Every time we write a critical post about Time Warner or Microsoft, or expose a negative fact, rumor or analysis, the refrain renews: fire the CEO! Dick Parsons, that lucky guy, gets the brunt of our readers' anger. He's screwing up Time Warner, you've told us time and time again, he should go. So say you of Microsoft's Steve Ballmer, he of the explosive personality, sweaty armpits, and billions in inexplicable operating expenses. Sometimes it's Jeff Immelt of GE, or even well-loved figures like Meg Whitman of eBay.
But usually, it's Dick. Today is no different. With 2nd quarter earnings coming out next Wednesday, and everyone wondering about the company's plans with its AOL unit, Joan Lappin from Gramercy Capital Management demands in the pages of Fortune, "Save Time Warner, Fire Parsons."
It's nothing new, but it's worth evaluating her reasons for the radical battle cry. She argues that Parsons is all about politics (in fact, he's rumored to be angling for a 2009 run for New York City mayor), a skill that helped him avoid perishing in the "shark tank" that has been Time Warner's boardroom for the past decade and earned him credit as being a "Teflon Don," but has failed miserably to maintain Time Warner's legacy as a creative, entrepreneurial culture where good managers were rewarded "generous financial incentives for producing solid earnings growth." Fire Parsons, she says, and maybe that creative culture can be revived.
I honor her passion, and agree that the creative, entrepreneurial company always wins over the political shark tank. But who, Joan, is positioned to take the helm from him? That question must be answered before anyone brings out a block and starts chopping.
Best & Worst in Money 2008: Most shocking financial collapse
Closing Bell: Stocks slump as AMD, AT&T, GM and Merck decline
Global Q&A: A rocky road, but profits ahead
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
7-25-2006 @ 9:24PM
charles kowal said...
I also feel Mr Parson should go. He is the wrong man for the job. We need someone who can take time warner forward into the new world of tec. BRING BACK TED TURNNER
7-26-2006 @ 12:00AM
Jeb Ladouceur said...
Dick Parsons does not wear the job well. It did not appear that he would when he was named, and one wonders how he has lasted this long. Parsons brought little if anything to the Time Warner table at a time when an energetic, charismatic leader was needed. As for a replacement ... please ... there are any number of savvy executives better qualified.
7-26-2006 @ 12:09AM
Jeb Ladouceur said...
...beg pardon...mayor of New York? Come ON!
7-26-2006 @ 9:18AM
JDaggitt said...
Sarah --
The chopping block that you speak of should be used to cut TWX into individual companies. If Bewkes (and Parsons because he did not state an opinion contray to Bewkes) believes that synergies are "bullshit" then there is little compelling reason to keep TWX as a conglomerate. (You need look no further than Road Runner and AOL to see that TWX believes synergies are bullsit.)
Therefore you don't need a replacement for Parsons. Split up TWX under the current division chiefs. Fire Parsons and the majority of the corporate staff. Sell the TWX building. Let each division eat what they kill.
In that environment would you rather own a piece of the magazine group or AOL? I'd put my money on AOL.
7-26-2006 @ 2:21PM
tony Williams said...
Parson's has not been fired because he is one of the only, if not the only black head of a mega-company.
We cannot operate time/Warner under the affirmitave
action program. I am literally more qualified to lead
the company than Parson's. He is an embarrassment and
a joke.