6 ms·

> I don't think the failure is on Mayer; Yahoo was a walking zombie before she arrived. But they brought her on and paid her amply to specifically fix this pro

by ProAm 10y ago

> I don't think the failure is on Mayer; Yahoo was a walking zombie before she arrived. But they brought her on and paid her amply to specifically fix this problem. As a result she shares part of the blame for Yahoo's failure to right the ship.

deanCommie 10y ago
They had to try and they had to pay somebody. It's entirely possible she was the best person for the job. It's just as entirely possible that the task was impossible, and both her and the board knew it, but had to try their best.
- zepto 10y ago
  If she knew it was impossible, why did she take the job?
  - lintiness 10y ago
    because she got paid so much money she'd be an idiot not to ... ?
    - zepto 10y ago
      Seems unlikely given how rich she already was.
      - lintiness 10y ago
        your argument is essentially that she'd have taken a pay cut or worked for free. money matters, and most rich people don't get that way not caring about it.
        zepto 10y ago
        My argument is nothing of the sort. I am arguing that she was rich enough that money way not a compelling reason for her to choose the job if she didn't think she was likely to be successful.
- ProAm 10y ago
  > It's entirely possible she was the best person for the job. In hindsight this is tough to accept. Her only job experience was with Google, while that is impressive Google was it's own rocketship that was skyward from the get-go, she had no experience taking over a project on a downward slide and turn it around, she was also demoted while at Google. But hindsight is always 20/20, and maybe no one else more qualified wanted the job at Yahoo...?
karmajunkie 10y ago
Do you fault the oncologist that doesn't cure advanced metastatic cancer? Or the patient who ignored the signs for years before quitting smoking?
- jfoster 10y ago
  Depends on what was promised, doesn't it?
- existencebox 10y ago
  As someone who normally attributes large amounts of fault to CEOs, that's a fascinating rebuttal, (both in that of the many arguments I hear, it's not often among them, despite making me have to think hard about my stance) so let me try to counter it: Do I fault the oncologist? Depends. Is there any reasonable expectation of success? Was the failure mode that ended up panning out one that could have been avoided with known courses of action? Was there any "user error"? Similar questions could be asked of Yahoo, and while I realize that I + most people not in a yahoo boardroom probably don't have sufficient visibility or background to answer decisively, never felt the external signals (her management decisions) I've seen demonstrated a course of action I would have been confident in. Now, that could in and of itself be debated, but I think it's only a peripheral argument to the core point: Is compensation commensurate to the work done? (Which frankly I often think is the subtext in these CEO discussions) This is where a large amount of my personal issue lies, since regardless of which direction I think Yahoo could move, the course of action taken was "iffy" and the compensation extreme. Winding down a lost cause? Could have been done without nearly as much expenditure, and likely with greater shareholder value. Reviving a faltering company? Clearly has not happened. Nevertheless, she is pocketing hundreds of millions for what is by all standards a failed job. So again, do I fault the oncologist (CEO) for failing to treat the terminal cancer (business failure), if all other options are undesirable? Probably not more than as the parent said, they "share a hand" in it, but to me that does not necessarily entail a declaration of aggressive "fault". Do I pay them exponential multiples of a typical salary to do so? Probably not. I realize that from this 10000 foot view it's a very subjective argument, but to go into line items requires a good deal more time than this post before work allows, and I hope this conveys the idea sufficiently even so.

by ProAm 10y ago

deanCommie 10y ago

They had to try and they had to pay somebody. It's entirely possible she was the best person for the job. It's just as entirely possible that the task was impossible, and both her and the board knew it, but had to try their best.

zepto 10y ago
If she knew it was impossible, why did she take the job?
- lintiness 10y ago
  because she got paid so much money she'd be an idiot not to ... ?
  - zepto 10y ago
    Seems unlikely given how rich she already was.
    - lintiness 10y ago
      your argument is essentially that she'd have taken a pay cut or worked for free. money matters, and most rich people don't get that way not caring about it.
      - zepto 10y ago
        My argument is nothing of the sort. I am arguing that she was rich enough that money way not a compelling reason for her to choose the job if she didn't think she was likely to be successful.
ProAm 10y ago
> It's entirely possible she was the best person for the job. In hindsight this is tough to accept. Her only job experience was with Google, while that is impressive Google was it's own rocketship that was skyward from the get-go, she had no experience taking over a project on a downward slide and turn it around, she was also demoted while at Google. But hindsight is always 20/20, and maybe no one else more qualified wanted the job at Yahoo...?

karmajunkie 10y ago

Do you fault the oncologist that doesn't cure advanced metastatic cancer? Or the patient who ignored the signs for years before quitting smoking?

jfoster 10y ago
Depends on what was promised, doesn't it?
existencebox 10y ago
As someone who normally attributes large amounts of fault to CEOs, that's a fascinating rebuttal, (both in that of the many arguments I hear, it's not often among them, despite making me have to think hard about my stance) so let me try to counter it: Do I fault the oncologist? Depends. Is there any reasonable expectation of success? Was the failure mode that ended up panning out one that could have been avoided with known courses of action? Was there any "user error"? Similar questions could be asked of Yahoo, and while I realize that I + most people not in a yahoo boardroom probably don't have sufficient visibility or background to answer decisively, never felt the external signals (her management decisions) I've seen demonstrated a course of action I would have been confident in. Now, that could in and of itself be debated, but I think it's only a peripheral argument to the core point: Is compensation commensurate to the work done? (Which frankly I often think is the subtext in these CEO discussions) This is where a large amount of my personal issue lies, since regardless of which direction I think Yahoo could move, the course of action taken was "iffy" and the compensation extreme. Winding down a lost cause? Could have been done without nearly as much expenditure, and likely with greater shareholder value. Reviving a faltering company? Clearly has not happened. Nevertheless, she is pocketing hundreds of millions for what is by all standards a failed job. So again, do I fault the oncologist (CEO) for failing to treat the terminal cancer (business failure), if all other options are undesirable? Probably not more than as the parent said, they "share a hand" in it, but to me that does not necessarily entail a declaration of aggressive "fault". Do I pay them exponential multiples of a typical salary to do so? Probably not. I realize that from this 10000 foot view it's a very subjective argument, but to go into line items requires a good deal more time than this post before work allows, and I hope this conveys the idea sufficiently even so.