More on the Abramson story: what’s this “public mistreatment” bit?
To me, the most curious phrase in the newest Sulzberger statement about Jill Abramson is this one [italics mine]:
During [Abramson’s] tenure, I 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…
So, did Abramson put some writer or editor in the stocks? Institute public floggings at the Times? Did she administer a series of public tongue-lashings? Or just criticisms? Is there a rule at the Times that, in order to avoid offending egos and tender sensibilities, an executive can only say negative things about an employee in private? And if this “mistreatment” perpetrated by Abramson was indeed, “public,” could Sulzberger mention more specifically (without naming the recipient of the mistreatment) what she allegedly said or did, so we could get an idea of what sort of offense he might be talking about?
Another curious thing to me is Sulzberger’s repeated use of the word “colleagues.” Now, my own experience with a corporate workplace was very short, and so long ago that I hesitate to even say. So maybe things are completely different now. But my recollection is that the boss is the boss and colleagues are more your peers, people at approximately a similar level to you in ye olde hierarchy.
Abramson was the boss for most everyone at the Times, although she had two bosses above her, Sulzberger (the owner) and Thompson (the CEO). Everyone else was under her, not a “colleague” exactly (at least not in my definition of the word), although she certainly had to interact with them and could not afford to brutalize them or their egos. Obviously, quite a few people felt stomped on—but were they actually stomped on, or were they being ultra-sensitive? At this point we really don’t know. Does Sulzberger know? Or maybe it doesn’t matter what the reality was; if the perception is too widespread, something is wrong, and a boss becomes ineffective and probably has to go.
Any boss faces the dilemma of how to walk the line in exerting his/her authority. How much is too much and will be perceived as tyranny or insult, causing a backlash? How little is too little and will be taken advantage of and perceived as weakness? And then of course there’s the gender question of whether these things are perceived differently when practiced by a man or by a woman, or when received by a man or by a woman.
[ADDENDUM: This is pretty good, too.]
From the official whining, the best I can deduce is that she did something to Sulzberger’s pal (who is also his snitch) who incidentally got her job after he got his feelings hurt because she was trying to “manage” him which for some crazy reason he did not think was her job since he was Sulzberger’s snitch. Sulzberger can get another manager but quality tattletales are hard to come by.
Elliot:
Indeed. It is a classic tale of office intrigue. Abramson overplayed her hand re Baquet.
Well, on one side, first of all, this in the NYT in NEW YORK where everybody denigrates everybody as a matter of pride. You’d think the little miss Sherries and baby boy Fauntleroy’s would have grown a skin.
But I never did agree with that kind of BS. Words to must of us are something worth fighting over. If you were unjust, or even sometimes justly but the tone was wrong, it was cowardly not to fight. Slander and shaming required a response. Even if you got your ass kicked, the situation was better. And when we lost that, the slander machine kicked into high gear.
In the military and corporate society, hell, good society, you praise in public and scold in private. That used to be the rule. How is that the queens of self esteem lost that obvious rule? They really haven’t and those that practice public mistreatment store up against themselves a day of reckoning.
We are all of us children and sheep; some have gone to adulthood and independent strength, but still, even they must exercise restraint when they are publicly shamed and humiliated. The New York way, which is to so bury the self by allowing unrestrained and abusive language, is ugly and ultimately a sadomasochistic disorder. And that’s what we’re seeing: disorder.
Sounds like typical corporatese to me. Language so non-specific and lacking in detail as to be meaningless.
Office politics: a story of dog bites woman. Meh.
The only thing to remain of this story, for me, is the additional example of liberal hypocrisy.
But next to the mountain of evidence, that’s a very little thing.
Matt_SE Says:
…the additional example of liberal hypocrisy. But next to the mountain of evidence, that’s a very little thing.
But considering who is involved, very satisfying from this side of the aisle.
I suppose.
Pinch Sulzberger is perhaps Punch-drunk [Daddy drunk?] to be airing this dirty linen in public. The more he says, the more Jill and her friends will say. Best to shut up: never complain, never explain. It is not going to help the NYT’s reputation to publicize this brouhaha. Keep talking, Pinch!
I hope there is a lawsuit coming. 🙂
File Jill, file!
Fie on the NYT!
File Jill, file!
Let’s hate her. C’mon, let’s do it. Let’s get that circle started. We’ll all laugh and feel that good feeling that comes from destroying somebody, a somebody that, lest we forget, tried to destroy Clarence Thomas, or at least, took the low road to fame and fortune utilizing the liberal strategy to establish the narrative. That, in a nutshell, is Jill. Nothing there but the front man (oops! woman) for the media. Let us now pause and dine and relish the irony. You reap what you sew.
fOkay, now let’s get nasty. For one, she looks like the Grinch. Right? Probably his daughter. You can just tell by those beady eyes and evil grin, she’ll take it all from you if she can. She’s pure evil.
That should be enough for anybody. But there’s more, oh, there’s more. Did you hear she never has been able to accept criticism? Oh she can give it but not take it. Uh huh.
And finally there’s this. She’s not a woman. Yeah, can you believe that. She’s a man. Her kids were adopted, apparently they belong to Mia Farrow but Satan said no, give them to Jill. Apparently, Rosemary had more than one baby!
But you didn’t hear me say that.
The same feminists that are always telling us that women make better managers than men
(e.g. here: https://www.americanexpress.com/us/small-business/openforum/articles/5-ways-women-are-better-bosses-than-men/)
complain when anybody expects them to be better.
Given it’s the NYT, I’m going for oversensitive ninnies.
So, Neo, you’re saying she got Baquet-handed?
Elliott nailed it from the get-go.
Baquet’s tenure is going to be spotty, for sure.
Snitches NEVER make it on top, they lose their snitch-boost.
The few proper snitches I’ve had the displeasure to know were fired/ shifted over very shortly after their maximal deed was done.
Snitch-logic will have Baquet running to his prince three times a day.
I’ve actually seen a junior manager who LOVED that tick. He had his entire crew organized around panic phone calls and placing place-keepers in ‘lead’ roles under him. He reached his maximum ambit when ruling a fief about the size of town paper.
As for Jill’s judgment inre Baquet — you just know she’s on target. But we live in Black times, right now.
Politics, yes politics.
There was no way that Pinch could favor Women over Black.
BTW, AA was drafted for Black Americans — and was promptly hijacked by Feminists to include White Women.
Thus, there is vast bitterness in Black circles that the Jill’s of the world have blocked Black advancement. For every Black XY executive, there are three White XX executives.
For those imbued with the zero-sum calculus: ’tis a racial injustice right there.
This, in the Financial Times, is interesting:
So, Sulzberger’s son was pushing the digital stuff. I’ve read elsewhere that Abramson has a very traditional approach to journalism, and was against some of those “innovations.” Note that her replacement, Baquet, is enthusiastic about them.
Sign of the times that the Publisher of a newspaper feels that he can’t just say “I did not want her running my paper any longer; end of story”.
Surely she held her position at the will of the Boss, or whatever the term is.
Just “man up” Pinch. And Jill, better luck next time. Presumably ou knew what you were getting in to and who you were dealing with.
Red on red. Pass the popcorn.
Leftists want it every which way. At home, we have firings over “public mistreatment” while overseas, their pet Islamists kidnap, rape, torture and behead with a free pass…If your name is Mohammed and you brutally oppress your womenfolk in Saudi Arabia, Muffy and Tad will respect your religion and ignore it. But their daughter at one of the Ivies must be given a “trigger warning” before seeing a film on those subjects.
An ugly amalgam of Tartuffe and The Clockwork orange, what passes for thought among the left these days is frightening – and hysterically funny.
Ann,
Gotta love the way that article described the Sulzberger scion…”a journalist who has enjoyed a rapid rise at the paper.”
Imagine a Sulzberger enjoying anything less than a “rapid rise” at the NYT 🙂
Yes, I agree that young, digitally savvy Sulzberger, and his cheerleader Baquet, likely played a key role in what happened here.
On Abrahamson’s management skills, or lack thereof, it reminds me of a former boss I had when I was a newbie in my early 20s. I’ve had many bosses (mostly good but some bad) since then, but this woman has haunted me ever since. She had a reputation for terrorizing the staff and particularly liked to criticize her subordinates in meetings with others. It remains one of the most painful work experiences I’ve ever had. She also happened to have a voice that sounded just like Meryl streep’s character in the Devil Wears Prada, but I digress. Eventually she was forced out by upper management.
IMO, good managers don’t dress down subordinates in public.
It’s a huge mistake to read anything deeper into this than a b*tch fight among ninnies whose talents are vastly overrated, mostly by themselves. Just get a load of this, or this.
If this ends once and for all the “paper of record” malarkey the firing of Abramson will have served a noble public purpose. With any luck the WaPo, LAT and the alphabet networks will soon be afflicted with similarly humiliating scandals.
As a former executive editor at a major publisher, I find it shocking that an editor would be curt or brusque with employees, would complain about his/her pay, and would have been involved in office politics. Soon, they will tell us that she has a darkly cynical view of the world and works long hours. The horror of it all! Of course, these are all part of the job description for being an editor, but I somehow still find it shocking.
After reflection, I realize that when I said this story “was simple,” what I really meant was “it doesn’t interest me.”
You can disregard my previous comments if you wish.
To be a successful supervisor a person does not have to be “liked”, but they must be respected. It seems that Ms, Abramson was neither.
I’m not a top hoity-toity executive or something, but something I know about leadership is you do NOT chastise a subordinate in public. You do it in private. The more severe, the more private you make sure it is. So to me that is a legit leadership complaint.
It’s so funny. Jill just found out that black trumps female in the PC hierarchy. Remember the Jason Blair case where he was promoted and moved up despite numerous complaints about his performance. Blair’s incompetence and plagiarism finally became so well known the NYT managment (Raines) had to fire him.
maybe it doesn’t matter what the reality was…
no maybe
One of the first things Abramson did–and about the only good thing–was to aggressively investigate the proposed connection between the Times’ proposed hiring of a Brit journo and the guy’s connection to the vile Jimmy Savile situation.
The only sensible thought about this pissing content is the suggestion that Sulz and Baquet wanted to digitalize, and she wanted to stay “traditional”. A perfectly good reason for an executive change.
But as to the rest of it, it reminds me of teenage girls or chihuahas fighting. Let ‘er rip.