Will AT&T's Stankey Ruin a Good Thing?
Recently, AT&T’s top media executive walked into HBO and insinuated that they are losing money and need to work harder.
From the sound of it, HBO’s staff was not exactly thrilled with Stankey’s remarks. At one point, Stankey implied that HBO didn’t make a profit. Richard Plepler, who has run HBO since 2013, corrected him — to some applause from staff — according to the Times. Stankey then chimed back, “You do. Just not enough.”
Stankey also gave HBO employees this metaphor to sit with, after telling them they would have to work harder:
“You will work very hard, and this next year will — my wife hates it when I say this — feel like childbirth. You’ll look back on it and be very fond of it, but it’s not going to feel great while you’re in the middle of it. She says, ‘What do you know about this?’ I just observe, ‘Honey. We love our kids.’”
I’ve been observing various leadership styles for over twenty years, and by and large, the most effective leaders don’t start by insulting their new organization.
Corporate leaders tend to fall into two groups. First, there are those who believe that they add value by pushing their teams to greater heights. They push their people to set high goals and then they hold people accountable for not meeting those goals. They believe they add value by not accepting excuses and by demanding that people produce.
But the problem with this leadership style often arises when the leaders are much more interested in the results than the process. The “how” isn’t exactly their concern. They fly in and dump on everyone, and then fly out until the next accountability session. The people under these leaders tend to be motivated more by fear. Corners will be cut and rules bent to try and meet their goals. Any long-term damage to the team isn’t a concern because the “leader” has his sights on his next position. Any success built on cutting corners isn’t sustainable. You tend to lose the ones with the best resumes, which hamstrings the future.
The other group of leaders adopts more of a servant attitude. They are there to get results too, but they approach it from a different angle. As opposed to ruling by fear, they take a more collaborative approach. What can the leader do to make their jobs more efficient? Capital investment ideas, priorities, and staffing all get discussed at length. The focus is more on what the leader can do for them, and concrete action plans are put into place. Rather than focusing on high monetary goals and leaving it up to their underlings to figure out how they are going to hit them, these leaders concentrate more on ideas and what it takes to accomplish them.
This type of leader would have walked into HBO and praised their success. He would then strive to understand what makes HBO tick and seek to give them more of whatever that magic recipe is.
Stankey also gave HBO employees this metaphor to sit with, after telling them they would have to work harder:
“You will work very hard, and this next year will — my wife hates it when I say this — feel like childbirth. You’ll look back on it and be very fond of it, but it’s not going to feel great while you’re in the middle of it. She says, ‘What do you know about this?’ I just observe, ‘Honey. We love our kids.’”
I’ve been observing various leadership styles for over twenty years, and by and large, the most effective leaders don’t start by insulting their new organization.
Corporate leaders tend to fall into two groups. First, there are those who believe that they add value by pushing their teams to greater heights. They push their people to set high goals and then they hold people accountable for not meeting those goals. They believe they add value by not accepting excuses and by demanding that people produce.
But the problem with this leadership style often arises when the leaders are much more interested in the results than the process. The “how” isn’t exactly their concern. They fly in and dump on everyone, and then fly out until the next accountability session. The people under these leaders tend to be motivated more by fear. Corners will be cut and rules bent to try and meet their goals. Any long-term damage to the team isn’t a concern because the “leader” has his sights on his next position. Any success built on cutting corners isn’t sustainable. You tend to lose the ones with the best resumes, which hamstrings the future.
The other group of leaders adopts more of a servant attitude. They are there to get results too, but they approach it from a different angle. As opposed to ruling by fear, they take a more collaborative approach. What can the leader do to make their jobs more efficient? Capital investment ideas, priorities, and staffing all get discussed at length. The focus is more on what the leader can do for them, and concrete action plans are put into place. Rather than focusing on high monetary goals and leaving it up to their underlings to figure out how they are going to hit them, these leaders concentrate more on ideas and what it takes to accomplish them.
This type of leader would have walked into HBO and praised their success. He would then strive to understand what makes HBO tick and seek to give them more of whatever that magic recipe is.
RSS Feed