I had not heard about the Steve Harvey memo until today, when it was brought up at
TCA press tour. After reading up on it, I don’t understand what he has to apologize for. I think the policy he declared there is entirely reasonable and was delivered in a straightforward and completely defensible way.
But then, I also don’t understand why people (friends, relatives) think it’s OK to just come and ring your doorbell when they feel like “dropping by”. When anyone does that to me I always hide until they go away. Whereas if they would have just texted and given me 15 minutes notice, I probably would have been glad to see them. Like Harvey, I just don’t like being ambushed. And his scenario sounded like it was even worse, because he didn’t have the option of staying behind a locked door–until now.
People are acting like this is the equivalent to the rants recorded of Casey Kasem and Bill O’Reilly screaming at their staff, and I don’t see it as similar at all. So I wonder if the kind of people who have their noses bent out of joint over this are the ones who think it’s OK to make unannounced house calls to their friends and relatives?
Pulled out of context, the quotes at the top of the article seem questionable. Reading the whole note, it sounds like a dude tired of being constantly bothered by people with random stuff, day in and day out.
I understand his sentiment, but it certainly could have been phrased better.
“In the past x, y and z caused problems. So to help the show run smoother and insure everyone has a more enjoyable work experience, no more x, y and z. Instead, please use A, B, and C.”
Is he? It was a small news story a few months ago when it came out, but I haven’t heard anything since then. Then it sounds like it was brought up as a joke in a press junket.
The memo seemed reasonable to me. A lot of people think that their desire to talk to somebody is somehow unique. They think “It’s no big deal if I just take up five minutes of his time.” But if a hundred people a day are trying to take up five minutes of your time, it ends up being over eight hours a day.
It doesn’t sound reasonable at all to me. You can’t work with people every day and expect no interactions with them at all. It’s very possible the staff will need to actually say something to him, but they are unable to do so by this policy. They can’t open his door. They can’t knock or use the doorbell and then stand by his door.
He’s saying “I will be here, but you lowly peasants should never dare to interact with me in any way.” Yeah, makes sense why people would be upset. Only the people with appointments (i.e., not staff) are allowed to ever talk to him.
There’s wanting more freetime, and there’s taking it to an extreme like this. If you work with people, you should be able to interact with them on at least a basic level.
Like I said, that system doesn’t work when there are too many people who want access to you. You need to install a level of intermediaries to act as gate-keepers.
Somebody thinks they have an issue Steve Harvey needs to know about? They don’t go to Harvey. They go to somebody like Harvey’s manager and tell them what the issue is. That manager can then decide if 1) the issue is something Harvey needs to know about; 2) the issue is important but can be handled by somebody else; or 3) the issue isn’t as important as the person thinks.
Steve Harvey is disliked by many people for being…I’m not sure what one would call him except 'Steve Harvey-like". When someone is disliked, that person tends to be given less slack and their behavior is interpreted less generously. Perhaps he’s often approached and finds it irritating/exhausting; It may be the first time for the person who approaches but the 356th time for him.
Add the ill-advised phrasing and it sounds like yet another thing people dislike about him.
Spoken like someone who has never had a job. The guy at the top always has more demands on him than he has times for. It sounds like he’s just trying to get back and forth to the bathroom in peace, and doesn’t want 50 people lining up to talk to him about unimportant crap while he’s stuck in the makeup chair.
Letterman had the same rules. They used to joke about it on his show, but he was notorious for not wanting to talk to anyone who worked for him.
The second sentence I agree with. But a ‘smear’ has to be false, or a half truth etc. It’s not ‘smearing’ somebody to publish a whole memo they in fact wrote (which doesn’t seem to be in dispute), nor it is ‘quoting them out of context’.
The people defending it are basically saying he has good reason to act like a d-bag. It’s ‘out of the context’ IOW that the guy has be an a-hole to get his job done. Which is doubtful IMO but maybe, anyway it’s neither ‘out of context’ nor a ‘smear’ by the media rag. It might be deceitful to have leaked it though. Actually a familiar theme nowadays, no?
I just read the memo again and I honestly don’t see it as being a D-bag at all. There are certain times and places it’s not OK to talk to him. In his dressing room, in the makeup chair, walking down the hallway. If you need to talk to him, schedule an appointment (presumably with his assistant). If you’re the guy everyone wants to talk to, carving out some time when people can’t talk to you can be valuable.
And maybe he had to go to memo route because the gentle hints he was giving out previously were being ignored. That would explain the “If you’re reading this, yes, I mean you.” sentence.
He’s a performer and likes to have some quiet time before he hits the stage to get his head in the right place. That is not unreasonable and many if not most performers need the same thing.
Too many people coming up to him with problems. Also not unreasonable. There is a reason why the military and corporate structures have clearly defined chains of command. Both use the concept of span of control. A boss with 100 people under him will quickly be overwhelmed if he has to deal with each of those 100 individually. The boss should only deal with subordinate managers to keep everything running smooth. A TV show has producers and stage managers and all manner of people who should have the power to make decisions in their lane. On the fly the big boss should only be bothered with emergencies. Otherwise everything becomes chaos.
It sounds like this was an ongoing issue that came to a head. I can’t fault him for putting his foot down. It could have been written in polite corporate speak and no one would have noticed. Maybe this way it will be more effective.
Any busy executive or entertainer needs someone to manage their schedule. It’s understood that you bring issues or problems to the assistant first. The assistant may have his own staff in big organizations.
He’s the gatekeeper that decides what his boss needs to deal with himself.
That’s really the only way a busy person can focus on his primary job and get stuff done.
But, a big boss should still be approachable. A simple greeting while passing in the hall should be ok.
