Corporate Ladder/Work

The belief system of the corporate ladder is misconstructed. I can't necessarily judge all industries, but I can generalize because the system is so prevalent. If a person starts an entry level position at a company, you obviously have the potential to move up the ranks and quite possibly might find yourself successful at the positions you get promoted to. The main issue lies in the moto "pay your dues". Particularly if the dues require a Modus Operandi that is significantly different than the other positions. Your "dues" are not strictly payed in the work environment- they are paid in LIFE....which can absoutely manifest in as "work dues", but not exclusively. If an employee was waiting for a promotion to the next position, I don't care if they had worked for me for 10 years already- if I feel someone else is a more capable option, I'll choose them over the previous person. And that's the way it should be. Also, if someone is damn good at what they do, that's not to say they'd be good at another role too. Ironically, many companies and executives globally fail to realize all this.

I'm going to reference someone who's a strong example of this...to say the LEAST. There is a renowned(at least in his industry) television director, Joe Pytka.  He's been dubbed the 'King of Cannes'(for winning so much in the film festival), and has had over 25 commercials air on the Super Bowl throughout the last few decades. He is notorious for his violent attitude and abusive remarks. He shouts at everyone, including at the clients themselves who are the ones who HIRE him. And, they keep distance and constantly come back again with MORE work for him. Every other television director "sucks up" to the advertising agencies and clients, and tolerates any and all snobbery. He "bites the hand that feeds him" every time, and they keep coming back. Now....WHY exactly?
Whenever that question is asked, everyone tends to have the same answer: "Because, he's Pytka. That's just how it works". And yet I ask, "Yes, but.....WHY is Joe Pytka, "Joe Pytka-Who-Gets-Away-With-Almost-Anything-and- has- Full-Control"? And the replies are relatively the same from various people:
1) "Because he's a bully, but a very talented bully....his stuff looks good."
2) "He's been doing it for decades and therefore now has a reputation that is "epic"."
3) "He's very economically helpful because he shoots 15 minutes of footage and therefore it's a short day."

Ok, so then is that to infer...
1) That there aren't other talented directors as capable as he is but who are actually dignified on-set? Secondly, This guy has done SOME of the most epic work I've seen on television; commercials and Public Service Announcements. And, he also has a LOT of very forgettable work.
2) That simply because a person has been doing something for many years that they're extremely good at it?
As if there aren't plenty of people out there who've been doing something for years and more capable at it then others, let alone with an abusive attitude?
3) That no other directors are able to be more economically-friendly and save time and footage? I myself shot a spec-spot for Starbucks. Guess what? The entire spot had 17 minutes of footage. Why? Because I didn't have controlling agency members breathing down my neck. And what's more, is that I'd treat them very respectfully while STILL saving everyone time/money. And MULTIPLE other directors would likely also film economically if they had the upper-hand.

But hold on. Don't just take it from me, take it from Pytka himself, who I've come across in printed and video interviews stating my exact points:

"I think I get more respect than I deserve because I've been around longer than I should have been."- Joe Pytka

Right you are, Pytka.

My question to brands and agencies now is, since having heard it straight from the very person you all revere creatively and economically, from the "horse's mouth", are you now willing to allow other artists/filmmakers to demonstrate that they may be just as capable/talented, but minus the abuse?

The moral of this rant is this: EXPERIENCE DOES NOT EQUATE TO CAPABILITY. Alternatively stated, having gray hair and a couple of wrinkles…does NOT….by ANY means ….WHATSOEVER….make a person more professional, capable, talented, or respectable, than someone 20-30 years younger WITHOUT ANY gray hair or wrinkles. PERIOD. Kay? Kay.