Was Abramson's Management Style Really the Problem?

REPLAY VIDEO
Your next video will start in
Pause

Recommended Videos

  • Info

  • Comments

  • VIDEO TEXT

May 19 (Bloomberg) -- Heidi Moore, U.S. finance and economics editor at The Guardian, Rachel Sklar, co-founder of The List, and Bloomberg's Sheelah Kolhatkar discuss Jill Abramson's abrupt New York Times departure with Trish Regan on Bloomberg Television's "Street Smart." (Source: Bloomberg)

Times has said that he let jill abramson go because of her management style.

I would be interested to see your perspective on that.

Was it in fact her management style that was the problem?

I think there are people internally who have said that she was at times difficult to work with.

I think that is fair.

That is something that is that of men as well.

At the things -- the things we are not looking at is how a management style for a woman is baked in.

It would be considered wrong for her to exercise her authority, people take that remiss in a way that they do not when it is a man.

It is interpreted differently.

Women are supposed to be more docile, more motherly, more nice.

Criticism coming from a woman is treated differently from a man -- then from a man.

Jill abramson is actually a mother, and i know she has been around that newsroom for almost 20 years, and she was managing editor in 2000 three, executive editor in 2011. this was a woman who shepherded many careers through the ranks.

I think complaints about management aside, that you do not hear the same kind of complaints about men when they exercise their power.

One of the phrases used to describe her cot may.

Arbitrary decision-making.

When you're the person at the top -- it kind of goes along with being the boss.

It seems like women who are aggressive, and women who really push it labeled with the b word.

A guy can do a lot of the same stuff , that is the problem versus a guy who was aggressive and pushy and demanding and expects a lot.

It is just a tough boss to work for.

We have a double standard.

We have done a lot of research, and women pay a high price professionally for not being seen as liked.

At the same time they are in this no-win situation because if they are too likable they are not seen as competent.

Women cannot be both competent and widely liked.

A no-win situation.

You actually cannot be liked.

There have been no study saying that women's favors to other people are not counted, they are expected.

If a woman helps you to get promoted, you seem to think you deserve that, and if a man helped you you think you're his ally.

You tweeted a lot over this issue and the story.

One of the things you tweeted that i want to share with the viewers -- in this particular instance when she got the job three years ago, it was like fantastic come a week of the first female editor of the new york times.

And now everybody asks the questions that we are asking here, you have people at the new york times saying she was another manager like anything else.

Are we getting at a double standard?

Presidents are set from beginning to end --precedents are set run beginning to end.

Every step of the way everyone is watching how they are treated up until they are ousted.

That is the example that younger women see, and there's plenty of evidence that younger women are looking at this and saying is this the universe of acceptable behavior for women editors?

Before we could not get this far, but now we can command after we got our names are written out of history.

It is likely never existed.

It is no no-win -- it is this no-win situation.

You just do not see a lot of women on top among the women executives.

I think that what heidi said about the universe of acceptable behavior puts it perfectly.

There is a narrow universe of acceptable behavior that women can engage in before the hammer drops and their perceived badly.

Before it is like time to leave and go.

I think that is changing, and i think she is part of that.

She made no apologies for being tough.

Intimidating and demanding.

I was thinking this weekend about the devil wears prada, and the vogue editor.

What does she do differently, or in some ways how is she similar to someone like jill abramson?

It is one of my favorite movies.

It it was an extreme parody.

She was autocratic russia did not -- autocratic, she did not consult her number two.

We do not talk about it that way when a man is fired.

He messed something up, or there was a massive scandal that occurred on his watch.

What is interesting about this case is that women were ready to embrace the idea that there was a gender component because of the way it happened.

The dory about her inquiring about being paid less.

Whether that was true or not, women across the professional spectrum were ready to accept that because it is so true to a lot of their experiences.

When i used to be a lawyer there was a legendary partner who was known for having a temper.

I've been in environments where they have been a stapler thrower or a phone thrower, and other guys respect it.

Can you imagine if you did that?

There is a level of behavior -- that goes back to the universe of acceptable behavior, much more narrow for women.

This is not to suggest that jill abramson was a perfect leader, or not fired with cause, it is very clear that the treatment and the descriptors of her were different.

If you think about men having to work for a demanding woman -- and has to be hard for a guys easy's ego . the key problem is how women have been misled about how to gain political capital in an office.

Men know this, you go out for drinks, or meet their families, or go golfing together.

For women is much harder to fit into that mess favors don't count, helping other people advance do not count.

How a woman of equal confidence will rise different -- is different.

If you're the one going out for guys with drinks, and you're the only woman, that in and of its health is a problem.

You're not going to fit in culturally in the same way.

Is it something that sheryl sandberg has spoken about, and a lot of mentoring occurs with mailboxes -- male bosses and subordinates over drinks, and it is hard for women to engage in that.

And women have family obligations, they are not as available in the evenings.

They are in this corner.

I would offer that this is not an intentional thing.

I do not think there is an army of men out there saying women cannot be bosses, that is not what happens at all.

We have been raised with different ideas of what leadership look like, and this is an evolution.

We are in the middle of it.

I think the reaction to this firing is very different in 2014 and would have been two years ago, four years ago, and so that his progress.

Long live the aggressive,

This text has been automatically generated. It may not be 100% accurate.

Advertisement

BTV Channel Finder

Channel_finder_loader

ZIP is required for U.S. locations

Bloomberg Television in   change