Jill Abramson, the first woman to serve as executive
editor of The New York Times, was abruptly dismissed after less than three
years on the job. The Times won
eight Pulitzer Prizes under Ms. Abramson and she won praise for journalistic
efforts both in print and on the web. In
spite of this, she was criticized for her management style. She was accused of being brusque, harsh and
pushy.
And Ms. Abramson isn’t the first woman to be “let go”
from a top editorial job.
On the very same day Abramson’s firing was announced,
Natalie Nougayrède, the first woman editor-in-chief of Le Monde, France’s most prominent newspaper, resigned after 14
months, saying that she felt she was being
undermined by those who wished to “reduce drastically the prerogatives of the
head of paper,” as she pushed the paper to be more fully into digital
and to be more profitable. Yet, if you
believe her critics, she was being undermined because of her top-down
management style and inability to build consensus.
Susan Glasser, former editor of the national news
section of the Washington Post,
lasted less than two years before she was removed from her post. At the time Ms. Glasser was hired, Executive
Editor Leonard Downie, Jr. praised her strong vision for “…an idea of change
and transformation at the paper that involves us embracing new ideas and ways
of thinking about our journalism” During
her tenure, the Post won a record six
Pulitzers in one month. Yet, she was criticized for being difficult, hard to
understand, and divisive.
These women achieved great results and were driving
innovation and change. However, they were all labeled smart but difficult,
unapproachable, and intimidating – traits that have also been associated with successful
male editors. What does this say about
the newsroom culture? Can women lead in
this kind of culture?
The firing of
Ms. Abramson, the resignation of Ms. Nougayrède, and the removal of Ms. Glasser
are wake-up calls that women leaders who demonstrate assertiveness and a
confident mastery of their field are viewed as brash, pushy, bossy,
overbearing. Patronizing peers or bosses
might call them unladylike or say that their behavior is "unbecoming."
Research and
experience point to the double standard we use to evaluate leaders. Men have a broader range of accepted behaviors
than women do. Men can be viewed highly
when they forcefully assert their point of view and their authority. They are being strong, competent leaders. Women who demonstrate these behaviors are not
seen as strong competent leaders; they are seen as problems.
There’s no denying that there are environments, like
a newsroom, often dominated by men, where the culture is competitive and
results-driven, where leaders crack the whip and "take no
prisoners."
Unfortunately, gender bias in the newsroom
environment probably isn’t going to disappear any time soon, so women leaders
will have to learn to work around it.
Ms. Glasser explained it this way: “You can’t get to
greatness by enabling mediocrity; in male leaders, this is called having high
standards and it is praised. Places like
the New York Times, Le Monde and the Washington Post are not given to elevating editors—of any
gender—who would accept anything other than the highest of standards. As in tough, demanding, challenging. But there’s no doubt that many find this
off-putting and threatening from a certain kind of woman. Like me.”
Research shows that if women hope to be successful
taking primary leading roles in any organizational culture, they must learn to
blunt their sharp elbows and temper their assertiveness. What this means in the
newsroom culture, and others like it, is that women leaders have to be assertive,
yes; driving, yes; challenging, yes; but to succeed they need to file smooth
the hard edges associated with those stereotypical male leadership
characteristics.
