Definitions of Irony

A bit of a youtube fest today I'm afraid- Mrs. Donatella is out with friends and I am taking a "break" from tidying up !

Here are two examples of irony from an all too familiar global accounting and consultancy firm.

The first is probably unintentional:





The second is almost definitely (hopefully) intended to be ironic with tongue firmly in cheek:




Oh dear- get a life !

The Devil Wears Prada (and wants us to have a career with a Corporation)**

** original post updated at the request of readers so as not to "spoil" the movie for those who had not yet seen it but wanted to.(apologies, earlier disappointed readers!)

The other evening I was "dragged" by my better half to see a film I viewed as "girlie". This was "The Devil Wears Prada", starring Meryl Streep as the ultimate boss from hell.

Anne Hathaway starred as an idealistic graduate looking for a way into journalism through the fashion magazine, Meryl Streep's character edited.



"Meeting the Boss from Hell........."

Streep was hard, she was cynical but above all she was successful at what she did.
She lead through a combination of fear but also some inspiration to her dedicated employees. Her most dedicated was the unbelievably camp "Nigel" played by Stanley Tucci.



Nigel, expert on all fashion houses from Chanel to Jimmy Choo and sporting an outsized ring with a red stone the size of a small tomato, was born to work at the magazine. It has been his life's ambition and one he achieved.





"The mildly camp....Nigel"

In contrast Andie (Andrea) had no real interest in fashion and was honestly not too bothered about the fact she had a job with "Runway" magazine. She did however possess one key trait- determination. This was her strength that became a weakness.

Despite being completely unsuited to working life at the magazine and initially despising her co-workers for their myopic out-look on life, she was determined not to be forced out. Eventually she realises the only way she will survive at Runway is to appear more like those at the magazine.

Appealing to camp Nigel's humanity, she gets a makeover and miraculously (this is a Hollywood film!) her fortunes begin to change. She slowly wins respect (or at least gets less abuse) from the fearsome boss, Miranda Priestly.

However Andie's new found success comes at a price. Her long hours at the magazine and her obvious changes in attitude undermine her long term friendships and her relationship with her boyfriend.

She is driven to succeed at her job and begins to fail at her life.

When things are getting near rock-bottom on her home front she confides in Nigel "My personal life is hanging by a thread. That’s all."

Nigel has obviously seen it all before and offers scant comfort – "Well, join the club. And that’s what happens when you start doing well at work, darling. Let me know when your whole life goes up in smoke. That means it’s time for a promotion."

This was the key message of the film for me. Fashion was incidental to the overall message. It provided a glamorous backdrop to a film that could have been about anyone making career choices.

It is the dilemma between choosing a corporate career in the hope that it will give you a better life and choosing a life while you still have the chance. (These comments are largely aimed at corporate careers and not more altruistic jobs or work in general!!!)

Of course for a happy (or deluded) few there is no conflict. For Nigel there is no life but fashion. His career is his life and exactly what he wanted in life. Nigel may face a big crisis when it comes to retirement but aside from that there is no problem.

Another minority group have absolutely no interest in a career, do a job to pay the bills and nothing more and live their life spending as much time doing what they enjoy, which is not their work. These people can be found in many places but are more obvious as someone who appears "over-educated" for the job they do e.g. the taxi driver who listens to radio 4, the man at the Post Office with a huge knowledge of politics. In some cases they can get more upscale jobs generally only using a small portion of their energy and intelligence to meet the demands of their employers.

However that is to blurr the edges with the majority who do feel the conflict and have not resolved it. On one hand they see the benefits of a career (basically money if they are being in an honest mood) but the demands of a career do not fit nicely with their main interests (whether it simply be friends and family or something more distinctive from painting to mountaineering). These people are often trying to do a career to pay for their "real" interests. The irony of the situation (and one I share) is that they spend the majority of their time (and certainly energy) doing something that is not their main interest. Their main interest is fitted in on tired evenings or hectic weekends, before going off to their "career" again.


The saddest sub-group are those who do a career they don't really like but this in turn squeezes out all their time and energy so they cannot do anything that really interests them. This is one of the ironies of modern life as if only they could quit the career, they would immediately be happier even allowing for the loss of income.

This was the situation Andie found herself although her determination to succeed blinded her to the fact she didn't really like it. Andie fell far from her initial ideals, split from her long standing boyfriend and upset her friends.

However something stayed alive in Andie that ultimately made her uncomfortable with her career choice. What she does a result of that discomfort, that conflict becomes one of the key plots of the movie, so I shall not spoil that for other potential viewers :-)

The film raised a few thoughts and memories from my time pursuing a "career" although I have never called it that myself.

First when I trained with a global firm of Accountants, I remember a severe partner got sprayed with champagne at an office "away day". A more diligent friend said of the champagne sprayer "That's one career going up in flames". Even then I thought to myself "Is that really a problem for him or more for those who of us who are left?"

In another situation, a "widower" of the firm, I worked (i.e. the husband of a girl who worked at the Accountancy Firm) at the end of yet another "pay day drinks" in a well known Kent town commented wryly to me "Of course I think you've all lost your identity as I always compare this firm to "the Borg" in Star Trek. It sucks out all your goodness and knowledge and uses it for its own purposes". I knew very little about Star Trek but I can confirm that "the Borg" is a overriding collective body that subsumes individuals into the collective.


From more educated sources I gather that the moto of the Borg is "Resistance is futile — you will be assimilated." Sometimes within the collective an "individual" is referred to darkly as "the one who is many". This has been noted to have biblical echoes of the demon possessed man who approaches Jesus "My name is Legion, and we are many". The overall theme is that the individual is erased in favour of the collective. This is viewed as a bad thing from the Bible to Star Trek. Yet that is the basis that many corporations have to operate. There has to be a "corporate identity". People must feel they are "part of" the corporation. Their loyalty is to the corporation and they must share the "corporate values". Most importantly their time and energy must be given to the Corporation. Their friends, family and interests are not intended targets but rather inevitable "collateral damage" if a career is to truly "succeed".

Hence the notion of the Borg is quite appropriate.

A final note in relation to Corporate life and jobs that are not inspiring. My brother often tells a tale of his University Chaplain who was frustrated at the continual trail of people studying interesting and unusual subjects but opting for a career with a well known accounting firm. Disappointed at this he said "There's a whole world out there and what do they do ? Join Coopers and Lybrand !"

So the Devil may wear Prada but I believe that he really wants you opt for a career with a Corporation. That is the easiest way that all your energy, potential and creativity can be used up in a largely futile way. What better way to put a smile on the Devil's face by devoting your life to an organisation that is of little interest and only exists due to the legal fiction of "incorporation".


"Andie" awoke to this situation and made her choices. To find out her choices you will need to see the movie ! However to me today, one thing is clear, I'm still sitting in my office writing about it :-)


"Queen Borg- "I can promise you a good career here"

Corporate Thought Police

"Now what I want to know is who the other 8 percent are?"

My colleague, a father of two and long time resident of the South London suburbs and Essex-born, laughs at the possibilities his statement raises.

We are talking about "diversity". To a simple soul like me diversity used to mean "variety". Someone could have "diverse interests" meaning they had many hobbies and participated in many activities. "Bio-diversity" could be found in a rain forest with many exotic species of parrot or plants. Diversity in these cases is an accident of nature or the choice a "renaissance man".

However increasingly in corporations "Diversity" (with a capital D) is becoming a requirement to "tick the box" and show that the particular corporation "cares" or has "corporate social responsibility".
Diversity now is all about the requirement to have "x" percentage of ethnic minorities, "x" percentage of gays etc etc.

This is ironic, as most people from communists all the way to arch-Monetarists will agree that the only "purpose" of a corporation is to generate profits for its shareholders. A corporation is not there to care or change the world unless of course being seen to "care" or change the world helps its profits in some way.

Technically I do not work for a corporation but for a partnership. However in a way the partners are shareholders and the aim is to generate profits for them just the same.

So, back to my colleague and the 8 percent…. We were having a Friday afternoon discussion about diversity. It had been sparked by one of the managers responsible for purchasing telling me he had had an enquiry from a Partner about whether we enquire with our suppliers with regard to their policy on anti-discrimination on the grounds of "sexual orientation".

The answer at the moment is "no". We do not ask a computer company- what are the prices of your computers and more to the point what is your anti-discrimination policy for gays?! However corporations are increasingly asking each other about their diversity policies, before they will do business with one another.

I had located a survey on our intranet that claimed 92 % of our employees were heterosexual. This information had allegedly been obtained by a survey. Quite how this information is supposed to benefit the Partnership is a mystery to me, but it did raise the question in my colleague's mind- "who are the 8 percent?". I doubt the discussion of this question was the purpose of the survey !

So why is this happening? Why are corporations suddenly concerned about how many gays work for them and how they can prove they have an anti-discrimination policy in place ?

"Diversity" is to be distinguished from the legislation that came to the UK in the 1970s against racial and sexual discrimination. This was government legislation designed to prevent discrimination against two groups seen as being at a disadvantage in the British workplace. Corporations were required to comply with this.

"Diversity" goes far beyond this. In many ways an inclusive approach by corporations can be welcomed. As the early pioneers of Diversity often pointed out, it is in the best interests of the corporation that their work force at all levels reflects the make up of their customers.

However when it comes to less obvious characteristics such as sexual orientation, I would question what an earth a corporation is doing spending a lot of time and resources ensuring that minorities are both identified and promoted ?

I am aware of little if any gay-discrimination in the context of an office- especially in London. I also fail to see the benefit of identifying gays in the workforce and ensuring their numbers are built up to an "acceptable" level.

This is largely a product of the tide of political correctness that started in some local authorities in the 1980s and the resulting "Diversity industry" as "PC" goes corporate.

I previously worked for an American mega-corp that had an established Diversity policy which made all the right noises but in reality achieved little. My impression there was that the Diversity department was a safe haven for the work shy who wanted an easy life but still to get some level of promotion within the company. There were various initiatives including a Gay and Lesbian car which predictably became the butt of some jokes from less enlightened colleagues.

Since then, a friend working for a leading global banking corporation has informed me of a more aggressive brand of "Diversity". "Champions" for women, ethnic minorities, older workers and gays have been required from each department. The failure to find a "gay champion" within my friend's department lead to a serious email from management stressing the importance of the initiative. Eventually a straight member of staff was press-ganged into taking that role.

Later, someone was pulled up for referring to the "disabled toilets". It should have been "enabled facilities". This highlights the point at which an anti-discrimination policy turns into thought policing.

In a sense, corporate work-places represent the ideal environment for thought police. No one wants to get too out of line for fear of their pay rise, promotion and ultimately job prospects.

Staff with limited ability, who would not have made it elsewhere in a corporation, take leading roles in the Diversity department. They lack the intellect to debate these points with so it is a question of obey or be marked as a trouble maker. Therefore disabled toilets must become "enabled facilities". The majority must look on passively as a "gay champion" is nominated without any desire or enthusiasm from members of staff or all orientations.

Furthermore, corporations begin to sponsor gay carnivals and similar events. The bank my friend works for is sponsoring some "gay hero" awards as well as carnival floats in the UK gay capital of Brighton.

This does not seem to help anyone in my opinion but ultimately leads to resentment from the majority that there is not such a fuss made of the straight, the white or the males.

I am not writing in support of discrimation. However I do write against "Diversity" in its aggressive corporate forms. People go to work to earn a salary. The majority do not even want to fill out a form saying if they are gay or straight, so that some middle manager can compile statistics. Least of all, no one likes being told what to say or think. Of course people should be civil and polite to their co-workers but correcting grown adults as they make a passing reference to disabled toilets?! Where will it all ends?

Recently some firemen from Newcastle in the North of England were disciplined for refusing to attend a gay-pride event because as family men they felt uncomfortable. "Conservative" councillors in Greenwich, London held a gay-only surgery. I fail to see how fire safety or local council problems are different for gays.

Now in corporations up and down the UK, politically correct enforcers are promoting their views to the captive audience of staff afraid for their jobs.

Some political correctness is ultimately contradictory. Back to the bank again, which promotes both "gay heroes" and "shariah mortgages" for muslim customers. I think the non-entities who work in the Diversity Department completely fail to see the irony of promoting "gay heroes" and shariah law at the same time. That makes these people even more zealous and dangerous in that their often limited abilities means they fail to see any wider context or history for the views they promote.

Anyway, this is all at an early stage where I work but if things continue as they are I fear it is only a matter of time before gay champions are requested, we are told what to think and the thought police come knocking.


Wake up, UK Inc, you are there to earn money for your shareholders! Somehow you got into this strange competition to prove who was the most "Diverse". It is going too far and getting too out of touch with the general population. Look at those who work in the Diversity Departments. Do you see your most able employees in there? I doubt it. Well cut the rest of us some slack. Treat us like adults and allow us to speak and think as we do outside work. As for gay heroes, there are plenty of wealthy private citizens who would be more than happy to sponsor them! It's not the place of a bank to do that. Finally, make your Diversity policy consistent. Gay heroes and shariah law? I don't think so. Don't take my word for it- ask the Taliban if they have a Village People album?!