Patch was such a
flawed and desperate venture from its inception that it’s hard to underestimate
the amount of pressure that AOL’s CEO is under. In an effort to put a little cosmetic
lipstick on the pig of a problem he was addressing at a recent company-wide
conference call, Tim Armstrong managed to let his guard down and make the
situation much worse by firing a senior executive on the spot and during the
call for no apparent reason. Whether the guy taking the hit deserved to be let
go (for the later claimed sins of not being a team player and locker room leaking)
or not, no one deserves to be dumped in that manner and such a public forum. And,
although we weren’t in the room, and I suppose there could have been some level
of horrible behavior (mooning comes to mind) that could have warranted the
bizarre, intemperate and grossly unprofessional behavior that took place, it’s
really hard to imagine anything that would warrant action like this which will
come ultimately to embarrass the whole company. I smell a Board of
Directors-mandated apology on the way even if AOL’s Board has been asleep at
the switch forever.
I always say
that it’s smart to try to work for someone who has fewer emotional problems
than you do. It sounds like with Armstrong at the helm that would be hard to do
at AOL. Certainly, some smiling, shrugging and eye-rolling was going on in the
room (and undoubtedly some members of the senior team weren't exactly drinking
the latest dose of the company Kool-Aid or buying into the “heartfelt” happy
talk which was accompanied by the rather aggressive suggestion that those who
weren't getting with the program should just get out - not exactly a warm and
fuzzy suggestion consistent with the professed objective of the call), but none
of the standard passive-aggressive behavior that’s always been a way of life at
AOL should have precipitated this kind of arrogant executive excess.
I’m all for publicly pointing out the mistakes
of team members because I think that kind of open communication and
constructive criticism helps not just the individual, but the group as well
since if you bring these things forward, then everyone learns what not to do
rather than just the person who made the mistake. This case seems more like a
situation where the pressure and the animus between these two guys had been
building for a while and something small in the moment must have been the straw
that broke the camel’s back and triggered the overwhelming and disproportionate
reaction. We don’t have the history so we can only judge the overt actions and
basically they stink of someone being an idiot and an immature bully who should
know much better. There are certainly times when you need to take immediate
action to resolve tough, negative situations, but they don’t ever have to be
played out in public. I can honestly say that I've never fired a non-performer
too soon, but I've always tried to do it in a way that the collateral damage to
the remaining people’s morale wasn't worse than the sins of the guy being
booted.
We say with
respect to our customers that renewals are basically business and terminations
are things that we take personally. I’d say that this was an equally good rule
of thumb for firing people. If you need to do it and you need to do it
immediately, you still need to find a place and have the grace to do it in
private.
Patch was such a
flawed and desperate venture from its inception that it’s hard to underestimate
the amount of pressure that AOL’s CEO is under. In an effort to put a little cosmetic
lipstick on the pig of a problem he was addressing at a recent company-wide
conference call, Tim Armstrong managed to let his guard down and make the
situation much worse by firing a senior executive on the spot and during the
call for no apparent reason. Whether the guy taking the hit deserved to be let
go (for the later claimed sins of not being a team player and locker room leaking)
or not, no one deserves to be dumped in that manner and such a public forum. And,
although we weren’t in the room, and I suppose there could have been some level
of horrible behavior (mooning comes to mind) that could have warranted the
bizarre, intemperate and grossly unprofessional behavior that took place, it’s
really hard to imagine anything that would warrant action like this which will
come ultimately to embarrass the whole company. I smell a Board of
Directors-mandated apology on the way even if AOL’s Board has been asleep at
the switch forever.
I always say
that it’s smart to try to work for someone who has fewer emotional problems
than you do. It sounds like with Armstrong at the helm that would be hard to do
at AOL. Certainly, some smiling, shrugging and eye-rolling was going on in the
room (and undoubtedly some members of the senior team weren't exactly drinking
the latest dose of the company Kool-Aid or buying into the “heartfelt” happy
talk which was accompanied by the rather aggressive suggestion that those who
weren't getting with the program should just get out - not exactly a warm and
fuzzy suggestion consistent with the professed objective of the call), but none
of the standard passive-aggressive behavior that’s always been a way of life at
AOL should have precipitated this kind of arrogant executive excess.
I’m all for publicly pointing out the mistakes
of team members because I think that kind of open communication and
constructive criticism helps not just the individual, but the group as well
since if you bring these things forward, then everyone learns what not to do
rather than just the person who made the mistake. This case seems more like a
situation where the pressure and the animus between these two guys had been
building for a while and something small in the moment must have been the straw
that broke the camel’s back and triggered the overwhelming and disproportionate
reaction. We don’t have the history so we can only judge the overt actions and
basically they stink of someone being an idiot and an immature bully who should
know much better. There are certainly times when you need to take immediate
action to resolve tough, negative situations, but they don’t ever have to be
played out in public. I can honestly say that I've never fired a non-performer
too soon, but I've always tried to do it in a way that the collateral damage to
the remaining people’s morale wasn't worse than the sins of the guy being
booted.
We say with
respect to our customers that renewals are basically business and terminations
are things that we take personally. I’d say that this was an equally good rule
of thumb for firing people. If you need to do it and you need to do it
immediately, you still need to find a place and have the grace to do it in
private.
AOL CEO Tim Armstrong fires his creative director during a CONFERENCE CALL with 1,000 workers listening in
|
AOL CEO Tim Armstrong lashed out at an employee and fired him in the middle of an all-hands conference call Friday with 1,000 people listening in.
Armstrong was on the call with employees of AOL's hyper-local news service, Patch, to discuss severe cutbacks that would shutter as many as 400 websites.
In the middle of his remarks, Armstrong abruptly stopped to address someone in the room with him who was taking pictures.
'Abel, put that camera down right now. Abel, you're fired. Out,' he says, according to a recording of the call obtained by media reporter Jim Romanesko.
Scroll down to listen to an audio recording of the call
AOL CEO Tim Armstrong lashed out at an employee and fired him in the middle of an all-hands conference call Friday with 1,000 other employees listening in
Armstrong is then silent for about 10 seconds before he resumes talking about the cutbacks without explaining the firing.
The employee that Armstrong fired is Abel Lenz, Patch's creative director, according to Romanesko, who broke news of the call.
AOL CEO fired Abel Lenz, Patch's creative director (pictured)
When Romenesko tweeted at Lenz on Saturday for a comment on the firing, Lenz replied: 'I appreciate the interest Jim, but I have nothing to share. Go Patch!'
Several hours later, Lenz tweeted to no one in particular, 'No comment,' and attached a photo from inside Old Town Bar in Manhattan.
According to Patch employees, Lenz often snapped pictures during conference calls and staff meetings and would later post them to the company's internal website.
The conference call, held one day after AOL announced major cutbacks at Patch, was meant to boost morale for the employees remaining with the news organization.
Armstrong assured the employees on the call that AOL is still committed to Patch's success and asked anyone who does not believe him to leave their jobs.
'If you don’t use Patch as a product and you’re not invested in Patch, you owe it to everybody else at Patch to leave,' he said. 'If you think what’s going on right now is a joke, and you want to joke around about it, you should pick your stuff up and leave Patch today.'
Armstrong also complained about leaks to the press, saying they won't change the direction that Patch is going.
'I don’t care what the press says, I don’t care if people leak information... 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. I’m not changing direction.
'When you hear about what we’re doing at Patch it’s very serious and it’s very forward-thinking and anything that happens around Patch isn’t going to change that direction.'
Several minutes after firing Lenz, however, Armstrong indicated that he does, indeed, care about leaks.
He said leaks were making Patch seem like 'loser-ville' in the press, according to Business Insider.
He said, 'That's why Abel was fired.'
'We can't have people that are in the locker room giving the game plan away.'
'YOU'RE FIRED. OUT!': AOL CEO'S HARSH WORDS DURING ALL-HANDS CALL
Below is an excerpt of AOL CEO Tim Armstrong's call with employees:
'There’s a couple of things I want you guys to realize and really think about and sink in, and if it doesn’t sink in and you don’t believe what I’m about to say, I’m going to ask you to leave Patch. And I don’t mean that in a harsh way; I mean that in the way of we have to get Patch into a place where it’s going to be successful and it’s going to be successful for a long time. There’s a whole bunch of towns that are going to be successful but we need the whole enterprise to be successful.
'The first one is, I will take full credit and full responsibility for anything that’s not right at Patch. If the coffee machine doesn’t work, or a town doesn’t work — anything that’s going wrong at Patch you can blame me for it. I founded Patch, we brought it into AOL, we’ve been very busy turning around AOL overall.
'I don’t care what the press says, I don’t care if people leak information. I’ve already lived through that at AOL — when I took over AOL — so if you need somebody to blame for why we’re making changes at Patch you can blame me. I take full responsibility. …
'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. I’m not changing direction. When you hear about what we’re doing at Patch it’s very serious and it’s very forward-thinking and anything that happens around Patch isn’t going to change that direction.
'Third thing is if you don’t use Patch as a product and you’re not invested in Patch, you owe it to everybody else at Patch to leave. If you think what’s going on right now is a joke, and you want to joke around about it, you should pick your stuff up and leave Patch today, and the reason is, and I’m going to be very specific about this, is Patch from an experience — Abel, put that camera down right now. Abel, you’re fired. Out! [10-second pause].
If you guys think that AOL has not been committed to Patch, and won’t stay committed to Patch, you’re wrong. The company has spent hundreds of millions of dollars, the board of directors is committed, I’m committed. ….'
