Lesson 1 | What do we say to the media?

This post is a exact translation of a post from a mentor of mine, Mr. Shabanali (+).

Was Laxman Narasimhan’s idea of work-life balance wrong? It’s hard to give a definitive answer. Many managers don’t recognize such balance, while others try—at least in theory—to consider it.

Does the CEO of Starbucks have to work after 6 PM or come to work at 5 AM just because the workers do? The logical answer is no. Everyone has their duties and should work according to them. The CEO’s responsibility is to ensure profitability and sustainable growth for the company. If the CEO can do that—even hypothetically—from their bathroom in 15 minutes a day, and no one can do it better, that CEO is more valuable than one who never leaves the office and even sleeps there.

In our country, we often see managers emphasizing that they’ve been working from morning till night or that they’ve slept in the office to show their commitment. They emphasize not being tied to their desks, constantly doing field visits and inspections. However, for humans, “working hours” and “kilometers walked” are not the right metrics, even though these might be suitable for a generator or a horse.

That said, this principle holds only when the business is in good shape. When a business is in recession or a human crisis occurs, symbolic metrics suddenly become important.

Logically, a manager’s working hours shouldn’t have anything to do with the workers’ hours. But when the company is laying off workers or extending their working hours, announcing a reduction in managerial hours to improve their quality of life can create a crisis.

We’ve seen companies in our country that have been on the brink of bankruptcy, with everyone working hard to endure and overcome the crisis. But then, suddenly, news breaks of a budget allocated for something unnecessary or an expensive, meaningless project or trip, pushing employees to the boiling point.

What’s the solution? Should managers stop giving interviews?

It’s not something that can be easily prescribed. Although my usual recommendation to my managerial friends is that these days, when the opportunity arises to participate in a conversation or interview, their default policy should be “not to participate,” and only in essential cases should they try to “convince” themselves to participate.

This effort to “convince” oneself helps clarify the goals of speaking to the media and prevents one from getting caught in unnecessary discussions or making problematic statements.

A few days ago, I told a friend who had recently given an interview: Did you pay attention to the host’s closing remarks? The host said, “I’m so happy. Thank you for being here. It was a great episode.”

This means the host wasn’t looking for a “good conversation” but a “good episode.” You are a tool for the media, and the host wasn’t looking to give you an opportunity to express yourself. They wanted a good episode to strengthen their media outlet. For someone who calls their conversation with you an “episode,” even your death could be a sweet event—a chance to re-air the episode and honor your memory while attracting new audiences.

Is this bad? No, not at all, as long as you also know your purpose for being in the media. Vague statements like “I want people to hear my name,” “I want to strengthen my brand,” or “I want to share my experiences” are not good justifications for media appearances. First, determine exactly what message you want to convey. Ensure you have a message and that the media outlet you’re speaking with is appropriate for delivering that message. Then, engage in the game.

This sensitivity and awareness also help podcast hosts and media owners improve the quality of their work. Many of my podcast-making friends have told me they don’t know what to do after an interview with a particular manager. The manager didn’t say anything worth publishing, only self-promotion and repetitive talking points. Yet, they feel embarrassed not to publish the interview because the manager spent time participating in it.

If managers’ standards, expectations, and awareness of media appearances rise, it benefits not only them but also media owners and audiences.

Did humanity not understand that work-life balance is good before Narasimhan enlightened us? Unlikely. What new insights were in that interview? What strategies behind those obvious statements earned Narasimhan a place in Fortune? At least from an external observer’s perspective, we can’t see a useful or constructive motive.

Interestingly, when Narasimhan was the CEO of RB, he gave another unnecessary interview during the Covid era, in which he inadvertently set off many landmines (+). He was just lucky not to step on any of his self-planted mines back then.