I had a similar thought, but the issue with what Stankey did in terms of that article, as I understood it, was not with the content of what he was asking but that he delivered it as a dictate from a boss to his employees. That's pretty much the story of that whole (excellent) article--that Stankey wasn't introspective enough to recognize that his style was at odds with the style of the very valuable and productive executives that came with the merger and therefore wasn't adaptive enough in building a new relationship with them.
Imagine that meeting instead as a getting-to-know-each-other, as a more social meeting between relative peers, where someone during the meeting Stankey says "look, guys, I know you have been used to an all-hours-of-the-day access to the CEO, but I am trying to follow some constraints for myself". And then later on, "hey, if it's ok with you, I really like bullet pointed documents and hate slide decks--can we try that? And shorter meetings?" I suspect there wouldn't have been an epic culture clash if the leadership had understood how hard it is to merge working cultures and how much self-awareness and adaptation it takes to do it right.
I agree with you that corporate work culture focuses more on hours than productivity and it's inefficient, but I don't like your examples. As others have commented, the issue with what Stankey did in your quote wasn't what he said, but how he said it. Regarding Musk, I think he's a unique case where he's trying to get a certain kind of person to work for him, which has seemed to work in his other ventures, but the jury is out on if it will work with twitter.
In fairness, folks that are both hardcore and competent do exist (having talked to a few they just require less sleep than normal mortals) and are worth their weight in gold.
I had a similar thought, but the issue with what Stankey did in terms of that article, as I understood it, was not with the content of what he was asking but that he delivered it as a dictate from a boss to his employees. That's pretty much the story of that whole (excellent) article--that Stankey wasn't introspective enough to recognize that his style was at odds with the style of the very valuable and productive executives that came with the merger and therefore wasn't adaptive enough in building a new relationship with them.
Imagine that meeting instead as a getting-to-know-each-other, as a more social meeting between relative peers, where someone during the meeting Stankey says "look, guys, I know you have been used to an all-hours-of-the-day access to the CEO, but I am trying to follow some constraints for myself". And then later on, "hey, if it's ok with you, I really like bullet pointed documents and hate slide decks--can we try that? And shorter meetings?" I suspect there wouldn't have been an epic culture clash if the leadership had understood how hard it is to merge working cultures and how much self-awareness and adaptation it takes to do it right.
I agree with you that corporate work culture focuses more on hours than productivity and it's inefficient, but I don't like your examples. As others have commented, the issue with what Stankey did in your quote wasn't what he said, but how he said it. Regarding Musk, I think he's a unique case where he's trying to get a certain kind of person to work for him, which has seemed to work in his other ventures, but the jury is out on if it will work with twitter.
In fairness, folks that are both hardcore and competent do exist (having talked to a few they just require less sleep than normal mortals) and are worth their weight in gold.