A small organization can take things as they come. It needs little if any process.

A big organization with too little process will burn itself out, run off a cliff, or wander into a quicksand. With too much process, process becomes an end in itself, and the big organization will stop moving and die.

Indeed the Big Three car makers seem to be failing because of too much process (some of which, perhaps, is imposed by the government). Otoh, apparently the rating agencies deliberately dismantled legitimate functional processes which they had in place.

As usual, Tina is right on target. The war between critics and creators, ideas and "i don'ts" is partly responsible for the downfall of companies that have been managed by people who care more about quarter by quarter accounting than accountability.

All true, but if one of those Pulitzer Prize winning reporters came to The Daily Beast, how much would you pay for a story? $300? $400? Is this how you're staying solvent--by not paying correspondents (who could get minimum $2 and $3 a word and more in a magazine so they can actually survive in a freelance career)? Is this the wave of the future--"We don't have to buy paper and we can get content for practically nothing! Yay!"?

The media is definitely in for some interesting times. I recently saw a show about beer and how the big brewers took over and ruled until the 1980's. At that time microbrewers began appearing and have prospered. The big guys are still there but those who like their beer tend to patronize the microbreweries.
I see the media of books and news in much the same position. The small regional publishers are begining to find their place. People who are seriously interested in good reading and news are increasingly looking to these small presses to fulfil their needs.
The internet is also changing how we get our news and entertainment.
In ten years it will be interesting to see where all these changes have led us.
As for those big bottom-line guys, maybe they need to re-think what the bottom-line really is as they lose market share.

great piece ... and lets not forget how many of these companies would be profitable if they hadn't been saddled with debt through ill-advised mergers and acquisitions. All in the name of synergy.

Hear, hear!!! Mot of us out in the hinterlands, well away from the hub of modern American life as stated in the big cities where the suits live, can clearly see that big management is interested in sustaining only itself, at the cost of all others. There's a Biblical injuction aboiut binding the mouths of the cattle that grind the grain that 'suits' would do well to heed. Or if religion has no relevance in your life, try PT Barmum, who said that if you just take off the wool and leave the skin, you can shear the sucker regularly, but if you take off the skin too, you'll kill him and have to find a new sucker. Many conglomerates have fogotten that axiom, and have skinned not only their employees but the customers as well. And now the entire country is reaping what they have sown for us.

Hurrah! TINA IS TALKING NON-MANAGEMENT-CONSULTANCY-M & A-SPEAK SENSE!
Synergy via mergers & acquisitions will never replace core creativity.

Yes, let the good times roll. But lest we forget, the good times last only for a while before many of those "good timers" become very self-conscious about their own survival. It's all very exciting in the beginning with exploring new ways and discoveries but eventually the nothing-to-lose mentality wakes up along the way and becomes serious about maintaining whatever standing has been achieved or at the very least a generous savings account. That survival of course often shows itself in the desperate and overly cautious attitude of those in prominence to not rock the boat - especially their boat. Inevitably the result is that the peaceful ponds of some are the stagnant pools to others.

Will there ever be a time when the old and the new effortlessly segue into one another and it's sunshine, lollipops and rainbows all around? Well, that will take one heck of a cultural change and from what I see going on in the world it's going to take some time before that.

Yes, let the new throw out the old. There will be some figurative carnage but hey, it'll provide for some dark humor along with the innovation. Historically, it's right on schedule.

Why has everyone ignored the fact the BIG name TV reporters (?), i.e., Katie Curic, etc. receive anywhere from $10 MILLION to $20 MILLION per year to look good and impress all. DO you realize the extra cost to everything that is advertised on these programs is passed on to the consumer!

When counting beans becomes more important than that which sows and reaps your beans, it won't be long before you have no more beans to count. Hopefully, our businesses will realize that bean counters don't make the beans!

The most important sentence in this right-on piece refers to "the DNA" of the enterprise. If bean counters don't understand the true soul of the business (and most often they don't), it is only a matter of time before if founders -- even in a growth economy. In a down economy, that bell rings sooner rather than later.

Coming from one of, what is considered, the best journalism schools in the country, I couldn't breathe for a good year when told by a professor who ate, drank, slept journalism to "get out while you can", that "there are no more jobs", and "no matter how much you and i love the industry, it's just plain stupid to not have a back-up-plan".

Maybe I should've heeded that advice...

The time when recover fro this mess is when people start believing again, it's not CEO's, bean-counters or the 100 story building that they call headquarters. It's the PRODUCT!

I hate to say it, but: I think the next wave of the future is in the blogs. And, of course, delightful news sites like the Beast, Amy Siskind notwithstanding.
It's going to start as people do basic work for small pay, but they're doing something they love. Then, as demand for said sites ramp up, because the newspapers are too expensive for terrible news (coming from Chicago, the new Tribune looks like USA Today. It's an embarrassment), more and more reporters are going to be fleeing to the sites, and more sites will pop up.
It's a generally ugly time in the world, but things will get better.

You rock, Tina.

Well said. Sadly, even small newspapers are failing for the same reason. B schools have given executives the wrong message, just as Tina says. Blogs and online news is the new way. If we can get the online advertising ironed out, maybe everyone can go back to getting a living out of the news.

It breaks my heart to see what's happening to the media. Robert Campeau did similar disservice to the retail industry when his Canadian investment company took over Federated [in 1988] and I think the industry never recovered. Stores like Bloomingdale's, that were destinations to see spectacular museum-quality displays nurtured by brilliant merchandisers, were held up by accountants who couldn't see the direct value to the bottom line of such frivolity. The economy aside, people haven't flocked to department stores since.

True talent is at the core of any successful media company. Someone needs to remind the top dogs of that. Without fostering great talent, you might as well forget it.

I can imagine the scene Tina describes exactly having spent some time around media companies although I'm technically a suit. The banking variety. Despite that I've managed to retain some critical faculties and there do seem to be an incredible number of suited, and some unsuited, drones around at every meeting you go to. The product is basically creative but there seem to be an unholy number of fact checkers. The news has just popped out that after over a year of floundering around and handing out mountains of pink slips Zell's attempt to turn around a debt laden Tribune has essentially failed. Anyone surprised. This guy has no more idea of how to run a newspaper business than the man in the moon. I even begin to wonder if Murdoch is losing his touch over at the WSJ. The thing that made the Journal distinctive was its in depth focus on business stories and superb reporting. It left the general news to others. Murdoch seems to have decided on making the Journal a me too news operation so the paper has lost its individual taste.

Many decades ago (1920s?), there was a strong argument that big was bad.That argument was lost because of monied interests. But, big is bad - large organizations, whether businesses or educational institutions, cannot move quickly in response to changing conditions.There were also people who argued that businesses should NOT be publically owned because public ownership would lead to absentee management and to management by the numbers. They argued against absentee management and indeed, for managers to own the firm - but not with publically held stock. [Henry Dennison of Dennison Manufacturing Company - was one of those - he died in the early 1950s]I believe that top management, who hold millions of stock options and shares, have had incredible incentives to act against the best interests of their firms in favor of short term profit.I'm in complete agreement with Tina Brown.

very sad. very true. especially the part about all the laptops and powerpoints. but, as we read that the new york times has to lease out hundreds of millions of its new skyscraper, one wonders if google should lease it from them? after all, it's the least they could do, they have profited for years off or free articles that the poor management at the new york times had to pay for. until advertisers, and advertising agencies, or subscribers, or sponsors, figure out how to provide pay for content again, it is going to be grim indeed.

Yes indeed, Tina -- now you can do your part by paying your freelancers more than the $300 a story I hear you're offering.

Yellow journalism has a new meaning, while still retaining the old.

"Indeed, the recession is giving many of them air cover."
I think this should be the headline for this story. I wondered who was finally going to write this generally unexamined truth. It astonishes me how we allow these cads to get away with this repeated destruction. But what to do about it? I am optimistic in general about the future and that all of this chaos and insecurity will lead to a stronger workforce, culture, and economy. But it is horrifying to watch how easily the people resposible get off easily or completely. I t reminds me a bit how the blatant obviousness of the intentional & nefarious doings of the Bush Administration are blamed on "intelligence failures" and the like.
The zombies Ms. Brown so accuarately explains here have made no mistakes on the one level they care about: they have all gotten exactly what they wanted. Regardless of the cost to their companies, employees, or to the economy and culture in general.

Tina. You are correct in pointing out the inequality of top down restructuring and yet I think that you are missing the point by attacking the "big wheels."
When we subsidize corporate welfare--- members of the general citizenry are isolated from their (poobah) companionship and live fee, healthier lives. While living in gated towers, estates, communities and mental-salons the "Too Powerful" create an illusion of diminished accountability.
The majority of us benefit from living in a sustainable world. We take our bumps and bruises only to support our families and communities by sharing every thing that we can.
We survive on smaller margins not excess. We are more flexible and can evolve quicker when we don't feel the baggage of excess weighing us down.
No body wants to be laid off. But who wants to work for an entity that has no respect for them and rules accordingly.