These observations come from MSNBC’s online story about the exclusive interview President Obama had with Matt Lauer (that aired this morning). Here is a link to the full story.
The story’s headline, and lead comment is, “I would have fired the BP chief by now”, Obama says. This headline certainly works journalistically (and it got me to look). Two questions immediately came to my mind, and I encourage you to think about them for yourself.
If you could, would you fire Tony Hayward (and why)?
Do you think this is really the President’s concern? (more on that in a minute)
Based on the headline, those two questions led me to open and read the article. What I found further into the President’s comments, bothered me much more about his overall thought process. I quote the article:
“He wouldn’t be working for me after any of those statements,” Obama told TODAY.
The president also defended not having spoken to Hayward since the disaster began 50 days ago.
“I have not spoken to him directly,” he told Lauer. “Here’s the reason. Because my experience is, when you talk to a guy like a BP CEO, he’s gonna say all the right things to me. I’m not interested in words. I’m interested in actions.”
So let me get this right, he hasn’t talked to him at all, but he would fire him?
I know the President is a very busy guy, and has many things on his Presidential plate, and I know that in his role he communicates for a variety of reasons and is trying to send messages to various groups. In addition he is being interviewed by a skilled interviewer, which can also be challenging. Even with all of those caveats, when I connect these dots, from a leadership perspective I am dismayed.
Put aside your feelings about the President, the oil spill, BP, Big Oil,off shore drilling, oily marshes and beaches and Tony Hayward for a minute and think about my point.
Would you ever fire anyone without speaking to them?
And why doesn’t he want/need to talk to him?
“Because my experience is, when you talk to a guy like a BP CEO, he’s gonna say all the right things to me.”
I understand the President’s interest in actions over words (and I agree in principle). But didn’t he just say he would fire him for his words?
I have written many posts over the past two years (here is one about the President and networking, here is one about his first speech as Presdient-Elect and here is one about staying in touch) that share positive lessons from the President, this post won’t fall in that category.
As leaders we must realize the importance of personal interaction, and not underestimate what we can learn from them, even if we think people are going to say “all the right things.”
If a project, problem or crisis is a top priority of yours, wouldn’t you be talking to all of the parties you deem responsible and in charge?
And before you fire someone (even hypothetically), wouldn’t you want to have the chance to understand their perspective, determine the overall nature of their performance, and offer coaching opportunities?
I know what my answer would be, and I’m confident it would be yours too.
Here are your three leadership activities from this situation and post.
1. Consider carefully the questions I have asked. Reflect on your answers, regardless of your political viewpoint.
2. Redouble your personal efforts to communicate with those working on key projects today.
3. Look for coaching opportunities with your team today – and everyday.
Thanks for your thought provoking commentary.
In reading the transcripts of the President, and having watched the interview myself this morning, what I hear President Obama say is, “A person of that caliber should be more sensitive and should not have made such senseless comments,” and “he would not work for me due to his inactivity.”
Lastly, the movie “Up In The Air” highlights the layoff situation in our world now, maybe to a theatrical extreme, however, I am sure many of those laid off in recent years were not talked to about their performances. Sad but true.
My take was that IF the BP CEO worked for the President he would have fired him by now. That was a hypothetical situation- and I am confident that IF the BP CEO worked for the President I am sure the President would have had a conversation with him- not just fire him without talking with him. His comment on not having had a conversation with BP’s CEO really has no relation to the hypothetical situation posed. However I am in agreement that as the President that he should- or at least someone in the Whitehouse should have a conversation with Mr. Hayward regarding this disaster and what the resolution is going to be. In general, I believe everyone is hanging onto President Obama’s every word and action, waiting for an opportunity to criticize.
“I don’t sit around just talking to experts because this is a college seminar,” the president added. “We talk to these folks because they potentially have the best answers, so I know whose ass to kick.”
Doesn’t sound very “presidential”, and sure doesn’t inspire!
Wow. The President has been in office long enough to know better to send messages like that. My only explanation is that he knew what he wanted to say before the interview and was very calculated in his use of those statements. It makes him look like just another finger pointer and not a problem solver, least of all a crisis handler. I will admit that I am a moderate republican, but I’ve tried to be open-minded about this President. Its getting harder to keep an open mind.
Obama’s comments are in line with comments made by presidents in the past of every partisan stripe. The difference today is the overwhelming amount of media coverage. That being said, he should understand that.
I have no problem with what he said. It was honest. It was transparent. It was clear. I find myself very impatient with the usual well-coached politician giving a well-coached PR-palatable response.
I agree with his assessment of the value of meeting the CEO of BP. What is going to be gained from it but a photo op that brings more value to the CEO of BP than to the president or us? The CEO of BP has played a crucial role in creating the culture of BP. And his leadership and the values he prioritizes has been on display with BP’s culture and their results long enough to know the value of a meeting in person. Would we expect to find that BP’s culture is in direct conflict with that of their CEO. Doubt it. Has their CEO shown any predilection for…his ability to follow through on any of his PR-speak commitments?
But I think now, now that the leader of BP has been given ample opportunity to rise to the occasion as a leader with solutions and the ability to communicate them and he’s shown consistently he is not capable of rising to this occassion, it’s time to move on from him in our discussions. President Obama should move on to talk only with those people, true leaders, who have solutions, not who present obstacles and rear-guard strategies for their implementation.
I couldn’t agree with you, KJevin, and Chris Tegtmeyer more!
This sounds more like a rock star trying to gain attention and throw his weight around than any true leader.
“As leaders we must realize the importance of personal interaction, and not underestimate what we can learn from them”. Unfortunately, personal interaction seems to be disappearing as people hide behind a keyboard, but that’s a whole other subject.
Hi Chris, I had a slightly different take on the “ass-kicking” comment, not that I cared as much about whether it sounded presidential; the President was obviously trying to sound like he was tough on this issue. However, the challenge is because he appears to have some leadership challenges no one is scared of an Obama ass-kicking because it doesn’t carry any weight.
Now, to Kevin’s question, no you wouldn’t fire someone without speaking to them. Although this was a hypothetical, here’s the thing, TALK to the guy directly. Yes, he may “say all the right things” but then you can FOLLOW-UP and THEN see if he did all the right things, took the right actions. At this point in time you can have a conversation about corrective actions, but there has to be a dialog to begin with. That dialog is sorely lacking and reflective of the knee jerk finger-pointing we tend to get out of Washington.
Interesting thoughts. I’m trying to avoid political bias here, but I’d wager that America would offer the same comments on Obama’s oil spill leadership as Obama offered Hayward. “We’re not interested in talk, even if you’re mad. We’re interested in action.”
I think this is a well thought out article that challenges leaders to look at how to work with one another in solving issues vs. pointing fingers and Monday morning quarterbacking others decisions.
When I look at different models of leadership I don’t see “point the finger and blame others” as a good trait or characteristic of a leader. Obama’s comments are almost funny if they weren’t so sad. Firing a guy for his statements without checking to see if you really understand and have the whole picture is not a well thought out strategy. And not talking to the CEO because Obama has a stereotype about big oil CEO’s – wow. It almost leaves me speechless. Nothing like labeling someone without having ever talked to them.
Firing Tony is as pointless as speaking to him. They’d just fill his slot with another corporate wonk. Fire instead the BP chain of command that lead to the alleged shortchanging on equipment which may have lead to the loss of oil flow control. Fire anyone who ever said, “Drill, baby, drill”. I think the very idea of drilling in the Gulf for oil is abhorrent. Why haven’t we developed alternatives to fossil fuel, especially since 9/11?
This is no ordinary oil spill. This is no tanker collision. This is a tremendous catastrophe from which we may never recover.
“A person of that caliber should be more sensitive and should not have made such senseless comments,” and “he would not work for me due to his inactivity.”
Is it senseless or the opposite? I believe it is FULL OF SENSE!!!
What is there to talk or listen when it has happened!!!
Aren’t we are what we are today, because of what we decided and did yesterday? If so what is there to talk beside firing and fining for life!!!
At least, Mr. President has saved the CEO with ”few firm words” and I am confident that more actionable policies will be reintroduced or amended to the Constitution to avoid all such mishaps while making someone responsible or at least, pay higher penalties?