A US CEO's recent memo to staff made headlines and raised questions about the best management styles
Tough-talking leaders are having a moment. If culture comes from the top, the messaged trickled down is generally "it's my way or the highway."
Chief executive of US telecommunications giant AT&T, John Stankey recently made headlines for his no-nonsense, 2,500 word response to a staff engagement survey that was published in full by Business Insider.
Stankey said he understood "some of you may have started your tour with this company expecting an ‘employment deal’ rooted in loyalty, tenure, and conformance with the associated compensation, work structure, and benefits".
“We have consciously shifted away from some of these elements and towards a more market-based culture – focused on rewarding capability, contribution, and commitment. We believe this is the only way to succeed in the dynamic, technologically driven markets where we operate," he wrote.
"We run a dynamic, customer-facing business, tackling large-scale, challenging initiatives. If the requirements dictated by this dynamic do not align to your personal desires, you have every right to find a career opportunity that is suitable to your aspirations and needs."
"That said, if a self-directed, virtual, or hybrid work schedule is essential for you to manage your career aspirations and life challenges, you will have a difficult time aligning your priorities with those of the company and the culture we aim to establish."
So who is more likely to achieve more; blunt bosses or bridge builders?
HRD asked associate professor David Cheng (pictured above), from the Ausralian National University’s Research School of Management, about the effectiveness and ethics of different leadership strategies in modern organisations.
How to navigate organisational change
Q: What are the risks of using a top-down approach to change?
A: “When you do it in a quick, hard, sharp way, people might not like it, and therefore they form resistance against you. They might look for every excuse. In this situation, you oftentimes see a lot of your good people walk out the door, or you have to make them redundant, because of the change, so you have to pay them out.”
Q: How do you see employees reacting when organisational values change?
A: “When you join an organisation, you know what the organisation is and what you sign up for. When CEOs enforce their changes and use the ‘my way or the highway’ approach, the counterargument to that is that employee didn't sign up for those values.”
“When you first signed up here, you signed up for a different set of values. You see, you have changed the values. Is our job effectively redundant because you're the one changing? I mean, that's an interesting question. I don't think legally it'll fly, but it's an interesting question to think about.”
“Way back in the old days, you used to have a job for life. Bosses looked after employees, and there's this agreement that's now gone for the most part. It can be seen as every person for themselves, unfortunately. And so just as you know, over the last 20 or 30 years, we've seen companies get rid of 10s of 1000s of people at a time without even thinking – whether that be because of redundancies, outsourcing, whatever.”
“In situations like these, you’re going to look for an alternative, that moral contract between employee and employer isn’t a thing anymore, I don’t think.”
Q: What does HR mean in today’s organisation and how do they help navigate change?
A: “Many moons ago, when I was at university, the discussion was focused heavily on HR being just a person – looking at things like compliance, holidays, pay. Now, the ‘human’ element is at the fore. They care about you. But, in a way, when we look at redundancies, HR can be the first in the firing line - if you're not doing what I need to do as effectively or as cheap as I do, I will get rid of you, and I'll get another resource in. Who will do that? And I guess AI will. AI could be one of those resources, which is clearly could be a lot cheaper as well.”
