The post above should also include the line: A subdivision of the Rupert Murdoch's NewsCorp.

Otherwise it is neglecting a significant matter. This is a company that markets explicitly to Christians but is wholly owned by a secular body.

Robert - I had the very same thought when I read the article. In fact, I didn't know that Zondervan was owned by HarperCollins until now. I'm not sure what it all means, but I'd be interested to read other's feedback.

Having published for 25 years with Zondervan, I can tell you that being owned by HarperCollins has been nothing but positive. HC has supported Zondervan and not determined their direction. It is important to be very careful about implying something based on personal perception from a distance.

Bill, if those from a distance shouldn't trust their perceptions, a man who's been on the payroll, receiving royalties from a company for twenty-five years is hardly in a position to trust his own perceptions, either. Even unbelievers who have no high school diploma and reject the doctrine of the Fall understand the bias a man getting money from an organization has when he vouches for that organization.

Which is to say you might be wise to let someone who doesn't profit from NewsCorp's deep pockets speak up in defense of Zondervan's integrity.

Cordially,

Any ideas on why Moe Gerkins is leaving? Seems rather sudden, is she going somewhere else? What is the industry saying? Seems very talented and a leader in this important industry. Zondervan is losing a strong resource.

Sorry, but I thought Tim Bayly's post to Bill Mounce was about as snarky as they come. Okay, so no one who's had professional dealings with the company for a number of years can say anything without accusations of bias? I'm not published by anyone and have no horse in this race, but I can detect defamatory writing and guilt by association when I read it.

"Snarky..." very funny. Accurate, too. I'm w/ Brown, Bayly's comment was hardly cordial. Mounce is ably qualified to state how he has been personally treated, comparing past and present ownership. His comment, " It is important to be very careful about implying something based on personal perception from a distance." seems ironically prophetic and apropos.

Bill Mounce is correct about Zondervan and its relationship with HarperCollins. This has served to make it a better company and has nothing to do with editorial policy and choice of authors, subjects, etc. The assumption that somehow there is a shadowy connection here is an example of a false, non sequitur conclusion. The editors at Zondervan are deeply committed to orthodox and evangelical publishing.

Thank you for commenting on this article. When posting, please do so with decency and respect toward others. Please refrain from name calling or direct attacks on others who post here. You may review our policies and terms of use at http://www.christianitytoday.com/help/features/termsofuse.html
Please keep all comments on topic and as they relate to the content of the article.

Thank you,

BJ
Community Manager
onlineresponse@christianitytoday.com

Seems like a lot of people in the marketing dept. were let go right around the time she came to Zondervan. It could be that she was a person who was brought in to make some tough decisions to help transition the company in a new direction, and then move on. Or maybe she didn't quite fit in and couldn't lead the company in the right direction. Guess we'll have to wait and see what the real scoop is.

Since Zondervan is a Christian publishing organization, one would think that if they hire someone as CEO, those in charge would be praying to the Lord to provide the fight candidate for the position. With turning lives to Christ as their main focus, they should hire someone who has a heart for the Lord, a heart for discipleship/evangelism and will give his/her best as to the Lord.

What I can tell you is that Maureen Girkins took very little time to fire a number of excellent, talented people with much experience and longevity at Zondervan's, before she even had the opportunity to get to know their talents. Over her 3 year stint, close to 100 people were displaced by her in her "reorganizing" efforts. Many of them had a long and extremely strong history of understanding Christian publishing. I can only hope that Harper Collins, Zondervan, and Maureen will learn from this experience going forward.

During time I worked with Moe, I found her a change agent, clearly called to Z "for such a time as this." Turning around a systemically stuck company in an age of cataclysmic industry change is not an enviable task.
From my vantage point as editor of two decades with nation's largest publishers specializing in bridging digital/print cultures, Z was far behind the digital publishing curve.
Disruptive change makes staffers uncomfortable, particularly in such an inbred corporate culture. She was a breath of fresh air who will be remembered for her pioneering contributions in retooling Z for 21st century and the digital native generation -- great kingdom work.
It did rankle some that she surround herself with execs lacking deep publishing background and little regard for editorial industry best practices. To her credit, she partnered with previous CEO Bruce Ryskamp, an incredible guy who genuinely rooted for her success.
Saddened to see her go. Nelson should jump at this talented change agent.

But Lakeshore editor, did you know what it was like working at Zondervan's under her leadership or did you work as someone from an outside organization with her? I say this because I know for a fact that very early in her initial start at Zondervan's she let people go who she did not even bother to see if they wanted to follow her vision. Yes, I am sure Zondervan needed to change and grow. Yes, I am sure there would be people that needed to be let go because they weren't willing to change. But I don't believe that nearly 100 people were that way. The best CEOs are one's that truly lead people with their vision. What kind of a leader takes over a company and doesn't even evaluate the talent pool that already exists and offer those with talents the opportunity to stay and follow her vision? That is the mark of someone too scared that someone might challenge her authority.

Yes, I worked on staff at Zondervan during her tenure although left for an exec editorial position with another publisher. The first year layoffs March of 2008 included 25 or so folks-- not 100. Many publishers have rescaled the size of their operations over last three years to survive. My own editorial staff at the next publisher I worked for was significantly impacted in size and scope by the perilous publishing cimate.

There were at least 90 people displaced over the entire 3 years she was CEO. I did not intend to say they all happened in that initial lay off. In those initial lay offs, some of the people she replaced them with didn't stay in those positions the entire 3 years either. I understand the need sometimes for streamlining but continuous turnover in positions hurts businesses too.

To get a "glimpse" of the talents and abilities that were displaced by Moe Girkins at Z, check out www.SomersaultGroup.com. Five publishing executives with more than 125 years experience have formed this group. All used to be at Zondervans. Their mission stated by one of those 5 former Zondervan people is "..to change lives by connecting inspirational content creators with readers using exceptional creativity, right-now technology, and old-fashioned personal care." A great overview article on the group can be found at www.assistnews.net/Stories/2010/s10060148.htm

All the comments about 90 people "let go" again making the point that NewsCorp/Harper Collins are in control and working toward the bottom line. And this is not to say they were wrong, but only that a longstanding author who's earned a lot of royalties is not likely to view the question of secular influences outside his monetary bias. Nor is John Armstrong any judge of theological orthodoxy. As the New York Times would say about SCOTUS judges, he's "grown."

Cordially,

I wish Zondervan were more profit-oriented than it is. Then it would worry more about wrecking the brand value of the NIV by falsifying the translation to please feminists. Feminists are no doubt common in the translation and publishing industries, but they're less common among consumers.

It's not good to serve Mammon or the Devil, but as an economist, I must agree with Adam Smith that those who serve Mammon often end up serving their fellow man without intending to.

Dear Eric, chuckling I is.

Back when I met and worked with Z's CEO Bruce Ryskamp in the midst of the gender-neutered TNIV controversy, I thought it scandalous to hear that Rupert Murdoch had expressed himself on the controversy to Z's execs. And no wonder. I was told by a trusted Grand Rapids source close to several Z execs that year that, of the eight or so Z divisions, only its Bible division had turned a profit.

Ironically, I'm guessing Murdoch's discipline of the bottom line had more to do with Z promising not to issue a gender-neutered NIV than anything else--including Paige Patterson and Jim Dobson rattling their sabres.

Love,

Hey Lakeshore editor.

By agent of change you mean for the worse right. As this agent of change has pumped millions into projects that have been scrapped and that is why her contract was not renewed. We can all tell you don't know what your talking about because you state with your expertise that Z was "far behind the the digital curve" however they won audio book of the year BEFORE she joined the company. Turning around a "systematically stuck company" that was very profitable into net losses, I'm sure Nelson will take a pass just like Brian Murray did.

GR Guy: You have no idea what you are talking about. I worked under Moe. Winning 1 award for Audio Book of the year does not indicate in any way that Z was with the curve. And FYI, Z did not have losses, they had profits while she was there. In fact, their revenue numbers were their highest ever, despite the recession. Good thing you mentioned that. As far as your reference to taking on projects that had losses. Have you ever been in business before? That's how start ups work. They don't make profits in their first couple years, often not their first 5 years. Zondervan was profitable enough to offset these losses, but Harper was not.

Harper was doing terrible and only cared about the bottom line, hence all of "her firings" that Grand Rapids girl referred to. GR Girl, you are clueless. She didn't fire people because she wanted to to. Her boss told her too. Have you ever had a job before? Do you understand the concept of chain of command? Go complain about Brian Murray. And GR Guy, do you have any idea how profitable the start ups she "pumped millions" into could have been? They were changing the entire publishing industry, not just the Christian world. Oh ya, by the way, every, and I mean EVERY employee of Zondervan loved working for Moe. Get a clue you tool.