Square peg. Misfit. Rebel. It’s hard for highly creative or disruptive thinkers to thrive in environments where their ideas or styles clash with the established social order.
It’s about culture fit. Some companies, like Zappos, have built their company on their culture. Those who successfully live and breathe it become evangelists, bringing that fervor into their daily work and interactions. In the right place with the right people, you flourish. I’ve been lucky to find environments where mutual respect, camaraderie, openness, progressive thinking and a sense of common purpose inspired me to do and be my best. Conversely, when an organization’s culture doesn’t mesh with your values or gifts, the results can be traumatic. And I’ve been there too. It’s awful. By struggling to fit in, you may repress parts that make you unique—your point of view, talents and spirit. Not assimilating can result in alienation and conflict. Both are self-defeating.
We can learn from the setbacks and comebacks of highly accomplished people, like Julie Roehm, the former Walmart marketing executive, who was fired after only 10 months for alleged unsavory activities. A few years old, her story is re-featured in Fast Company’s July issue. It’s inconclusive whether she was really fired for improper conduct or because of her edgy ideas and aggressive style. And you wonder if being female made her transgressions somehow less forgivable. Julie Roehm chalks it up to poor culture fit. She was a pair of stilettos in world of sensible shoes.
Walmart had hired Julie as a change agent to reinvent its brand, but she proved too radical for the conservative culture also ruling the surrounding town. Julie’s previous track record was stellar, including the U.S. Ford Focus launch and Dodge’s “Grab life by the horns” campaign. Reflecting on the train wreck that followed, from messy law suits and near bankruptcy, to public shunning and death threats, she states: “I wanted to be able to show that I can adapt anywhere, I can do anything. The thing I learned about myself is that I’m not a full-on chameleon, and there’s nothing wrong with that.”
Whatever you think of Julie Roehm, we must admire her resilience and chutzpah. “This whole experience was a great slap to the ego,” she says. “But it has been a gift for me. I don’t pin my own personal self-worth on my title anymore the way I think I once did. That’s the epiphany.” Becoming self-aware, understanding what motivates you, knowing what you want (or don’t) and learning from failure—they are the pay-offs for going through hell. At the same time, we should be mindful of using “culture fit” to weed out those from whom we can learn different approaches and ideas—even if uncomfortable. Perhaps, it’s the prevailing culture that needs to evolve, embracing the individuals—mavericks, original thinkers and firebrands—who challenge it.
26 Comments
You obviously did zero research on Julies Wal-Mart fiasco… The fact that she was screwing one of her subordinates was not why she was fired… It was because she was feeding Drfat/fcb, one of the ad agencies taking part in a review, confidential Wal-Mart internal memos, accepting gifts from them… And negotiating a job for her and her lover within the Draft organization. It’s all on public record, you just have to do normal journalistic investigation. As for the feminine card, Julie played that, because she had nothing else.
Appreciate your comments. And I came across your site and pointed writings in the preparation of this blog. There is a wide spectrum of polarizing opinions and commentary on Ms. Roehm’s case. The particularities of her dismissal aren’t meant to be the focus. Ms. Roehm is simply used as an example to discuss culture fit, whether we sympathize with or abhor her. I don’t pretend to be a journalist but rather someone who simply found helpful lessons in her story. It just goes to show that if you don’t fit into an organization, every skeleton and wart may be revealed with no chance for redemption. Thanks, again for contributing your point-of-view.
Hi Jeanne… while I appreciate the theme and intentions behind this post, to George’s point, the lessons you aim to convey in your piece get lost by the fact that Julie’s “story” had nothing to do with culture, and everything to do with the horrible and ethically unsound choices she made – which are fact, not conjecture. Somewhat of an aside, as someone who was raised by a woman who fought hard to establish herself as a highly capable executive in the corporate world, I feel that Julie Roehm’s consistently blatant ignorance, stupidity and fairly sociopathic lack of accountability spits in the face of the advancements women have made to demand respect and be acknowledged for their larger contributions to business… women like you.
Hi, Gunther. Thanks much for the constructive feedback and thoughtful comments. I can’t really comment on Ms. Roehm’s conduct, personal failings or mental soundness, but your point is well taken. Whatever she did or didn’t do, I was most interested in her ability overcome the fallout of being where she simply didn’t belong, while still remaining unapologetically herself. Standing out in a field — being notorious, behaving badly and being brazen — can get you struck by lightning. Maybe that’s what she wants.
George Parker is a lamentable, has never been cretan. And, oh yeah, a pusillanimous coward. He doesn’t have the guts to call Ms. Boyes the awful names he calls her on his gaping hole of a website to her face, here. I would comment on his tired flatus on his website, but the thought of giving the hobgoblin a hint of attention is beneath me.
George Parker is such a sphincter-hatted, knuckle dragging bully that he misses the whole point of Ms. Boyes’ post–all he can see is Roehm’s name and a neutral viewpoint and off he goes on his tinfoil hat anti-Roehm tirade. The post is about the dangers of going against the flow in corporate America and when they tire of you, you may find your dirty laundry afloat around you for the whole world to see. Roehm is not the focus of the piece, nor is she painted in a positive light.
George Parker is everything that is wrong with the internet and discourse in America. On his blog, you can see how he tries to take ad agencies to task, but because he’s so crass and feeble-minded, he just looks like a monkey at the zoo, simultaneously eating and flinging it’s own poop. And he’s ugly like a hamster’s taint.
Thanks, I think. Mr. Parker is entitled to his opinions, but I appreciate your colorful point-of-view.
Jeanne…
Thanks for the reply. My beef with Julie is that she is typical of people who refuse that they made a monumental cock up, then instead of owning up and saying they have learned from that experience and have learned to do things differently, she blames everyone else. She thought she could go up against the Wal-Mart juggernaut and win… No one ever has. Didn’t she read her contract??? She has successfully reinforced the perception of the general public that people in Advertising and Marketing are scumbags. But the most egregious thing she continues to do is continually claim that she is the sole breadwinner in the house. If I was her long suffering husband, I would have thrown her out by now… And if that sounds sexist… So be it. She brings direpute on a business I have spent all my life in. She will never retain the position and repect she once enjoyed. She is damaged goods.
Cheers/George
@George Well…
Wow, I bet you feel better having got that off your chest. As for being a has been been… Let’s check our respect records, then discuss it further. Oh, and it isn’t a Web site, it’s a blog, and apart from having one of the highest readerships of any Ad Blog… It has also has the most amount of time spent on the site than any other ad blog, that includes AdAge and AdWeek… So there are an awful lot of people out there that don’t share your point of view… But I’m sure you’re used to that.
Well, George, I’ve learned a lot today through this lively exchange. Thanks for adding your insights. I don’t wish Ms. Roehm ill regardless of what she may have done, but I anticipate we’ll hear more as she continues with her personal and professional “rebranding” effort. Onward.
George Parker and George Well are both right to a point.
First, Parker is right that the the unethical and, perhaps, illegal situation Julie created for herself are not only unfortunate–but they show such a thorough lack of maturity and judgement that I can’t see any reputable company trusting her again.
George Well hits the nail on the head with his assertion that when a big, stupid company is done with you they find ways of pulling out all of the questionable moves you might have made.
Let’s put it this way, if the cabal at Wal-Mart were to turn on each other they way they did on Roehm, her transgressions would look like amateur night at the Bijou.
My take, Julie is a misguided, immature girl who got in over her head, made conscious decisions she knew were wrong, and deserves all she has received as a result. At the same time it is apparent that the Wal-Mart mafia, including the then-Don, Lee Scott, had put a hit out on her long before she took a dance on Howard Draft’s man-meat.
Dear George,
You got me; I’m a nobody, a little person, a peon, a proletarian, but at least I don’t claim to be otherwise.
I don’t give a flying zeppelin full of bulldog farts about your precious “big A”
advertising or “big M” marketing.
For your edification, a blog IS a form of website, silly man: wikipedia: website, types of websites, blog (or web log).
Ms. Boyes is far more gracious to you than I could ever be, given your obnoxious name calling at her expense and your explicit demonstration that reading comprehension is not your strong point. Worst offense of all, you are too thick to realize you owe Ms. Boyes an apology.
It’s pretty hilarious, but mostly sad, that you keep going on about Roehm. Kinda proves my point about you: “Found blog post. Georgie thinks about Roehm. Blogger uses big words Georgie no get it. Makes Georgie’s soft spot on head hurt. Georgie thinks stupid woman blogger not bashing Roehm, grrr, arrrgh…must spew crap…fart, snivel…Now Georgie spanked by some unknown smartie-poop pants, but Georgie must poop on Roehm, grrr, argh, Georgie still no care totally off topic…blarrrt, Georgie like poop hole smells when Georgie talk out it!!!! Yeah for Geogie, everybody look at Georgie!!!!”
All my sympathies to anyone who meets you or must endure your writing,
George
Et al, capable of intelligent collegial discourse,
There are far more important issues to discuss that eclipse the particularities of the Roehm example. Roehm was outspoken, and there is little doubt Roehm did some unsavory things. However, the tsunami of petty gossip and rumor that exponentially expands in the wake of nearly any powerful woman making her way through corporate America is a pathetic commentary on our still patriarchal business culture.
Wal-Mart used every little thing they had on Roehm to try to crush her because she was a square peg. Sadly, the annals of business are replete with countless male executives acting in truly heinous ways, far, far worse than Roehm and they get away with it because they tow the party line. Or, if they entirely screw the pooch, they pull the rip chord on their golden parachute.
I think Ms. Boyes’ point is that the whole world is full of stories similar to Roehm’s. If one posseses a wit of sense, one should realize that the whole truth is not for any of us outsiders to ever fully know. And, if one is not a zombie, one has to empathize with those who have soared and fallen (by their own actions and/or the machinations of others). It’s the exceptional person who learns from the fall and braves flight again. Roehm’s story is a cautionary tale, replete with hubris and redemption.
What makes one heroic? — Going out to meet at the same time one’s highest suffering and one’s highest hope.
Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science, 268
Mad respect al,
George
The definition of chutzpah, according to an old Yiddish anecdote, is someone who murders his parents and then asks the court for mercy because he’s an orphan.
Julie Roehm is not the wronged woman.
She is the wrong woman to be the subject of admiration.
Steve, your point is well taken. And thanks for sharing the anecdote about the Yiddish expression, which of course, I did not know. I meant its more pedestrian meaning: shameless audacity; impudence; brass.
It’s clear not many admire her or hold her up as a paragon/role model. I don’t condone anything she may have done. What I find of value is her ability to grow a new limb after it has been severed. Many would have slunk away in shame, but she refused to do so. Her regenerative abilities are astounding and something that, in worthy hands, could benefit those who find themselves an unwelcome outsider.
What new limb has she grown? Nearly every piece of puffery about her still focuses on the Walmart fiasco. She cannot move beyond it, although every other player in that episode has indeed moved on. She has not reinvented herself. Neither has she found success in any of her attempts at re-entering the advertising/marketing world. It’s sad, in a highly pathetic way.
Yes, Sean. She may forever be associated with this morass. I’m not following her career presently, and I can’t profess any insider’s knowledge about her professional ventures. I’ll take your word for it, so thanks for your two cents. Within the constraints of what I’ve read (good and bad) and what has resonated, I know this:
• She hasn’t jumped off a bridge.
• She still has her family.
• She still has some friends and supporters.
For me, those things count. But to your point, will her new limb be lame or fully functional, in terms of professional reputation and respect? I guess many just see a stump at best. Thanks for contributing.
Hmmmm…George Wells = Julie Roehm…some thought must be given to that possibility
Ms. Boyes,
With all due respect, you have low standards. Of course she hasn’t jumped off a bridge, still has her family and a handful of friends. This was not a life-altering trauma. She did not face a major disease or the loss of a significant family member, thank God. Instead, she compounded her own problems by denying her role in the affair – literally and figuratively. How many people have been fired from a job? It’s a common occurrence in these times. But she pushed back in all the wrong ways, with all the wrong reasons. She is not a victim of any system except her own twisted system of thinking.
Ms. Boyes, you seem to admit having little research on the scenario. So how can your opinion on the matter be valid or credible?
Indeed, my opinion is simply that — an opinion. I’m not a fan or supporter of Ms. Roehm, and I’m not an advertising insider. Aspects of her experience simply resonated with me on a personal level. I came across many things about Ms. Roehm in writing the post, but the Fast Company article brought up issues I find interesting — culture clash, how people respond to failure of their own making or otherwise, the power of corporations beyond the office, and so on. I found value in her resilience.
Considering Ms. Roehm’s career emphasis, the fallout, and personal attacks, the “fiasco” appears to have been traumatic to her and her family. I do not see her as a victim. She made her own bed. I see her as a person with greater fortitude than most would have in her situation — reviled, and held up to scorn and ridicule. If readers find value in my perspective, great. And if not, that’s fine, too. Thank you, Sean, for sharing your perspective.
Terry: interesting theory that George Wells is actually Ms. Roehm. Sounds possible, except for the fact that I’ve never read or heard her say anything of import or higher intelligence. In fact, her blog posts are laden with typos and her Fox News commentaries are inane. She’s a borrower of ideas, and a fraud who has been exposed by her own iniquities.
Jeanne – your points are still well taken and you have an interesting, objective take on things. I will be reading future posts
Gunther
Gunther, I checked out your site. Impressive. Returning the compliment, I, too, will be interested in hearing what you have to say.
Best regards, Jeanne
You so caught me. I never thought anyone would catch that George Wells is an anagram for my true name, Julie Roehm. Oh, wait, that doesn’t work out, does it. I guess I’m not Roehm.
I really could NOT care any LESS about anything than I do about her (except maybe the whole ad business).
I’m a “fu__tard” and “douchenozzle,” according to the foremost authority on marketing and advertising. Sad to think the best insults from marketing-and-advertising’s brightest star are older than his newest pair of panties.
Speaking of panties, I thought George Parker was Roehm, waging a war of disinformation, to give others the impression that she is fully vanquished…. Meanwhile, back in her underground lair, she hunkers over an unearthly glow emanating from a enormous black cauldron, chanting in a long dead language. She calls forth her army of darkness, legions of undead adhacks and mutant client reps. Soon her evil forces will number in the millions, and she can exact her revenge, not only on the ad world, but the whole world!
Ms. Boyes should think about disallowing further commentary that focuses on “R” (I hereforth will refer to Roehm as “R” and George Parker as “P,” or perhaps when feeling particularly peckish, “Pee.”). It’s beating a decaying horse. And, still not on topic. It’s a sad little mind that can’t hold two contradictory ideas, like “R” was asking for it but didn’t deserve everything she got.
Nietzsche puts forth in Human, All Too Human that man’s utter lack of responsibility for his nature is the “bitterest drop” to swallow, if he has grown up thinking responsibility and duty are sole provenance of humanity’s nobility. If a man is capable of transcending easy labels like good and evil, and accepts that “good actions are sublimated evil actions,” and “evil actions are good actions become coarse and stupid,” all judgments become irrelevant. Thus, “the deepest feeling…offered a victim or hero” is misdirected and he no longer can judge, “for it is nonsensical to praise (or) blame nature and necessity.”
To all supercilious sycophants who still need to pass judgment on “R” — go take a “Pee.”
GW,
You need to chill. You’re not even using words properly. Who is being a supercilious sycophant? That’s nice alliteration, but it makes no sense whatsoever. FYI, I never thought you were Roehm. You’re not smart enough. And to put that into perspective, I think Roehm is just shy of retarded. Cheers.
Regarding supercilious sycophant:
Supercilious sycophant: one who is self-serving by acting with disdain towards others. A crawler or toady who piles on when it’s clear that it is safe to do so. Usage: A supercilious sycophant claims a person with a differing perspective has “low standards” when she is merely writing with grace and magnanimity, refraining from judging others.
On that note, I’d like to call a truce on the verbal sparring, although entertaining. Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. In fact, it’s welcome. I’m not one to censor free speech, so I’ll simply ask all of us to keep things more constructive — even if we disagree. Many thanks!
Ha! Supercilious sycophant was aimed at me? I’m flattered. But I still think your word choices are poor. I guess that would lead you to continue thinking of me as a supercilious sycophant.
But honestly, I think it’s actually a little dangerous and irresponsible to forward opinions that are uninformed. Call me a supercilious sycophant. But it’s like concluding Dick Cheney is admirable because he looks like a kindly grandfather. You say Ms. Boyes refrained from judging. She wrote, “…we must admire [Roehm's] resilience and chutzpah.” Um, no we must not. Boyes sees resilience where others see recklessness and arrogance. Then there’s this line: “Perhaps, it’s the prevailing culture that needs to evolve, embracing the individuals—mavericks, original thinkers and firebrands—who challenge it.” Seems to be judging Walmart, no? Keep in mind, after Walmart fired Roehm, along with Draftfcb, the company found a new agency – and the new advertising seems to be working extraordinarily well, as Walmart sales are flying through the roof. You could blame it on the economy, but other discount retailers are not enjoying such results. Perhaps Walmart knew exactly what they were doing when firing Roehm. It’s not a question of culture. It was about competence and professionalism, or Roehm’s lack of the two qualities.
But honestly, my real point is not to judge Roehm. Like you, I could not care less about her. I do, however, continue to believe uninformed opinions are dangerous and irresponsible. Again, call me a supercilious sycophant.
I understand Boyes’ main point about culture and fit. Call me arrogant, but I probably understand the point better than Boyes or you, George Well. Using Roehm to make the point is a lousy choice, in my opinion.
Cheers.
8/15 update: Many thanks for the spirited conversation. I will be closing this comment stream on Sunday, 8/16 and hope you will visit us again soon.
Yes, I have a differing viewpoint, but I don’t agree that it’s uninformed. I was indeed aware of the circumstances, evidence of wrongdoing, and passionate views about her and her situation through research. However, I found something interesting underneath the things others may disdain or loathe. Strengths can also be weaknesses depending on how they are wielded. While she may be reckless and arrogant, she is also resilient and persistent. Time will tell if it serves her or her family well. Because she is so polarizing, Ms. Roehm strikes me as a misfit in the truest sense of the word: a person not suited to a job or environment; a maladjusted person. And she continues to be one, as the prevailing opinion seems to confirm. At the same time, this doesn’t mean I condone any ethical, moral or contractual misdeeds that may have taken place.
Regarding culture clash and fit, she struck me as someone who clearly was out of place at Walmart — even without the poor behavior, which just compounded her unsuitability and accelerated her expulsion. I don’t consider Walmart evil. They’re just a business — powerful and influential with a strong, established culture. I don’t view Ms. Roehm as evil either. Just a person who has made questionable choices, stands out conspicuously, and has reaped what she has sown. As for my final thoughts in the post about cultural evolution, it’s my nature to question things and try to see them from another perspective. Being open to the possibility that organizations and people can change and evolve. Learning from and finding the positive in something that’s nasty, difficult, uncomfortable or challenging. Perhaps Walmart and Ms. Roehm learned something from their interaction — what they don’t want (in an employee/employer), how they could do things differently, or greater conviction in their positions. Both have gone on to do what works for them, whether we approve or not.
Thank you, all, for sharing your views.
Postscript: If inclined, please feel free to offer up what you may consider to be better culture fit examples. I’m open to hearing them. While I comment on things that resonate with me, I accept that others may not find them as compelling or valuable.