I agree generally, but I don't think it's inconsistent from the investors' points of view. They could have hired her with hopes for a renaissance and then just

I agree generally, but I don't think it's inconsistent from the investors' points of view. They could have hired her with hopes for a renaissance and then just lost patience. Mayer's performance might have disappointed them (in the sense that she's responsible for everything, not her personal performance). That's why she gets the big bucks -- she was expected to deliver results. I actually take consolation in the fact that CEOs are under tremendous pressure to deliver results to shareholders. I would be much angrier if the board were enjoying the company jet and giving Mayer the benefit of every doubt while Yahoo! burned. That type of look-the-other-way, cozy with the CEO type of board used to be more normal -- before activists, hedge funds, LBOs, etc. -- and there was a lot more disgusting behavior (I'm thinking specifically about Ross Johnson in Barbarians at the Gate -- flying his board to golf outings while he robbed RJR Nabisco blind).