The illustrious New York Times recently ousted Executive Editor Jill Abramson after less than three years on the job, and replaced her with Dean Baquet, the managing editor. Of course, journalists love to write about their colleagues, so widespread reporting began immediately. Two illustrative pieces were delivered in widely disparaging form – NPR’s David Folkenflik told the story in a series of tweets while Ken Auletta published a more traditional three-part series on the New Yorker’s blog.
The emerging story line was that Abramson angered her boss by hiring an attorney to re-negotiate her compensation after learning that her male predecessor had earned more. (The Times denies this.) In response, Publisher Arthur Sulzberger, Jr., issued a statement saying Abramson’s management style was the cause; that he had “heard repeatedly from her newsroom colleagues, women and men, about a series of issues, including arbitrary decision-making, a failure to consult and bring colleagues with her, inadequate communication and the public mistreatment of colleagues.” Wow!
Abramson, meanwhile, delivered the commencement address at Wake Forest University and, by all accounts, took the high road and focused her attention where it should have been – on the graduates.
There is a certain amount of irony in a major news organization bumbling the announcement of a sudden change in leadership. Surely Sulzberger knew that firing the organization’s first female executive editor would require some explanation. And certainly the New York Times would never allow another important institution to get by without explaining why it had fired a senior leader – someone who, from the outside, looked very successful. As CNN reported, “The paper won eight Pulitzer prizes during her brief tenure… Signups for digital access among readers increased. The company stock doubled during her tenure, performing better than the rest of the stock market.”
We have helped numerous clients manage sudden leadership changes. Typically, the board or management team does not want to give a reason, protesting that it’s no one’s business. But without a reasonable explanation, speculation and rumors fill the vacuum. No organization should risk the kind of PR conundrum Sulzberger found himself in, leading to reputational damage for both the leader who was fired and the organization that fired her. It is much better to agree in advance to a reasonable explanation and part ways graciously, with the reputations on both sides intact or even enhanced.
