Listen to AOL’s CEO Fire Employee in Conference Call With 1,000 people
slate.com
slate.com
We had the meeting where only half the company was invited and the half that wasn't invited was let go. We had the VP that found out he was let go when his card key stopped working in the middle of the day. We had the employee lock himself in the office and refuse to leave. We had the contractor that was "let go" that laughed and just kept showing up for work. My boss that "let him go" was fired 3 weeks later. We had the guys that were let go but slipped through the cracks and nobody told them until HR sent them a packet. I saw the CEO fly into town just to fire my boss but she panicked and left before he got to the office and refused to answer her phones. Most of us kept all of our stuff packed in cardboard boxes, ready to walk out the door or change offices whenever people left. One friend kept a wall of ex-employee nameplates in his cube. The day I quit, I handed him my nameplate on my way to meet with my boss to resign, so everyone else knew by the time I walked out of his office.
The winners were two I didn't get to see. In some customer crisis, we hired a new guy with some special expertise on a platform and put him on a plane somewhere with a VP / Director of Development. They start talking on the plane and by the end of the flight, the VP realized he was so full of crap that he fired him, told him to not even leave the airport and go rebook his return flight back home.
The same VP hired another new guy but on his first day he went to lunch with other developers and somewhat joked about how he realized that it isn't what you do but what they think you do that gets you ahead in this business. He was fired 30 minutes after lunch.
"Jimmy, you're fired."
I'm sure nothing like that will happen again, this time is totally different.
That's strange, because VP's are themselves full of crap. Its exceedingly rare that you can find a good VP.
Most VP's haven't done anything 'real' in years. And generally never have context on what they are doing, why they are doing, or even why its necessary. Two to three difficult questions in a row and they many not even be able to explain why they or their title should even exist.
Most VP's get hired through their network and survive by means of their network. The middle to senior level management is generally the most hopelessly inefficient part of the whole hierarchy chain, while being the biggest money sink in terms of the compensation and benefits.
Stephen Sinofsky is famous for sending people bug reports with the line of code that was causing the windows bug. My presentations to Harry Shum were the highlights of my time in Bing, as he was both interested and insightful. My conversation with Satya Nadella about incentives and alignment of the OSD organization taught me a lot about how the businesses operated.
I've met and worked with vice presidents in Microsoft, Google, and Facebook and every time I been impressed with their levels of interest, insight, and passion for the product.
There may have been a time with being a vice-president was a parking title and reward for a lifetime of work, but that time has passed.
>>but that time has passed
Hardly!!!!. You have worked at nearly every outlier company, there is. And you think culture you've seen there is the norm.
If there is any famous company with awesome executives, you will hear about them. You will never hear about those that crash and burn because of bad executives. Which are far more common than the ones that win.
I'm convinced that most companies survive in spite of their management. At least in the US.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/jobs/Content?Content=/communit...
http://myinterplant.blogspot.com/2012/03/one-day-career-at-d...
Or having a remote office drive 4 hours to the HQ for a meeting, but some VP could fire all of them as soon as they got there and then made them drive all the way back to clear out the office and ship the equipment back.
Choo-choo, everyone jump on the fail train. No really, this is what is wrong with big companies. They pick a failed direction and they can't stop. It is a giant rusty ship heading to its grave, the captain waving his big dick around "Doesn't matter what everyone says, this will be successful!"
I think most people there know it is failure that is why the explicit warning not to joke about it (there is probably enough of that to warrant that comment). Critics who don't believe in the failed cause are pushed out as non-team players. It leaves the desperate and the brainwashed. ... Yes, patch will be the next Facebook if you just work an extra night no matter if your daughter fell of the stairs and broke her leg.
...
Er, is this supposed to be a news site? There's not a lot of actual news, but I can go and see what's happening at "Propwash Junction". Which isn't actually a real place but a Disney ad. Real news is at least two clicks deep.
Doomed!
I did use it once. There was a hostage situation in my small town and somehow a Patch page ended up with some coverage of the event.
AT&T Network Enhancements Strengthen Nation's Fastest, Most Reliable 4G LTE Network in St. Louis
http://chesterfield.patch.com/groups/stl-tech-news/p/att-net...
I can't find any coverage in SF. And I checked for LA, Boston, Austin, NY (each borough)...
For example, there are http://hollywood.patch.com/ and http://southsanfrancisco.patch.com/
Edit: I don't actually navigate the site much, instead I just visit area.patch.com/ and the rest is easy to find.
Here's what my neighborhood has, in comparison: http://www.capitolhillseattle.com
CHS beats the pants off of Patch.
They put papers in the most affluent communities only to attract high-buck advertisers. The quality varies, but where I live, they hired away the town's weekly newspaper editor. This editor has since left. Essentially, the editor is required to personally produce a high, minimum number of articles per day. Everyone else but the ad sales person works as an independent contractor on dollars per piece or photo. I have sometimes seen good journalism from these contractors, but most of the good ones seem to have left.
Patch attempts to bring in outside bloggers and letter writers from the community simply to increase clicks and controversy. Initially, they tried to pay these bloggers, but that ended very fast.
Most of the articles are designed to be timely pieces about the schools, town sports, weather, traffic, politics, or local views about current events. In fact, it seems like they believe the most important thing they do is spin national news by interviewing locals about controversial, state or national news stories like PPACA or gay marriage decisions since it creates lots of clicks. On the plus side, they have done more to cover local politics than any other outlet.
http://www.amazon.com/Death-March-Edition-Edward-Yourdon/dp/...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_costs#Loss_aversion_and_th...
I've also had the "get on board or leave" speech thrown at me. More times then not, those words are a sign to run away as fast as possible.
This guy is a joke and his product is a joke.
Yes the old "we only want true believers here", people you can abuse endlessly and treat like animals.
"The Queen had only one way of settling all difficulties, great or small. 'Off with his head!' she said, without even looking round."
- Lewis Carroll, Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, 1865
If this does turn out to be a joke its one of the best publicity stunts in history.
Of-course if it is not a joke/stunt. All the best to Lenz
I'm going to get this speech in about 48 hours (flying to HQ at the moment). What's your advice?
For the meeting itself, not so easy.
Part one: Come up with a plan for the meeting. Best if you know what "on board" means and come up with some believable actions or things you can do in the future showing you ARE. Find some explanations why you were not in the past, even if it means to only find expalnations why your boss thinks you're not "on board". Maybe you even know what kind of agenda your boss has for himself, this adds a lot of usefull context to the points mentioned above.
Part two: Use the time you bought yourself to find something better elsewhere. There are people that can addopt enough and get "on board" (whatever that really means), but I'm none of those.
In cases like this, it's all about how a situation is percieved and not how it really is.
Hope it helped a little bit. And even if it's not easy, don't worry or even panic, stay calm and polite. Be prepared, but don't argue any points before they are brought up by someone else.
Disclaimer: Had one meeting like that myself, came up with a defense a couple of weeks later, left 4 months later. Teached me to be prepared for meetings like this.
2: Explain why you are not performing - look for the underlying causes for demotivation. Is it that you believe the company direction is wrong? your co-workers are gooding off? your external commitments (family, sickness, another gig), competitors?, a particular senior person who is deflating things? Simple lack of a challenge (a good one), demotivatingly low income?
3: Explain what has to change in order for you to stay. Some challenging work that is focussed at the root of the company's issues is goof. More autonomy, more time spent at the coal face, better targets, training, better air cover - what ever it is. Be genuine and make sure that if these issues are fixed, then so is your motivation and ability.
4: Agree on a "it gets fixed or I leave" plan with your boss. His or her role is to fix the issues, and your role is to respond with results. Agree to monthly check-ins and make sure you each know where you stand at all times.
If the answer to 1: and 2: is "shut up and get back to work" then it's clear where you stand. Shut up, get back to work and start a frenetic job search.
I would not advise you to quit on the spot, as fun as that could be. Make them fire you per the terms of your contract, or (obviously better) negotiate a graceful exit for both parties.
Good luck.
It's not really motivational or inspiring when someone tells you "my way or the highway". When "my way" has been a failure thus far.
Although rare, the sign of a good leader is to accept and acknowledge failure and correct the issues.
There was case like that in Germany. But the guy accepted and company had to pay him three month salary for compensation. He was 'hired' back after couple of days of holiday.
This source tells us that Lenz always took photos at Patch
all-hands meetings. He would later post them to Patch's
internal news site.
Nevertheless it is odd that an employee was fired for taking pictures of a meeting when the audio was leaked to the media.
http://www.businessinsider.com/aol-ceo-tim-armstrong-appeare...
A few minutes later, Armstrong complained about leaks to
the media. He said the leaks were making Patch seem like
"loser-ville" in the press. He said, "That's why Abel was
fired." "We can't have people that are in the locker room
giving the game plan away.""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."
So what you're saying is, Armstrong also gives inconsistent directions to his employees?
but.. I don't think it exactly helps Armstrong if instead of giving inconsistent direction.. he instead gives unclear and ambiguous directions. He's the CEO.. he should be able to communicate consistently and clearly.
rdtsc's law of failing large companies: "a large enough failing company, with a power crazy CEO is indistinguishable from a TV show"
I know Zappo's offers new trainees a cash bonus if they decide to /not/ join the company after completing the training program. That way Zappo's can be more sure that their new hires are not /just/ financially motivated but also are excited about the company itself.
Buyouts are commonly used during downsizing, but any thoughts as to why this isn't more widespread - i.e., used during 'normal' times as well? You could imagine companies offering a cash bonus (or health insurance for a certain # of months, or something) to anyone that quit but didn't have another job lined up.
That, presumably, would have the effect of empowering people to leave their job. So people who were not aligned with the company itself or otherwise dissatisfied could leave, improving the culture of the company as well.
On a more meta level, pleas like Armstrong's, to "leave if you're not committed" reminds me of the quote from North Dallas Forty [0] (A movie about professional sports): "Every time I say it's business, you say it's a game. Every time I say it's a game, you say it's a business." Leaders of businesses can try to pull the same thing; they alternate between appealing to your sense of mission, and then make decisions under a different logic.
When things go sour they also falsely blame a scapegoated 3rd party. "We would give you bonuses and severance packages but those pesky lawyers/accountants can't let us do it", as if those entities are forces of nature outside of CEO's or board's control.
My company was interviewing a candidate once. He was spectacular during the interview, but then he stared taking pictures of our office and our employees, which made us all uncomfortable, and that's the only reason we did not offer him a job.
What may seem like normal behavior to one person may be offensive or intrusive to someone else.
It's possible that in the stressful moment, with his mind on the "you're with the plan or should leave" theme, Armstrong misread or overreacted to the photo-taking. (Perhaps even, the "you're fired" was a reaction to a momentary facial expression from the photographer, in reaction to the first "put that camera down" command.)
Or maybe there's a history, and Armstrong already viewed the employee as insufficiently serious about Patch. Either way, an odd occurrence.
http://www.businessinsider.com/leaked-audio-listen-to-aol-ce...
Your anecdote and this situation are completely different.
I'm only half-kidding.. I had never heard of it before, and I went to look at it after reading the article. Anyone else?
I'm not an American so I'm not in the target market, but a lot of these kinds of sites live and die by early adopters and tech influencers who start using them and advocate to their networks.
So if it was meant to be a publicity stunt, it sure as hell backfired. But then again, if they were good at marketing and publicity stunts, they probably wouldn't be firing people on the spot or extolling how great it is for employees to sacrifice their nights and weekends for the cause even after their children break their legs falling off the stairs.
http://ir.aol.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=147895&p=quarterlyearnings
It bought Techcrunch, among other things.
http://get.aol.com/plans/index.php?regtype=client&offergrp=w...
Only some crappy "security" software for broadband users (I wouldn't call their subscription model for broadband users scam buts it is a bit shady to take 12 bucks a month for some discount coupons and "$750 Extended Computer Protection").
they seem to offer only 56k dial-up service.
?
My parents had AOL dialup in the '90s, and when they got cable broadband around 2001 or 2002, they switched to AOL's $10/mo bring-your-own-access version, because they wanted to keep their email addresses and some stuff they used in AOL's client at the time. AOL made that free in 2006, but didn't switch you automatically: you had to call up and ask to switch to the free plan, which had become identical to the pay plan except for the $10/mo fee. I'm sure many people are still paying that $10/mo, either because they don't know the free plan exists, or don't realize it's identical.
For those of you who have lead and managed teams of 100 or more, would you ever resort to firing someone spontaneously in front of their peers?
If you have to let someone go, you do it in private.
Also I almost forgot about AOL. What were they doing in the last 10 years? I only remember they threw their "AOL Internet CDs" in every mailbox.
I learned quite afew things after talking to american collegues lately. Showed how "spoiled" you can be in Europe.
I know I'm speaking in broad generalizations here, but I think this is largely the case.
I mean one response is just that if I'm managing a team of 100 people, I haven't delegated effectively. That I shouldn't be making decisions to fire anyone who I don't directly work with in some capacity. With 100 people, I don't think I can give them individually enough of my time to treat them fairly with that sort of decision. That's a call their more immediate manager should be initiating. Then I'd be able to look into it with time set aside for that person, to give them a much fairer treatment - but by its very nature that ensures that sort of approach excludes it just happening out of the blue.
I would never consider firing someone who I hadn't had at least one 1 on 1 conversation with about whatever the issue was. (Unless it was something ridiculous, like serious industrial espionage or something, but at that point you're calling the police on them rather than having a 'you could do better with this' conversation.) I've had that approach pay off as well, because sometimes it's honestly the person's manager that's more at fault, or they've some problem in their life that can be worked around - and a bad manager can cause a lot of damage before you find them out if you don't look into things.
#
My general approach to management is that everyone gets at least one warning - preferably not phrased as a warning at first, you should be offering feedback that's not just do this or you'll get fired as a regular thing. But however you set that mechanism up, if you don't give clear signals, then when someone screws up it's all on you in my book. Just bam, 'you're fired,' isn't something that people can realistically work with. Fire people whenever they mess up and by the end of it you're probably not even going to have anyone who was there who remembers what the first guy was fired for any more. That's not an efficient method to transmit knowledge.
Besides, it costs a lot of money to hire people - increasingly so as the skill of the person you're trying to hire goes up.
There's no call to be nasty, even when you've decided that unfortunately you can't work with someone, or they don't fit with the company or something. They'll remember that you hurt them, what good can come of that?
Making an example? If you make examples that your team doesn't agree with they'll just start looking for other jobs - at least if they're not trapped - that just makes you come across as a bitch, and if they do agree with you no example was needed.
You never know when that person's going to be working for a company you want to do business with, or someone's thinking of applying for a job opening you have, or you're thinking of going somewhere else. If you've hurt the person and they're asked, 'So, what was X like' you, probably, don't want them to be all: 'That woman was a total bitch, impossible to work with.' You don't want that sort of rep going around in the industry.
If the worst should come to pass, and someone has to be let go, I think a conversation needs to take place. Face to face with someone who's been working with them for a while ideally, (you shouldn't just get called into some stranger's office and given your marching orders. Barring their not being allowed to talk to you themselves, that's cowardice on the part of whoever's meant to be managing you,) and, most of the time, reasonably private. You probably don't benefit from making people lose face in front of their friends, and you don't want people to think you don't care about them.
There are, admittedly, some trade-offs as to whether it's going to have at least one other person semi-present. There are some people who I've known with anger-management problems, and I wouldn't feel safe alone in a room with them giving them bad news. At the very least I'd want my door open and to know there were some folks around who'd stop them if they decided to take it out on me.
But other than 'are you going to need a witness in case they make accusations?' and 'are you going to need someone there so you don't get attacked?' Yes, preferably in private. Seems like a bad idea to humiliate people if you can possibly help it.
This was not only embarrasing but unprofessional too. What was the reason he got fired? Real reason?
Maybe a new term should be invented: "Got patched".
- Ahh "Humility" is such a wise trait.
you'd figure the first thing they would do is have all the major markets covered
Who cares what AOL is doing?
If you don't think they're an important company, I suggest you talk to more people who are outside of the tech industry.