It’s been a rough few days for Arthur Sulzberger, Jr., the publisher of the New York Times. Firing Jill Abramson unleashed a torrent of ugly press coverage, and Mr. Sulzberger soon was cited as a case study in “poor management and worse communications.” So it might be a surprise to hear he actually did several things right.
Second-guessing the decisions of those involved in a crisis is easy for outsiders, and when the crisis involves a news organization it seems everyone is entitled to offer their critique. So it isn’t surprising that the firing of Jill Abramson continues to burn up the blogosphere and that Mr. Sulzberger is feeling the heat.
Amid all the criticism and speculation, it’s worth noting what Mr. Sulzberger got right:
1. He was decisive.
Give Mr. Sulzberger credit for having the guts to fire a top performer. Most chief executives choke when it comes to such a move.
Every organization has a senior employee who makes great contributions to the business but is destructive to the organization, whether because of their management style, treatment of colleagues or something else. In most cases the CEO keeps the hard-charging dealmaker, the gifted salesman or inspired programmer, rather than lose their talents and the revenue they produce.
When that happens, the company’s culture slowly breaks down. Good people leave, promising recruits look elsewhere, business suffers. In some cases the bad behavior tolerated by the CEO becomes a serious regulatory or legal problem.
The alternative for Mr. Sulzberger – patching over the conflict or ignoring it – would have been disastrous. It would almost certainly have led to an even bigger blow-up down the road, one in which Sulzberger himself likely would have been badly tarnished. Firing Ms. Abramson quickly was the best course.
2. He communicated immediately.
Sure, it would have been better if a joint public statement could have been worked out. It would have given both Mr. Sulzberger and Ms. Abramson a face-saving way to manage the news and given Dean Baquet an unblemished start in his new role.
But it didn’t happen. And given the personalities involved and the circumstances, perhaps that’s not too surprising.
Without a joint statement and in an environment where rumors would spread fast, Sulzberger did the right thing: he gathered the news staff and announced Ms. Abramson’s departure. The first words anyone heard on this matter were his. That’s exactly how it should be.
3. He communicated more.
As the press began reporting the story, Mr. Sulzberger saw a troubling narrative take hold, one that alleged Ms. Abramson was paid less than her predecessors and that her efforts to pursue the matter got her fired.
So Mr. Sulzberger did the right thing again. Rather than let what he regarded as misinformation fester and continue to dominate the news, he sent a lengthy memo to Times staffers in which he detailed the reasons for ousting Ms. Abramson.
Many leaders resist communicating after they’ve made a first statement. Getting those first words out the door is so painful they don’t want to consider doing it again. But communicating more is sometimes necessary in a crisis. It worked for Mr. Sulzberger: The allegations about a pay differential receded into the backstory.
The critical media coverage of the New York Times will burn for a while yet, but as the smoke lifts it will become clear that Mr. Sulzberger deserves credit for how well he handled a very difficult issue.