Sounds bad. But almost certainly was not simply a spur of the moment decision, but rather that Lenz was on the list of people to be fired later in the day and had done things that Armstrong knew about (like leaking Patch information). Still bad to do it like that on a call where people are getting fired for real, but this gives some context.
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?
That's certainly one way of interpreting his statement, and I agree with you that it's an offense to the team..
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.
Sounds to me like a reason coughed up a few minutes later when he was trying to rationalize what he had done.
Even if that was the reason, if you fired the employee in front of the entire team suddenly without reasoning until asked for later, it wouldn't help in anyway, not even exemplifying the case.
http://www.businessinsider.com/aol-ceo-tim-armstrong-appeare...