3 ms·
The problem is, that Yahoo didn't have any unique technology when she took over. Creating one almost from scratch and make success with it - in such a short tim
by greyman 11y ago
The problem is, that Yahoo didn't have any unique technology when she took over. Creating one almost from scratch and make success with it - in such a short time of 3 years - is quite difficult. But I tend to agree with the author's sentiment, that she probably just didn't have any transformation plan... she just wanted to do incremental improvements in the areas Yahoo was strong enough.
What I am missing is why it is called a failure after such a short time. Can't they just let her continue?
- iaw 11y agoShe's making nearly $1 million a month and hasn't demonstrated any long-term initiatives that will actually make Yahoo worth anything to it's investors. They brought her in because they thought she was a golden child and paid her as such, it's been ~4 years and with no results. Even worse, left to it's own devices Yahoo probably could have avoided the huge morale issues she created. She was given huge latitude by the board to make decisions and show that they were valid. In the end she created an environment that led to an exodus of top talent. She's a good high-level executive but not really a CEO.
- jonlucc 11y agoI think she even might make a great CEO, but not at Yahoo. They've had a very difficult problem to solve, and there might be a handful of people capable of righting the ship.
- x0x0 11y agosometimes executing well is enough. Yahoo should be able to leverage their homepage to jumpstart other businesses.