Slashdot Mirror
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'."
Was he not supposed to take pictures? He was the creative director; maybe he was just being creative.
1.) you say you're missing leadership, yet you're worried that there's a game plan to give away?
2.) someone takes a picture in the meeting, and you assume it's to upload the game plan to Instagram?
3.) was there a stated rule against taking pictures? If not, you're firing someone for breaking a rule that wasn't stated? If so, is firing the man really the example you want to set for a first offense, instead of requiring that the image be deleted?
4.) you're running a subsidiary of a company whose only asset is its name's association with the 1990's...and your subsidiary is losing money...and you're firing people during a meeting, as if that's going to help matters in the slightest?
Who wants to bet that the next board meeting will involve some chair throwing antics?
This shameless staged plag for AOL and associated media properties brought to you by the dumbasses who believe shameless staged events like this are real.
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.
Amen. I think of this whenever I hear a rap singer going on about how tough he is or a country singer going on about how many ragheads he would kill if he only had the chance. Etc. The late Donald Murray, a rifleman in WWII, wrote that the guys who were loudest before combat usually were the ones he could not rely on in a firefight.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
It's also a story about the kind of execs that Google nurtures. Another one is running yahoo. Funny that.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
I'd tell you what it is really like, but I don't want to be fired.
But in all honesty (I'm a very honest person) it is really, really great. But I say that coming from Microsoft which is fairly toxic.
There are frequent reminders that leakers get fired. Microsoft kept all information firewalled off from everyone and it leaked like... something really leaky. Google lets everyone know everything and there are infrequent leaks.
In my experience there is never just one cockroach. This sort of short tempered thing is rarely done in the public eye. Even if the guy were an serial abuser he would still keep it hidden from the public. Thus I suspect that he fits a long pattern of CEOs who do this sort of public stress related nonsense only as they are cracking under unimaginable stress. Rarely this stress is caused by their own imminent firing as that is usually hidden from them until the trap door is sprung. This sort of stress is caused by really bad numbers. Numbers so bad there is just no spinning them. Numbers that not only say things are bad now, but numbers that say, there is no recovering from this. Normally these CEO types are able to delude themselves through screwing with the numbers but at a certain point the numbers are rotten no matter how much tempura you dip them in.
I saw this just before Air Canada did their bankruptcy, I saw this before Nortel went busto, even Sun before its long hard slide started having upper management go a bit off.
My favorite one was a tiny corner store when I was a kid. We went in and a friend of mine each had around $1.50 I paid for something but my friend asked how much a certain product was, The owner said, "$1.70" My friend said, "Oh that is 20 cents more than before" and put it back. The guy started screaming "Are you begrudging me 20 f*****g cents?" He then picked up a bat from behind the counter and chased my friend out of the store. The next day there was a big red notice on the door saying that the locks had been changed and that he could get back in his store when he paid the last 6 months rent.
So when I see CEOs acting insanely I see that stressed-to-the-max store owner from all those years ago. So if I were playing the stock market I know I would bet hard against AOL.
Or maybe the guy is a dick 24 hours a day and this just leaked out for the world to see. I'm betting.... both.
But why *should* we prevent "stunts like this"?
Because it is detrimental to society to let the big ego psychopaths run the show. We could've stayed with anarchy if that's what we wanted. I think we've done fairly well with some more civilization, and not letting bullies get away with everything is a big part of that.
I've been fired before, and it sucked, but I got over it.
It's not about being fired, it's about how. There is, by now, extensive scientific literature about the benefits of delayed execution. The human mind is not a one-track machine, there are circuits for immediate reaction, and they don't include the circuits for actually thinking something through (because that takes too long in a life-or-death situation, where 5 seconds make the difference between having and being dinner).
Forcing someone to put something in writing also slows him down so much that the "this might not be the best idea" circuits in his brain have time to kick in. Because especially in a situation like this, where the CEO does something in front of everyone, even if he thinks "that was dumb" seconds later, very, very few people are great enough to admit their mistake in front of everyone. Most CEOs will believe they need to prove they are strong by following it through.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org