What is easy isn’t always what is right…

Let’s face it…as Sunday’s announcement that Jay Leno is heading back to late-night proves…NBC is a mess.

The GE-owned network…now being sold to Comcast…made an enormous mistake when they wiped out their 10PM programming, and turned it over to comedian Jay Leno.

What you may have missed is why it all happened.

As reported by several media outlets, back in 2004, NBC executive Jeff Zucker assumed by 2009 Leno would be ready to retire. Unfortunately, he apparently didn’t communicate with Leno to be certain his conjecture was accurate.

At the same time, Conan O’Brien’s contract was coming due and Zucker didn’t want his late night host to defect to Fox or ABC. So, he signed both Conan and Jay to new contracts — promising O’Brien “The Tonight Show” upon the end of Leno’s contract…and presumed retirement.

Over four years later, Leno was handily ruling late-night…however, Zucker had to keep his commitment to O’Brien. So, to avoid a messy contractual dispute, Zucker decided to give Leno a nightly show to keep him happy — and move Conan to “Tonight.”

As the “Los Angeles Times” reported, “How Zucker found himself in such a fix is a study in how a chief executive, confronting wrenching changes to his business, reacts to challenges.”

Sure, the network had a more profitable situation, as the Leno show is MUCH cheaper to produce than an hour of “Law & Order,” for example. The problem was that what solved the short-term challenge created a long-term disaster.

“Some veteran TV executives believe the Leno imbroglio could ultimately cost more than $200 million, including the damage inflicted on stations’ local newscasts, their ad rates and NBC programs, such as “Law & Order: Special Victims Unit,” which lost millions of viewers when its time period was changed. They predicted that it could take years for NBC to rebuild.

“‘Everything about this decision seems to have been a disaster,’ said Jeffrey Cole, director of the Center for the Digital Future at the USC Annenberg School for Communication. ‘It looks like NBC shot itself in the foot, the arm, the neck — and everywhere else,’” reported the L.A. Times.

And, Zucker is in for more challenges. If he removes Conan from “Tonight” and simply re-inserts Leno, then O’Brien is expected to start a new late-night show for Fox and take a significant part of his audience with him. On the other hand, if — as has been reported in several blogs — Zucker starts a new Leno show for thirty minutes at 11:35, and moves the “Tonight Show” with Conan to 12:05 AM, he may destroy one of television’s most historic franchises.

Here’s what this means to all of us in business:

1) Don’t EVER make the assumption that ANY productive employee is ready to be put out to pasture. We work for many reasons, and only ONE of them is money. Zucker’s assumption that Leno was wealthy enough and would want to ride off in the sunset started the disastrous chain of events.

2) Sometimes we have to allow good colleagues to depart. If NBC would have just allowed Conan to move on, instead of trying to sacrifice its business plan to keep him, they would have been in much better shape.

3) We must look to make the decisions that are best for the long-term…what fixes a short-term challenge may create lasting problems. That’s what happened here.

Again, from the LA Times: “Associates said Zucker boxed the network into an untenable position because of his tendency to focus on short-term gains and concern for perception. In his eagerness to keep Leno and O’Brien from defecting to rival networks, he failed to anticipate the collateral damage a low-rated 10 p.m. show would inflict on the newscasts of NBC affiliates.

“‘I think Jeff is a brilliant marketer and a brilliant tactician and a terrible strategist,’ said a former NBC executive who works in the TV industry and did not want to be named criticizing Zucker. ‘His view is, give people what they want at the time they want it. He’s not a long-term strategy guy.’”

Are you willing to do what is RIGHT for your business and your customers…as opposed to what is merely expedient?