Image Credit: Peter Yang
After reading several accounts on why Jill Abramson, former Executive Editor of The New York Times, was fired, I have come to the conclusion that is complicated and it is not necessarily clear to me that it was all about gender. There are allegations of ethics breaches (that she lied about what had been communicated to someone being hired as co-managing editor).
I say that it was not all about gender, but I do believe that gender was a part of the dynamic. What I have come to believe is that we can never totally dismiss “difference” from the norm as a factor in most decisions. As we have come to learn, our unconscious biases are alive and well and always at work in how we behave.
Abramson was criticized for her leadership style, which sounds to me very much like the old school autocratic way of managing, which she likely learned from male bosses over the years. I am not condoning this type of leadership as we have learned that it is demotivating, but as others have questioned, I wonder if a man with a similar style would have been fired.
Relative to the allegation that she lied about what had been communicated regarding the new position she was hiring for, women tend to communicate differently (Women communicate through dialogue, discussing emotions, choices and problems. Males are more action-oriented—the goal of communication is to achieve something.) Of course I have no idea if these differences in communication approaches have anything to do with the situation but I simply offer this as something to think about.
The third aspect of this situation is the assertion that Abramson was paid less than her male counterparts who preceded her in this position. It is said that Abramson had consulted with an attorney about the disparity. It is well researched the women, even executive women, make less than men in similar positions, so perhaps Abramson was on to something.
Interestingly with all of the criticism about her leadership style, it was also acknowledged that she was a highly skilled journalist, so competence was not at issue at all.
Abramson was the first woman to hold this top post at The New York Times. I venture to guess like so many other “firsts”, she was under more scrutiny and was being held to higher standards than men in similar leadership positions.
Let’s hope that Abramson’s firing is not in vain and that we can all learn something more about the complexity and difficulty of achieving a truly inclusive world. She says that she is ready to move on and hopefully her next chapter will be to tell her story, the whole story from which other leaders can learn. We at The Inclusion Solution witsh Jill Abramson all the best and thank her for being a trailblazer!
