When A Change At The Top Is Necessary
It appears British Petroleum CEO Tony Hayward is on his way out. There are many reasons I think this is a good idea. Here’s a couple:
Looks like you’re going to get your wish Mr. Hayward. And don’t forget this gem:
My friend Jason Mollica has written a post detailing his belief that it doesn’t really matter if Hayward is replaced or not. The crux of his argument is as follows:
What I AM saying is that regardless if Hayward is booted, the next person still has a monumental mess on his hands. So, ultimately, why even bother removing him? The environmental damage alone will take decades to fix. Some things may never return to normal.
This is a “save face” move. BP appears to be moving on from the Hayward reign and place the keys in the hands of a new leader. Basically, BP’s board is saying, “Hey look! We are doing something about the spill!” No, you removed your CEO who was a small part of the problem.
I disagree that this is completely a “save face” move. Without a doubt, any guy dumb enough to say he’d like his life back and then a couple of weeks later attend a yacht race in France is a liability. Where I disagree with Jason is that I don’t think BP is viewing this as a “Look at us people of the Gulf Coast region affected deeply by our screw up! We’re DOING something!”.
There comes a time when the ship needs a new captain. When that leader inspires zero faith from the crew (in this case crew being the public, its BP’s employees, and its investors and stockholders), a new direction is needed. Americans, and most people worldwide, are predisposed to distrust corporate CEO’s, a point made by another friend of mine, Sam Ogborn in the comments:
Here’s my question though: who is someone that the public trusts? Most CEOs of large corporations I’ve never heard of, so I wouldn’t be a good judge of character. But how can someone instill trust in the public eye if no one knows of them in the first place?
That’s a GREAT question. The answer is the public just needs to know that the top man (or woman) at BP “gets it”. They need to know that the BP CEO understands the trauma inflicted by this spill on wildlife and mankind and perceive that person as someone who CARES about what happens in the Gulf. Hayward didn’t seem like he ever truly cared. See those clips up above if you disagree.
To promote change you need a person at the top that is willing to instill change. If Tony Hayward isn’t going to do his job, then BP needs to find someone inside its organization that can step up and do the job correctly. It’s less about solving the problem in the Gulf, which is going to take another generation at the minimum to TRULY solve, and more about putting someone in place that will take those first steps.
Matt,
I tip my virtual cap to you on this post. I’m so happy we can disagree and it gets our minds going enough to blog.
In thinking about what I wrote yesterday, I realize that changes do need to be made. However, up until this spill, did you know who Tony Hayward was? I didn’t. And BP had just re-branded with a new logo and new outlook. Hayward had done a decent job (apparently).
His successor has a monumental task in front of him. He already is talking about changing culture, etc. It’s the same things I’ve heard before from new CEOs.
We’ll all be watching to see how it plays out.
Again, terrific post and rebuttal!
I am just glad they are attempting to make a change…
http://www.wutevs.wordpress.com
Good Post, sometimes the CEO shouldn’t speak on behalf of the company. He needs to go and he needs media coaching.
http://www.solodovepr.wordpress.com
Change at the top means nothing other than the company is looking for a chance to change it’s public image. Tony Hayward’s removal was futher prove that large corporations can be manipulated by public opinion… whether that’s a good thing or a bad thing has yet to be determined.
his removal wasnt from public opinion alone; manipulation wasnt the key, it was the show.
He may want his life back, but he never should’ve allowed himself to be put in this position in the first place. As CEO he was in charge of everything. He should’ve run the company better.
Wow. Goodbye mister BP.
A really, really bad decision was made regarding that rig and responsibility for that decision seems to have filtered it’s way to that strange void just that side of reality where all environmental and corporate criminals seem to do time.
Hayward has been one of the major reasons that most of us in the Gulf and south Floridian regions have been unable to trust that BP is doing what it claims it’s doing. Getting rid of Hayward just ensures their BS becomes more believable to us. It makes a lot of Americans (particularly ones who don’t live on the coast) think, “See, he WAS an asshole! They got rid of him!” and gives BP a chance at some form of redemption in the public eye. A change up top without an actual change to policy isn’t good enough. But, it is good enough for people who didn’t care all that much anyway.
Victoria,
I think the change is less about blaming someone, and more about getting someone in there that will actually DO something. When your plan to stop the leak takes months rather than days, that’s an issue, and it starts at the top. I sincerely hope that whomever BP brings in will be able to effect change in the organization to help ensure something like this doesn’t happen again.
I would also agree that a change for the sake of change is not the right move. I’m hopeful BP gets that and inserts someone who will take control of the situation and be that change agent that is so desperately needed. And trust me, from the middle of Cow Country in the Midwest…all of us care about what is happening in the Gulf. We may not have as big a stake in it as those on the coast, but we definitely care.
Necessary change is necessary.
Great post! With competition much more fierce in today’s economy, corporations are no longer able to “reward” it’s CEOs for poor performance. The record $17 billion loss is largely attributed to the spill, therefore much larger than one CEO. Nonetheless, as a CEO, you are the voice of the company. Bad mistakes will have lasting negative affect on the company. On the other hand, although a CEO cannot change an entire company on his or her own, can make small positive changes that attract people.
Ck out my blog post on the importance of leadership: http://lbwong.wordpress.com/2010/07/19/leadership-is-not-just-for-managers/.
Thanks! Lb
The thing about this issue is that I question how a CEO can or perhaps attempts to actually guide the person actually doing the work. In each corporation that I have worked at the CEO never had a clue about the decisions that I was making and I was making million dollar decisions.
As an employee I always feel rushed to make decisions and pushed to find a way to do things faster and more lean.
The question in my mind is why did the engineers that made the decisions they did? What role does a CEO actually have in the day to day decisions that the true decision makers (workers) make?
-Renee’
Renee’,
First of all, thanks for stopping by and commenting! Most appreciated. I agree that most CEO’s probably don’t have much of a hand in the day-to-day operations or decision making tasks taking place. However, they DO set the tone for those operations and/or decisions. I’ve always viewed a CEO as a “Queen of England” type position. It can influence decision making when it wants, but for the most part, it’s a ceremonial position and one of a figurehead.
That said, from the way Hayward has acted since the spill, we can assume he ran a lackadaisical operation with little attention to detail…other than the bottom line. I’m praying BP takes the opportunity it has right now to really change the face of the company from one of incompetence and greed to one of working towards correcting the problems it has created and working towards the future.
A new face gets to deal with the future without having to be solely responsible for the decisions made in the past – so the job is easier. Personally I’d rather concentrate on talking about the current situation than the past anyway.
Maybe we need to change the structure of corporations if we are to change the way they function. Right now, corporations are given all the rights and privileges of human beings, (yes, really), but they are not held accountable in the same moral way. That is, a corporation’s only drive is to make as much money (profit) as possible, by any means necessary. When the laws change to ‘fix’ this, then CEOs will be more well-liked.
With Love and Gratitude,
The Intentional Sage
He is clearly an able man but naive in front of the camera. However, his senior comms advisers haven’t covered themselves in glory either, as in a major crisis these are the guys you rely on to help steer your way through the maelstrom. Things could have been very different if the advisers around the CEO had worked harder to keep him “on message”.
http://ayodm1.wordpress.com/2010/07/27/bps-woes-its-not-what-you-do-its-what-you-say/
I think BP will come out stronger from this crisis very quickly
We instilled “change” by electing President Obama.
…How has that worked out? Do you know what change you were trying to instill? Who would take the place of Hayward and what “change” would that person bring? Point is, fixing one mess by incorporating “change” doesn’t, by default, change shit.
And jumping to uneducated conclusions without knowing what the fuck conclusion you’re coming to, is just plain ridiculous. So for all of you who commented and stated that this change would be good….why? Why is it good? Just for the sake of change?
Thanks for your post Ross.
The change I think BP needs to instill is one of competence. Tony Hayward has, quite obviously, been rather incompetent in his handling of the oil spill. It’s not completely on his shoulders, and I wouldn’t suggest that it is. However, the bottom line is that it WAS his company to run, and he is ultimately responsible in the failure of capping the well.
First of all, BP needs to find a person who can relate to those on the Gulf whose livelihoods have been all but destroyed by the spill. Understanding the problem and its effect on the Gulf is the first step. The second step is installing a better way of doing business. From the results of the spill, it is quite obvious that BP wasn’t concerned about safety. Much like Toyota. However, BP has a chance to become a different kind of oil company. One that legitimately puts environmental concerns near the top of its priority list.
I’m not naive enough to think that any company would put the public good ahead of profits, nor should it. However, it can balance its quest for those profits with how it does business.
Also, for the record, I kindly ask you to not use that kind of language around here again. Thanks.
The problem still exists in the Gulf, the company that is responsible for it is still there, Hayward is not totally responsible for the accident, afterall he is the CEO, how much day to day things having to do with the actual drilling and the “accident” do you think he actually had? He may have made some stupid remarks, yes, but don’t you think he is being made a sacrificial lamb? I personally don’t care who runs the DAMN company, the problem and accident has been done, just fix it, and as soon as possible. And I want THE President, who “supposedly” has been there since the “beginning” to take some responsibility for the mess he has helped create by getting in the way by not letting the people in the gulf handle it their way, so back off from what you know nothing about or get some good experts to help, Mr. President!!
evelyngarone.com
Interesting post, but I doubt if there is going to be much real change. “Exiling” Tony Hayward to Russia with million dollar a year pension shows that things are pretty much business as usual.
A man that I really did not like very much, but worked for, many years ago in my youthful past had a saying. It was “A Fish stinks from the head down.” Such is the case today with the man we have as President of our country. Until the helicopter takes him on that last ride, off the White House grounds, our country will remain in the sorry state of affairs, we are currently in. We thought we were getting a President….what we got was a man with a chip on his shoulder and a dictator’s approach to government.
Could you explain the the Mets why they need a new General Manager?
Great read, well written!
-Noor
http://noor724.wordpress.com/
Hayward’s removal was planned months ago. They were just waiting for the cap to work before giving him the axe. Reason: they want all the bad juju to go out the door with him. So the challenge at this point is going to be repairing their which image…a task that will go hand-in-hand with repairing the damage caused by the spill, making things right with the communities that have been harmed and finding new ways to tap energy reserves that are less ecologically risky. That’s a lot of work, but in the long run, if they do it right, they just might succeed in making people happy again. Think a generation or two from now. http://danholden.wordpress.com/
Being 45 years myself onshore and off, in the oil industry, I don’t blame
Tony Howard, knowing that he does not make the decisions on an offshore rig.
I blame the rig Bullpusher and the cementing company for allowing themselves to be talked into forgetting standards, many- years- proven- oil- industry procedures. No rig superintendent ( Bullpusher ) on board such a rig at the time, if he really had experience, would have allowed the moves that took place, putting the rig, the hole, and his men at risk. Q.E.D. Full Stop.
Hayward may not have had control over direct decisions concerning the rig, but he had control over his own mouth (the ‘I’d like my life back’ quip) and his body (decision to go yachting during one of the greatest environmental disasters that has ever occurred). He paid for his arrogance and insensitivity. Good riddance.
Hey, Jamaica. Yes, Hayward ran he ‘mout’ stupid. What else he could do, eh ?
Better he keep he ‘mout’ shut, no ? Dis is a Trini.
bkit d rin mtanngal jan sa dos c jubert nakakasukaldito…..cla nba ni boss lopez kya ang lakas2 nya…..at kung bkit di nla paalisin c willie at tpusin nlang ang contrct nya at kung s tingin nila n dna bibilhin ng publiko c willie di palayasin n nila…tpos c kris andyan n nman???????huuhh….PNOY maawa ka sa sarili mo…sabi nla nuon n c imelda ang ngpabagsak kay FERDIE….ngaun c KRIS ang mgpabagsak sau….sbihin n nman nya na sadista c james at may tulo…..hoy mga nsa dos wla nbang iba kungdi c kris….sir lopez,bilib p nman aq sa papa nyo di tkot s mga marcoses tas ngaun c kris lng pla ktapat s sau….pustahan yau iiyak n nman yn c kris on tv…PALUSOT n nman yan…
change is good
Replacing him with an American “man in charge” is using again a clichee of “our guy going for the saving job now!”.
Wonders how long it takes to the USAmericain mindset, to “get it” that the new cowboy will not save the home base from self inflicted resource greed and that instead of blaming the usual fat cat puppets( yes, neoliberal speculation is unhealthy!) it might be time to point towards the own lifestyle .