Another Shake-Up at NPR as Chief Steps Down

Gary E. Knell, the public radio organization’s chief for the last 20 months, announced on Monday that he would be leaving to run the National Geographic Society. It came as an unwelcome surprise to NPR staff members, given that Mr. Knell brought some desperately needed stability to the executive ranks when he was hired in late 2011.

Conflicts between past chief executives and the NPR board resulted in repeated shake-ups in the years leading to his arrival. On Monday, though, Mr. Knell and the board hurried to reassure public radio fans that his exit was because of something more mundane: a better job offer.

In an e-mail to the NPR staff, Mr. Knell said he had been approached by the National Geographic Society and “offered an opportunity that, after discussions with my family, I could not turn down.”

In a subsequent telephone interview, Mr. Knell said he had been prepared to renew his NPR contract, which expires in November. But then National Geographic called, and it was enticing for a number of reasons. One that was immediately suggested by observers on Monday was money: he will earn a significantly higher salary at the society. While that is true, he said his decision “wasn’t really driven by a financial equation.” What was most appealing about National Geographic, he said, was its size, its educational efforts and international scope.

At National Geographic, he will succeed John M. Fahey Jr., who has served as the society’s chief executive since 1998 (and who will remain its chairman). Mr. Knell is already one of the trustees of the nonprofit organization, which publishes National Geographic and other magazines, supports scientific research and expeditions and owns part of the commercial National Geographic Channel.

“The perfect person for this crucial role was right in our own backyard,” Jean N. Case, the co-chairwoman of the committee that searched for a new chief executive, said in a statement.

The society had about $600 million in income in 2011, according to tax filings, making it far bigger than NPR, which has a budget of about $180 million this year and is running a small deficit. The society also has twice as many employees.

While Mr. Knell’s departure from NPR is amicable by all accounts, it is disappointing to that organization’s board, which must once again search for a leader. Ken Stern, who was named chief executive in 2006, stepped down less than two years later; an interim head took over until NPR hired Vivian Schiller away from The New York Times to run the organization in 2009. She resigned two years after that, after back-to-back controversies involving the political views of an NPR analyst, Juan Williams, and two NPR fund-raising executives. Another interim head was appointed until Mr. Knell’s arrival in 2011 from the nonprofit Sesame Workshop.

Analysts have suggested that the revolving door has hindered NPR, which has had to delicately maintain relationships with its member stations across the country while expanding its presence on the Web. “NPR’s a vital journalism organization that seems to have more problems with its business side than its journalism side, and that hurts its reputation, because people don’t make that distinction,” said Alicia Shepard, who was NPR’s ombudsman between 2007 and 2011.

Over all, the organization has shown that it is adjusting to changes in consumer behavior; just last week it introduced a redesigned home page that looked a lot like a mobile app. The new home page also included a big new space for messages from sponsors, public media’s version of advertisers.

It may need more of those in the future. The organization has a $6 million deficit in the fiscal year that ends on Sept. 30, and it is forecast to run a deficit again next year. Mr. Knell has been working on a plan to help NPR achieve a balanced budget in 2015. “We hope to present a strategic plan to the board soon, before my departure,” he said on Monday, declining to comment further.

Mr. Knell said that among his proudest achievements at NPR were “bringing institutional donors back” and “helping calm some of the waters on Capitol Hill.” (Calls for cuts to government subsidies for NPR and PBS have quieted in the last year.) By other measures — like NPR’s relations with member stations and its reputation for innovation — the organization has made steady improvement under Mr. Knell. “We’ve made a lot of progress in a short amount of time,” he said, suggesting that he felt as if he had fit four years of work into his two years.

He managed to irritate some public radio supporters during his tenure by ending “Talk of the Nation,” the midday call-in show, and throwing NPR’s weight behind a news broadcast called “Here and Now” instead. The change took effect this summer, and more than 300 stations now carry “Here and Now,” about 100 fewer than the number that carried “Talk.”

Kit Jensen, the chairwoman of the NPR board, said she expected a “fairly quick” succession process.

Ms. Jensen called Mr. Knell a “stellar C.E.O.” in a telephone interview, saying, “Certainly, we wish his decision had been otherwise, but we respect what that decision is.”

The board could turn to one of Mr. Knell’s top lieutenants, like Kinsey Wilson, NPR’s executive vice president and chief content officer, or Margaret Low Smith, the senior vice president for news. Or it could look outside the organization — the same thing it has done the last three times.

Bits Blog: In Shake-Up, Apple's Mobile Software and Retail Chiefs to Depart

Jeff Chiu/Associated Press Scott Forstall at an Apple event in September.

Scott Forstall, who has run software development for Apple’s iPad and iPhone products, and John Browett, the head of the company’s retail operations, are leaving Apple, in a rare management shake-up at the company.

The departure of Mr. Forstall, an Apple veteran, will shift his responsibilities to several other Apple executives. Most notably, Eddy Cue, the head of Apple’s Internet services, will take over development of Siri and maps, two efforts Mr. Forstall oversaw that have been widely criticized for their reliability and accuracy.

Apple said in a news release that the management changes would “encourage even more collaboration” at the company. Mr. Forstall will leave Apple next year and serve as an adviser to Tim Cook, the chief executive, in the meantime.

Dixons Retails, via Associated Press John Browlett

Jony Ive, the head of Apple’s industrial design, will take on more software responsibilities by providing more “leadership and direction for Human Interface,” Apple said. Craig Federighi, who was previously in charge of Apple’s Mac software development, will also lead development of iOS, the software for iPads and iPhones.

The departure of Mr. Browett, who joined Apple only in April to lead its retail operations, followed a number of missteps by him. In August, Apple took the unusual step of apologizing for a plan to cut back on staffing at its stores. Apple said that a search for a new head of retail was under way and that the retail team would report directly to Mr. Cook.

DealBook: In Citigroup Shakeup, a New Show of Power by Boards

Shannon Stapleton/ReutersMichael O’Neill, the chairman of Citigroup, in 2009.

The departure of Vikram S. Pandit shows clearly who is in charge of Citigroup: the board of directors. For good or for bad, boards are increasingly taking charge of corporate America. The reign of the imperial chief executive is over.

No reason was given in the news release announcing that Mr. Pandit had stepped down. And while the reports of what happened behind the scenes will slowly emerge as each side spins its story, there is no doubt that this was an unexpected and abrupt resignation. He left without the words that you usually see in such announcements about “spending more time with your family” or even language about “retirement” — and just as his compensation was beginning to rise again into the tens of millions of dollars.

The new show of power by the board is a remarkable turn of events. In the years leading up to the financial crisis, boards were criticized for letting chief executives rule unchecked. Remember, Citigroup was the place where Sandford I. Weill reigned supreme for years. It led to Charles O. Prince III, who lacked the ability to run the financial conglomerate but also lacked a board that could appropriately supervise and monitor his actions let alone make a decision about the direction of the company. (Mr. Prince was the one, you may recall, who said in the years leading up to the financial crisis that “as long as the music is playing, you’ve got to get up and dance.”

Board supremacy is a general trend. In the wake of the financial crisis, the big banks have been forced to reconstitute their boards, with Citigroup and Bank of America at the top of the list. But others like Goldman Sachs have also been pushed to bring in more competent people. The new directors are much more aware of what happened in the years leading up to the financial crisis, and to take action.

Not only have boards been pushed to bring in new, more active people, political and market forces are pushing boards into a greater role in the banks themselves. The Dodd-Frank Act charges boards with an enhanced duty to monitor systemic risk at financial institutions and requires the creation of risk management committees made up of independent directors for these banks.

Corporate governance advocates, meanwhile, are pushing boards to take a more active role not only in the hiring and firing of the chief executive but in the operation of the company.

The consequence is that not only do boards have more legal responsibility to run the company, they are being exhorted to do so. Boards are listening. The change is real and amply underscored in the shakeup at Citigroup. Mr. Pandit’s resignation is remarkable because it goes beyond what had been the traditional board role, which has been to stand back and hire or fire the chief executive. Here, the board appeared to want to change the course of Citigroup’s operations against the wishes of Mr. Pandit.

The lesson of Pandit’s departure is that boards are now expanding their focus and looking to veto or change a company’s direction and operations. And that it is happening at a place like Citigroup, where for years being a director was more like being a minor royal – not much responsibility, but nice perks — is doubly remarkable.

The real question though is whether boards can run companies better than chief executives can. Boards comprise part-time members who don’t have the same interests at stake. They are also committees and thus may lack the wherewithal to properly execute. In fact, some blame the financial crisis on the failure of boards to correctly monitor financial institutions. But that is a developing story.

For now, we’re now in a new world where the boards rule and are unafraid to exert their power. Chief executives, beware.