Ny COO i SAS - Jason Mahoney

[Someone]

Jason Mahoney er ansatt som ny COO i SAS fra 1 mai. Har tidligere vært hos British Airways og TUI, og tror kanskje det kan være fornuftig å hente noen utenfra denne gangen

https://www.sasgroup.net/newsroom/press-releases/2023/jason-mahoney-appointed-coo-of-sas/

Jason Mahoney will join SAS as the new Chief Operating Officer. He has extensive experience from the global aviation industry.

 

[RollsTrent]

A worrying sign for SAS. Having worked under him when he was Director Of Engineering at BA and then when he further worked up to COO he seems a desperate choice by SAS.
As an individual, somewhat of a bully to staff and other managers. As a COO he failed at BA as he was forced to work with a co COO following his disastrous short spell in the role. He will always be attacking unions so he needs to taken on firmly by unions A lot of talk and bluster. On joining BA he gave the talk to all staff that he didn't want anybody to leave then a short time after proceeded to slash numbers of employees before Covid. Not to be trusted at all. If SAS think they are in for a settled easy ride with Jason that won't be the case but the only way to work with a bully is to not allow him to succeed. As an airline executive he is short of being a professional one!

 

[Beechdriver]

....the only way to work with a bully is to not allow him to succeed.

Maybe under 'normal' circumstances in a profitable organisation.....

However, not allowing a COO to succeed in a company under bankruptcy-protection, is maybe not such a good idea....

 

[semmern]

Maybe under 'normal' circumstances in a profitable organisation.....

However, not allowing a COO to succeed in a company under bankruptcy-protection, is maybe not such a good idea....

The previous COO put the company where it is now with his «brilliant» ideas and bullying tactics, so maybe try a different recipe next time, not more of the same.

 

[Beechdriver]

That’s your view about the previous COO. Now we’re discussing the newly appointed COO.

I have no opinion about him, but I don’t believe that opposing the newly appointed COO is very useful given ‘the struggle to survive’ the company is in…

 

[dc-8-63]

Maybe under 'normal' circumstances in a profitable organisation.....

However, not allowing a COO to succeed in a company under bankruptcy-protection, is maybe not such a good idea....

That’s your view about the previous COO. Now we’re discussing the newly appointed COO.

I have no opinion about him, but I don’t believe that opposing the newly appointed COO is very useful given ‘the struggle to survive’ the company is in…

So how are these kind of “Bully” COO’s working out in your opinion ? I am curious as I have not seen these Bully’s neither stay for the Long Term or leave with much Success ?

Even back in School in the late 60’s our Bully’s did leave some impression’s - but most could be fixed with a little band-aid and time.

After close to 40 years in the workforce (Airline, Scientific Research, and Tech Industry) I have seen the back of many many “Bully’s” and in our company today one of the leading phrases are O’hana (Hawaiian for Family) and we are successful (and a BIG Family 80k employees.

So that SAS should need another Bully is something I cannot understand. (And I have met enough of previous bullies while working for SAS).

 

[Beechdriver]

So how are these kind of “Bully” COO’s working out in your opinion ? I am curious as I have not seen these Bully’s neither stay for the Long Term or leave with much Success ?

Sorry, but you are now twisting my words; I have not argued that I support a 'bully-managementstyle'.

What is problematic is to anonymously qualify a newly appointed COO as 'bully' on a forum like this, even before the COO has started in his job. If someone feels the need to publicly qualify Jason Mahoney as 'bully', realise that SAS in a phase in which there might be a need for a 'bully' managementstyle until the company is saved from bankruptcy.

Managers who transform companies as SAS to profitability are not used to be the most popular managers seen from the perception of employees. They are crisis-managers. Being popular is therefore not their mission; their mission is to save the company. For the employees that means the difference between 'staying on board' and continue receiving a salary or becoming dependent on social security. In that context, 'a bully manager' is one of the last things to worry about as long as SAS is operational under Chapter 11.

 

[martins]

It should be possible to perform crisis management and/or reform a company without being perceived as a bully. It’s a bit more challenging, so few does it. But those who does go into history as exceptional leaders. First one that comes to mind regarding SAS history is Janne Carlzon.

By googling Mahoney it doesn’t take long to see the way of the writing. In BA he messed it so badly that he in effect got sidestepped as COO and ended up being removed from the position. It amazes me every time how managers think they can be successful in leading others with zero support from those who they are trying to lead…

 

[LN-RTP]

But those who does go into history as exceptional leaders. First one that comes to mind regarding SAS history is Janne Carlzon

He is the one who wasted millions of SAS $$ on Continental stock in a deal with scumbag Frank Lorenzo?

 

[semmern]

Sorry, but you are now twisting my words; I have not argued that I support a 'bully-managementstyle'.

What is problematic is to anonymously qualify a newly appointed COO as 'bully' on a forum like this, even before the COO has started in his job. If someone feels the need to publicly qualify Jason Mahoney as 'bully', realise that SAS in a phase in which there might be a need for a 'bully' managementstyle until the company is saved from bankruptcy.

Managers who transform companies as SAS to profitability are not used to be the most popular managers seen from the perception of employees. They are crisis-managers. Being popular is therefore not their mission; their mission is to save the company. For the employees that means the difference between 'staying on board' and continue receiving a salary or becoming dependent on social security. In that context, 'a bully manager' is one of the last things to worry about as long as SAS is operational under Chapter 11.

My point is that an apparently similar manager is what got SAS into the present crisis.

 

[Midtiblinken]

Gordon Bethune……

 

[LN-MOW]

He is the one who wasted millions of SAS $$ on Continental stock in a deal with scumbag Frank Lorenzo?

He was a very expensive CEO, and some of his decisions would hurt SAS for a long time. But he turned the company around at a time they were in a deep crisis. And that’s his legacy.

 

[Beechdriver]

My point is that an apparently similar manager is what got SAS into the present crisis.

I know too little about the details of company and the persons you refer to, to confirm or to refute that statement.

What I however know is that a company as SAS, given chapter 11, needs a management-team including a COO, which is able to convince a US-judge about the financial feasability of the plans for the airline. All other are factors, including social relationships, are subordinate to $$$. Under those circumstances, a company needs a firm/determined management which can be perceived as 'bully-management'. When the mission (release from Chapter 11) is completed the 'new SAS', which hopefully will be profitable, has possibilities to prioritize the social 'Scandinavian model' of 'non-bully management' again.

 

[mlindgreen]

He was a very expensive CEO, and some of his decisions would hurt SAS for a long time. But he turned the company around at a time they were in a deep crisis. And that’s his legacy.

It is a bit funny that Jan Carlzon is seen as a saint among some in the SAS system.
He was behind disastrous decisions such as the founding of Spanair, the purchase of shares in BMI and the purchase of shares in Continental.
Last but not least, Carlzon failed miserably on his own "1 of 5 in 95" strategy.

Being kind to employees is not enough to ensure long-term profitability . . . .

 

[martins]

I did not mean to derail the discussion being about Janne Carlzon. Just one of many examples of managers who understood how important good relations to its employees is. (Of course he wasn’t perfect, but if you read his book, you’ll get a sense of what I think of)

SAS exiting Ch.11 is of course mission #1 at the moment. But I don’t think one out-rules the other when it comes to COOs. I would say that most of the dirty work with the employees is already done (by Pauck Hansen), and the thing SAS needs now is managers who can build and restore much needed trust internally. With that, external trust and ultimately revenue will come exiting Ch.11.

 

[LN-RTP]

He was a very expensive CEO, and some of his decisions would hurt SAS for a long time. But he turned the company around at a time they were in a deep crisis. And that’s his legacy.

Didn't the unionized employees regret SAS going to bed with Lorenzo? :angry:

I am reading this book now, looks like one doesn't have to be a bully to turn a company around and stop the bleeding.