As AOL Prepares To Downsize Patch, CEO Fires Employee During Meeting

An anonymous reader writes "AOL is closing or plans to sell nearly half of the 900 'hyperlocal' news websites operated by its money-losing Patch Media subsidiary (TechCrunch is also owned by AOL). Hundreds of staff layoffs are believed to be imminent. AOL acquired Patch in 2009, soon after ex-Googler Tim Armstrong took over as CEO; Armstrong was also a co-founder of Patch. During a tough conference call last Thursday Armstrong told Patch editors: 'Something at Patch has been missing for some time and that's leadership – leadership with a capital L'. Armstrong then demonstrated his grasp of Donald Trump's management style by firing an employee during the meeting for taking a picture. At 1:18 of the NY Post's sound clip from Jim Romensko: 'Leaking information Patch isn't going to bother me. I'm not changing direction'. At 2:00: 'Abel [Creative Director Lenz], put that camera down. Abel, you're fired. Out.' Armstrong later explained that 'The reason I fired Abel is I don't want anyone taking pictures of this meeting' and that, much like a sports team, AOL couldn't afford to have people 'giving the game plan away'."

Comments

What a dick

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope he is treated similarly

Re:What a dick

[girlintraining]

I hope he is treated similarly

If I had stock in AOL, I'd be making the call to sell it all. Now. The reason is as old as humanity itself: True genius doesn't run around telling everyone "I'm a genius!" anymore than true sanity runs around saying "I'm the sanest one here!" If you're pointing out your virtues to others, you have none to speak of.

Or, to quote the Tao Te Ching, "The best leaders go unnoticed by the people. The next best are loved and praised by the people. Then there are those who are feared by the people.
Lastly there are those who are despised."

Guess which one this guy is? He's a shit leader, to enamored with his own self-importance to be useful to an investor. Sell. Sell. Sell now. Sell.

Re:What a dick

[Tough Love]

If I had stock in AOL, I'd be making the call to sell it all.

In fact, it looks like an attractive short. 100% runup over period of a year followed by flat for a year, followed by this outburst, certain to drive away whatever talent remains. P/E of 29, that's a little rich for a company with no realistic growth story and a baboon for a CEO. Hmmm.

Re:What a dick

[Anonymous Coward]

No matter how badly AOL falls, the CEO will ride his golden parachute while the plebes below him get the shaft.

Re:What a dick

[VortexCortex]

There is a humble way and an arrogant way to point out ones own virtues. Since you are into philosophy I'll use an example of right speaking (from the Buddhist 8 way path). If someones life is on the line, and you are more competent than the person or people trying to save them, then it would be not only bad, but possibly deadly, not to point out your virtues. Pointing out your virtues is not in and of itself arrogant or egotistical. One can have true humility and still recognize their own strengths and share the knowledge of their existence with others.

Speaking as a Scientist: That's bullshit. You see, Rational people realize that even the most wise can be foolish at times, and that even the ignorant irrational child has good suggestions sometimes. This is why we weigh the merit of the idea instead of the man. Screw your vitures, that's irrational BS, buddy.

If the widely accepted wisest and most virtuous person told you to leap into a volcano, and you did so without evaluating the idea itself then you are a fool.

So, If you think someone is about to make a terrible mistake and you have information that may change their mind -- eg: "The Yogi is Senile!" -- then give it to them even if you are a serial murderer and they a saint.

It's the value of the message not the messenger that matters.

To help AOL he should have fired himself!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure that meeting really helped staff morale!

Re:To help AOL he should have fired himself!

[AmiMoJo]

He was probably the lucky one. Anyone with talent at that company is polishing their CV instead of working right now.

Re:To help AOL he should have fired himself!

[Mateorabi]

The problem is that those most able to leave are the first to do so. The highest talent goes first, leaving the duds that would have a hard time conning a interviewer a second time in a row. Its a sorting process that doesn't pay off for the company.

Re:To help AOL he should have fired himself!

[Em Adespoton]

The problem is that those most able to leave are the first to do so. The highest talent goes first, leaving the duds that would have a hard time conning a interviewer a second time in a row. Its a sorting process that doesn't pay off for the company.

Interesting theory, but not quite the entire picture. I've been "last one out" in a company, not because I wasn't talented, but because I had a misguided feeling of responsibility to the other people involved -- the employees and the customers (and to some degree the shareholders). Would I do it again? Probably not. However, we made sure that the duds left first (and learned that duds often have impressive skills at getting hired). You see, people who aren't very good often hop from job to job, building up an impressive CV, and always leaving before people at the top realize they're all talk and no substance. These people usually stay at a company for 9 months to 2 years, and while there, latch on to some project that is already started and showing promise, often taking over from the high talent who got it started. They leave before they run the project all the way into the ground (or at least before anyone else realizes it) and are able to list the project as a "success" on their CV.

THESE are the people who are toxic to the company as a whole; duds who just aren't very good (at their job, getting hired, etc) can still be used as effective resources, but the guys who actually play the confidence HR game can destroy a successful company before they realize what's happened.

Just my 2 cents.

More accurately:

[Bieeanda]

Dude left Google to hatch his own scheme.

Dude stayed on after AOL bought his gimmick company.

Dude lashed out because he's still stuck holding the bag.

Not that the guy with the camera was being in any way professional, but if this guy wants to make sports analogies, his scull has split down the keel and he just tossed one of the rowers overboard.

Re:More accurately:

[Manfre]

Ran out of mod points, but your post adds some more insight in to the situation. Firing someone for doing what they normally do is a dick move, unless the camera guy was previously told not to do that.

Re:More accurately:

[Tough Love]

Firing someone for doing what they normally do is a dick move...

Firing someone in front of the entire company is an utra dick move that arguably puts the company on the wrong side of the law. Don't take my word for it, get some popcorn sit back for the lawsuit. I will go out on a limb here and predict that this asshole's days are numbered as a CEO.

Re:More accurately:

[gbjbaanb]

to be fair... he was previously told it was not a problem:

said Armstrong earlier in the meeting:
I also want to clear up the fact that leaking information or anything around Patch isn't going to bother me, doesn't bother me.

Scott Adams, you have a new character ready made for the series.

Game plan?

[Todd Knarr]

... "circle the drain" is not a game plan...

So..

[bytesex]

there is no picture of that meeting. It was confidential and shit. But, apparently, audio totally A-ok. Is this a clown-company or something?

Game Plan

[dnaumov]

AOL couldn't afford to have people 'giving the game plan away

This is amazing on so many levels. First of all, Abel was taking pictures for the company intranet blog. Like he did on the previous meeting and the meeting before that.
Second: does Armstrong genuinely think there are people out there, outside of AOL, who actually give a shit what their "game plan" *IS*?

Re:Game Plan

[HeLLFiRe1151]

Ya, a lot of companies want to know what the "Patch game plan" is. They want to be sure never to follow it.

Re:He was the Creative Director

[Anonymous Coward]

Abel was taking the picture for the company blog. About a minute earlier in the conference call, Tim said:

"
I don’t care what the press says, I don’t care if people leak information. I’ve already lived through that at AOL [...]

and again:

"
I also want to clear up the fact that leaking information or anything around Patch isn’t going to bother me, doesn’t bother me.

then:

"Put that camera down, Abel. You're fired. Get out."

Every other excuse theory in this thread is shot down from by the facts of the recording.

Re:He was the Creative Director

[Tough Love]

Normal behavior would be to ask the employee to stop the undesirable behavior, then if the behavior persists, disciplinary action could be taken, including termination if other remedies are exhausted. This CEO is an out of control psychopath and a hazard to the company. A lawsuit is inevitable.

Here is a classic example of a career limiting explosion

Re:Two idiots in a corp meeting

[ohnocitizen]

"Move along. Nothing to see here" is even more condescending when its patently false. The whole story, not just that one incident, is one of a company in trouble and its inability to effectively navigate the downward spiral.

Re:Patch is already dead

[dtobias]

Whenever any website announces an "exciting upgrade", it usually means they're in the process of screwing up whatever was good about the site before, in favor of whatever their pointy-haired bosses think will make a better business model.