with Shell, and to protest against Shell’s drilling in the Arctic. The campaign also re-worked the song Everything is Awesome from the movie, from an upbeat track to a downbeat cover.

During the three-month campaign, over one million people worldwide had emailed LEGO to ask it to end its partnership with Shell, resulting in LEGO caving in and ceasing its arrangement.

In his statement, LEGO president and CEO Jørgen Vig Knudstorp made it clear he did not appreciate his company’s brand being used to put pressure o Shell:  “The Greenpeace campaign uses the Lego brand to target Shell. As we have stated before, we firmly believe Greenpeace ought to have a direct conversation with Shell. The Lego brand, and everyone who enjoys creative play, should never have become part of this dispute between Greenpeace and Shell.”

What makes this campaign so powerful is precisely this. It used the company’s own brand as a stick to beat it with. It took a brand that represents values of childhood play and imagination and effectively robbed it of its innocence. There is something so completely jarring about this. But, in a world where we’ve become so immune to images of environmental disaster and destruction, this type of disruptive creativity can cut through.

It made me think of another campaign that shattered innocence in order to make a powerful point – a campaign for Barnardo’s that I actually helped to create.

The campaign, called Giving Children Back Their Future, consisted of a series of press adverts that featured shocking images, such as a toddler clutching a bottle of whisky under the arches, another infant preparing to commit suicide, and the hardest hitting of all, a baby about to inject heroin, in order to portray the potentially horrific adulthoods that these children might face without Barnardo’s intervention.   We needed to do something radical at the time to dispel the pervasive belief that the charity still ran homes for orphans, which was an inaccurate and irrelevant legacy preventing a younger generation of potential donors connecting with the brand.

The campaign was incredibly successful, and represented the beginning of the rejuvenation of the charity and its repositioning as a dynamic, contemporary charity.

These campaigns are very different from each other, but there is arguably a similarity in how they both use a type of manipulative creativity to  jolt us out of our comfort zone by twisting archetypes of childhood innocence – Lego bricks and babies – in disquieting ways.

McQ Thinking is a boutique brand and communication consultancy that partners with the marketing and advertising communities. Find out more at www.mcqthinking.com.

The post When creativity shatters innocence appeared first on McQ Thinking.

The brand was taking a smart swipe at Morrisons’ new loyalty card scheme –  ‘Match & More’ – that promises to price match your shopping against  Asda, Sainsbury’s and Tesco as well as Aldi and Lidl. Here’s a snippet  of what it says:

• Go to the Morrisons website
• Find the ‘loyalty card scheme’ page
• Set up your online account
• Create memorable password
• Hand over some ‘minor details’ about your self such as name, last name, email and postcode
• Etc. etc.

A brilliant bit of writing (well done TBWA) and a brilliant bit of sniping.  Beware Goliaths when you take a pot shot at a David that is growing in scale and confidence. They won’t take it lying down.

We are seeing a pretty seismic shift in the UK grocery landscape. According to the most recent Kantar figures for October 2014, Tesco’s sales have slipped by 3.6% versus a year ago. By contrast, Lidl’s sales increased by 18.3%. Recent data suggests that around one in two of us Brits now shop at Lidl or Aldi. Only a few years ago, shopping at the new breed of European discounter would have been sniffed at.  Today, there’s a certain amount of pride associated with making such a smart choice.

TBWA have caught this headwind perfectly with their confident and playful ad. They know that the public’s mood is moving more in their favour, and the hold on their purse strings that the big supermarkets have had is loosening. They are shopping more often, across more stores.

They’ve been issuing some other playful jabs recently. When a Sainsbury’s employee inadvertently put a poster meant for the staff room in the shop window the other week (encouraging staff to get their customers to spend 50p more), Lidl were quick to pounce.

The brand probably has a moment in which to make hay and practice the ‘dark arts’ of competitive advertising, particularly when it’s done this elegantly. That’s because its brand has momentum, and is playing the role of consumer champion, against competitors who look increasingly out of touch.

It harkens back a bit to some of the brilliant work that RKCR/Y&R produced for Virgin Atlantic back in the day, poking fun at British Airways.

What’s interesting is that if you just look at these tactical ads, you might see the conventional and rather cliched challenger narrative at play.  A feisty upstart brand picks a fight with a complacent establishment brand.

The post Lidl seizes its moment to make play while the sun shines appeared first on McQ Thinking.

Peggy was different to the patrons of renaissance Italy, like the Medici family of Florence,  who essentially ordered works of art or architecture to order from the top artists of the day. They would enter into a contract with an artist that specified how much he would be paid, what kinds of materials would be used, how long it would take to complete, and what the subject of the work would be. These commissions promoted not simply the ruler but the prestige of the city. Patronage was a tool of rulership and diplomacy. Peggy, by contrast, patronised the artists that she loved, and was open to being educated about their work, confessing that at the start “my knowledge of art ended at impressionism.”

 As I walked around Venice, I started to notice the the Paul & Shark sponsored gondola stops. Apparently, the Italian apparel brand supports the restoration of the gondolas,  and provides sweaters for the gondoliers. This partnership has been going on for well over ten years, and seems to have strategic congruence – an Italian brand with a strong maritime theme associating itself with this icon of Italian waters. And, as I understand it, not merely putting its names to the Gondola stops, but helping to preserve this great cultural institution.

Scratch a bit deeper, and you find that there are some other interesting acts of preservation patronage going on.

Italian luxury brand Bulgari has donated €1.5 million to the city of Rome to restore the staircase (Spanish Steps) that connects the Piazza di Spagna with the Trinita dei Monti church.

Fendi has also pledged millions to restore five of Rome’s most-loved fountains, beginning with the Trevi. Tod’s in 2011 announced that it would pay €25 million towards the renovation of the Colosseum. And, the founder and owner of Diesel, Renzo Rosso, pledged €5 milion in 2012 to clear up the 400-year-old Rialto Bridge In Venice.

Prime minister Matteo Renzi of Italy, this March,  called for private investors to help restore and maintain Pompeii and other monuments, after a series of wall collapses at Pompeii. “Italy is a country of culture and so I challenge businessmen. What are you waiting for? If the private sector can keep the wall standing upright, why not allow it to?” he said.

These brands are almost literally strengthening their foundations in Italian culture through these acts of patronage.  Of course, they will find ways to reflect in the glory of their benefaction, but these are undoubtedly legitimate acts of social responsibility, made all the more significant because of Italy’s scarce government resources for such projects.

It will be interesting to see if brands in other countries are providing their patronage to help preserve their cultural heritage.  It’s an interesting example of how corporate social responsibility could be evolving into corporate cultural responsibility.

McQ Thinking is a boutique brand and communication consultancy that partners with the marketing and advertising communities. Find out more at www.mcqthinking.com.

The post Are brands the new cultural patrons? appeared first on McQ Thinking.

Already dubbed ‘Mobile Lovers’ by fans and art websites, Banksy’s latest work has made the headlines after cropping up on the wall of a gym in Bristol. His work always offers critical commentary on societal issues, and there’s a definite message on offer in his latest work. The scene depicted is one that is by no means foreign to us; two people physically close to one another, but not engaged with one another, due to their other loves – their mobile devices.

The irony here is that the technology that is supposed to help us connect, is actually serving to keep us apart. It is also beautifully portrayed in this popular YouTube video called I forgot my phone.

A 2013 study by Ofcom tries to suggest that smartphones and tablets are helping to bring families together – communal TV viewing is on the rise, with each member of the family able to watch TV together, yet multi-task in their own way. Togetherness? Really?

Yet, it seems that nothing can wean us off our addiction to our mobile devices. According to a 2012 study commissioned by SecurEnvoy, 66% of 1,000 Britons surveyed said that they were afraid of either losing, or being separated from their mobile phones. And another 2013 study by app maker Locket says that the average person unlocks their phone 110 times a day.

Our ‘connectivity devices’ aren’t just helping to keep us apart from those we’re physically with. It’s the consensus among social psychologists that just 7% of communication is in the actual words we use. The other 93% is made up of things like tone and inflection, proxemics and, of course, body language.

We can all relate to a time when a text message we’ve sent was misinterpreted. Given our reliance on these written forms of communication, it makes sense that we’ve found ways to try to make them richer in meaning. The prolific use of emojis and smileys are ways in which we try to re-humanise this form of communication. They help us express the 93% of meaning that transcends the written word.

And, there’s one more ironic dynamic at play here. We’re now using our ‘connectivity devices’ to deliberately avoid having to connect. They’re allowing us to airbrush the awkward out of our lives.

• We use our phones to avoid awkward silences rather than finding something to talk about. It’s arguably undermining the art of conversation.
• Apps such as Tinder take the awkwardness out of initiating a date.
• Google Maps mean that we don’t have to ask anyone for directions anymore.
• Drunk Mode lets us block our contacts for 12 hours so we don’t risk dialling any, and embarrassing ourselves, when we’re drunk.
• Hell is other people is an anti-social experiment that uses FourSquare to track our ‘frenemies’ and help us avoid them.
• The Fount.in app analyses users’ Twitter conversations, picking up on health related conversations, and marries this with location tracking to enable us to avoid spaces, places and people where viruses might lurk.
• And perhaps the most extreme example of avoidance is in Japan with Otaku gaming culture, where legions of young men are preferring to have relationships with virtual girlfriends than real ones.

Mobile Lovers strikes a chord because we recognise this behaviour in ourselves, yet we’re powerless to do anything about it.   Perhaps we need to ask ourselves the next time we pick up our mobile phone: ‘Am I looking to make a connection here, or to avoid making one?‘

McQ Thinking is a boutique brand and communication consultancy that partners with the marketing and advertising communities. Find out more at www.mcqthinking.com.

The post Why Banksy ‘Mobile Lovers’ has the power to unsettle appeared first on McQ Thinking.

This is a quote from the novel Fight Club by Chuck Palahniuk, but it could easily be the mantra of the Millennial generation. This generation (born after 1980) has been at the leading edge of the so-called Sharing Economy – as creators and consumers – an economy that was estimated by Forbes to be worth around $3.5 billion in 2013, and growing at around 25%.

Perhaps the most famous posterchild brand for the sharing economy -  Airbnb – has just been valued at $10bn, which makes it worth more than some long established hotel companies, such as Hyatt Hotels Corp ($8.4bn)

There is almost no sector that the sharing economy isn’t touching. From Spotify in entertainment to Zip Car and city bike schemes in transport, to Rent the Runway in fashion, to Desktime in office space,  to Zilok for just about anything, to Task Rabbit for a helping hand.

For many brands who are not playing in this space, or who have competitors that do, it’s a frightening prospect. It’s no surprise that taxi businesses and the hotel industry are up in arms, as they see their entire business models being disrupted. But, resistance or denial is becoming more futile, and brand owners are going to have to find ways to co-exist, or compete – albeit with business models that are not built around a sharing economy proposition – in order to provide Millennials with alternatives that speak to their needs and desires.

It demands understanding how values and attitudes towards the concepts of consumption and ownership are fundamentally shifting among younger people.

“Things are changing. Young people don’t want to be tied down anymore. We’re happier to rent or share rather than own. In fact, it feels smarter.”  The words of twenty-five year old Alison from London.

For those weaned on technology and facing the harsh realities of a tepid youth labour market and extortionate rents, it’s probably not a surprise that the sharing economy holds so much appeal. Whether they’re renting out their own stuff, or renting out their own time,  there’s a pragmatism attached to these behaviours. However, it’s not a blip. These behaviours are a symptom of a massive change in values and attitudes towards commitment and ownership.

This is the anti-commitment generation.  Recent research from the Pew Research Center in the United States shows how “unattached” Millennials actually are.  50% now describe themselves as political independents and about three-in-ten (29%) say they are not affiliated with any religion. And, they’re detaching themselves from that other institution called Marriage.  Just 26% of this generation is married compared to 36% of Generation X and 48% of Baby Boomers when they were were at the same age.

Brands, whether they are built around a sharing model or a more traditional business model, now need to address these new attitudes, if they are going to connect with Generation Share.

Recent research by McQ Thinking with young people in London and New York has revealed some ways that brands can do this:

1. Understand that they see their stuff as stock rather than possessions                         This is perhaps most evident in a category like clothing.  The young women we spoke to said that when one of their housemates gets a new piece of clothing, everyone has borrowed it within a month. They also mentioned that it is better when someone else buys an item of clothing because you get to wear and enjoy it, but not worry about being photographed in it twice and exposed on Facebook or Instagram.

Brands need to provide more ways for young people to share, sell on or rent out their clothing if they want to.  ASOS aren’t just selling their apparel to their young customers they’re enabling them to sell their clothing on to other people around the world with their Marketplace site. And, Mud Jeans are now offering a service whereby you can lease their jeans, and trade them in for a new pair after a year. 

2. Enable their sharing instincts, don’t limit them                                                                 When it comes to something like books young people believe they should be as shareable as oxygen with their housemates. Not only are there the economic benefits, sharing allows them to talk about them afterwards.  However, e-book services are not capitalising on this, allowing people to only share an e-book with one person for a maximum of 14 days, in the case of Amazon. They are in effect making a pursuit which has a social dimension to it exclusively personal.

3. Don’t try to lock them in                                                                                                    ’Contract’ is  a dirty word with this generation.  A mobile contract that lasts 18 – 14 months can just be too intimidating. Our respondents felt more comfortable with Pay-as-you-go phones, and some mentioned O2 Refresh, a new kind of contract that lets you change your phone whenever you want to within the period of your contract.

Geography is also a factor that brands with contracts need to start taking into account. This generation is going to be more geographically mobile than their predecessors.  Mobile phone companies, for example, should consider allowing people to transfer their contracts should they choose to work abroad. The network Three recently announced they were abolishing roaming charges in seven countries outside the UK, which is an example of greater flexibility.

 4. Speak their language                                                                                                          Brands need to tune into Millennials’ desire for freedom, fluidity, flexibility and choice through the language and imagery that they use in their communications, and move away from the old codes of rigid, fixed and closed systems . Even if not strictly built around sharing economy principles, they need to find ways to give young consumers more of the “wiggle room” they desire. 

McQ Thinking is a boutique brand and communication consultancy that partners with the marketing and advertising communities. Find out more at www.mcqthinking.com.

The post More brands need to tune into Generation Share appeared first on McQ Thinking.

This small but rapidly expanding boutique hotel chain was founded in Holland by Rattan Chadha, the man behind the Mexx Clothing company. It was designed with a new breed of global traveller in mind, highly aspirational, yet price conscious.

What makes the Citizen M experience such an interesting one is that it delivers a seamless service experience that feels really intimate and personal, while being technology driven. I found myself so intrigued as to how a hotel experience, which is typically people-led, could make me feel so good despite the low dependency on human beings to deliver it.

The things that really stand out at Citizen M:

Technologically driven: From the self-service kiosk check-in that’s reminiscent of an airport, to the control tablet in your room, from which everything can be orchestrated – temperature, entertainment, mood lighting, music, blinds and wake up call.

Culturally tuned: The lobby is designed to hang out in, with access to the open bar and coffee shop virtually around the clock, and tons of design and culture books to browse through or buy. It’s the kind of space that attracts non-guests for informal meetings, or freelance working.

“Citizen M says”: The brand has a really distinctive voice. Delivered often through the written word rather than the mouths of its staff, every touchpoint is an opportunity to engage. It’s irreverent and tongue-in-cheek.

A welcome mat:

An cheeky alternative to the do not disturb sign:

Of course, there are human beings, but aside from the few staff at the bar and the help desk, much of the Citizen M experience bypasses human contact.  This actually elicits some powerful emotional feelings. It’s empowering not having to interact with staff unless you want or need to, checking yourself in and out, being able to navigate around the hotel through the witty signposting, generally being made to feel welcome and at home rather than judged.  And, if a hotel’s people are the usual heuristics through which to judge hotel service, the lack of them doesn’t make you feel less cared for or valued.

A lot of the speed bumps around hotel stays have been ironed out through this use of technology, allowing one to pass through unhindered. If this is a new definition of luxury, albeit affordable luxury – letting the guest feel more in control of their time and their experience – then I’m having some more of that.

This notion of giving back empowerment to their guests is central to what the brand is about.

Citizen M stands for Mobile Citizen of the world, meaning those who treat the world’s cities as their playground. In their words: “The smart new breed of international traveler, the type who crosses continents the way others cross streets……Those who are independent, yet united by a love of the five continents. Those in search of business, shopping or art.”  

What Citizen M shows us is that a category that has traditionally been so high-touch can do high-tech without sacrificing service for efficiency.  

Today’s mobile citizens of the world are becoming ever more demanding, and are looking to brands to serve them on their terms. What is so powerful here is that the hotel chain has been able to leverage technology to provide an experience that is affordable yet feels aspirational, by wrapping it up in a really distinctive personality, tone of voice and body language.  This is a brand that is having a conversation with me, even though I might never see its lips move.

The post Can a brand deliver the human touch without the human touch? appeared first on McQ Thinking.

The E-lites brand position themselves as the champions of ‘self belief’.  It is done in a way that portrays the audience as independent, self-sufficient and autonomous. Masters of their own destiny. Interestingly, this can be thought of as a return to many of the positive attitudes and ideals that surrounded smoking at the middle of last century. The idea of a rebel, a leader, someone who is separate from others and self-sustaining. The idea of emancipation.  This sheds light on some of conventions of their executions. The lone person that faces a grand outdoor landscape they must contend with is very much symbolic of independence and self sufficiency.

Tonally, they mix the inspiring, grand and almost herculean, with the tongue-in-cheek. What this allows them to do is to use highly aspirational scenes, yet make them feel attainable. They can be within reach, with a bit of self-belief (and your E-Lites).

I think that one of the reasons that this campaign stopped me is that a smoking cessation brand is framing itself in this way. Aligning itself with an attitude of self-belief. Paying homage to its users, rather than playing their saviour. The idea is reminiscent of this work by Nike.

The post E-Lites: Smoking reinvented or branding recycled? appeared first on McQ Thinking.

Both sets of authors come from the same essential starting point. That men, and male values, still rule the world, and that women, and female values, are sadly under-represented in all avenues of leadership.  Both books are clarion calls to end this imbalance, but each approaches it from a unique perspective.

Lean In seeks to “internalize the revolution” (to quote Sandberg), by inspiring one woman at a time to lean in, and find the inner resources to challenge the barriers that stand in her way. The Athena Doctrine by contrast, seeks to “externalize the revolution” (my interpretation) by calling for corporations and institutions to re-balance their cultural value systems, norms and behaviours.
Gerzema and D’Antonio have conducted extensive original research – a quantitative global sample of 62,000 people, plus an amazing array of interviews with inspirational female and male leaders across the world, who espouse Athena values. They are evidencing a seismic values shift towards the feminine that should not be ignored.

One of their findings that caught my eye: 66% of global adults believe the world would be a better place if men thought more like women. The authors’ prescription for this new style of leadership includes the following tenets:

• Dismantle the ego, which places humanity in the back seat to self-interest, and champion fairness as a core value.
• See vulnerability as a strength; sharing and learning from mistakes, rather than hiding them, as in the masculine model.
• Aspire to influence, rather than power and status. Have an opinion that’s sought after, and the ability to spread it through one’s networks.
•  Be selfless.  Contribute value to your organization, rather than extract value from it. “If you don’t share, you are road kill.”

Where The Athena Doctrine can be seen as a challenge to businesses or institutions to change their masculine ways of thinking and behaving, Lean In is more of a how-to guide for women who want to succeed in the face of these hurdles. Coming to this book second, I was interested to see whether Sandberg would get in touch with her inner Athena. What you find is a point-of-view that both upholds these feminine values, and contradicts them.

On the one hand, she is asking women to lean into a corporate world created by men, putting the responsibility on their shoulders to change their approach to their careers, while operating in cultures that will not change.

She quotes her mentor Larry Summers, who once advised his tax lawyer wife to “bill like a boy.”

On the other hand, Athena-like, she embraces her vulnerabilities, and opens up about her insecurities — that most women will be able to relate to — such as the fear of being found out, or the fear of not being liked. Much of her focus is, in fact, on these “internal obstacles” that women thrown down in their own way, and she seeks to give counsel on how to overcome them.

It is perhaps for this contradiction that Sandberg appears to be a pragmatic realist, and I warm to her because of it.

I think that both of these books are important additions to the leadership shelf, and not just for women. They do not stand in opposition, even though they are very different — both have something important to contribute to this on-going debate. The answer has to lie somewhere between the external approach – a change in corporate and institutional value systems, and the internal approach – a change in women’s own belief systems.

One thing is for sure. Both keep the hope alive.

The post Should we ‘lean in’ to the ‘athena doctrine’? appeared first on McQ Thinking.