7 ms·

She was very well compensated for her time sinking Yahoo. I think this kind of tone policing is unhealthy.

ceejayoz 10y ago
I'd want to be well compensated for taking on a job where I was fairly certain I was doomed to fail because the company is being eaten alive by its competitors.
- WalterBright 10y ago
  Wouldn't it be unethical to take on a job you were certain you'd fail at? (If you disclosed that, and they hired you anyway, then there's no ethical problem.)
  - blacksmythe 10y ago
    >> because the company is being eaten alive by its competitors What if you were the best qualified candidate? Would it be unethical then?
    - WalterBright 10y ago
      If you don't disclose that you could not deliver success, then yes, it would be unethical.
      - ceejayoz 10y ago
        We're not privy to the discussions around her becoming CEO, but I'd imagine everyone involved in the decision was fully aware of Yahoo's predicament.
  - Bartweiss 10y ago
    "Fairly certain", though. If her odds of saving Yahoo were twice as good as an alternative CEO, that was a possibility worth a small fortune. And presumably, they knew the odds were low after sacking the last few CEOs. I'm hoping that she didn't even have to say it - a competent board could approach the whole thing with "we're in deep water, we think you're less doomed than most people would be". That may well have been the case, but if those odds are 1% and 2% I wouldn't want my compensation to depend on me saving the probably-doomed company.
    - WalterBright 10y ago
      It's perfectly ethical if you've had a frank discussion with your employer about your odds of success. If you sold them the idea that you could save it, but privately were certain you could not, that is plainly and simply unethical.
stanleydrew 10y ago
Upvoted since I think this discussion might be interesting. I'm wondering why people focus on financial compensation so much? Why does how much someone was paid justify more or less bashing, as the case might be? And what's unhealthy about tone policing? I'll leave aside the way you've negatively framed my attempt to steer the conversation in a more positive direction, and just say that I don't see what the purpose of publicly bashing a well-compensated CEO who didn't have much success is. Who is this unhealthy for? For her? For us? For future boards of directors who may be trying to attract a CEO to turn their company around?
- AbrahamParangi 10y ago
  I think the comment you're responding to is suggesting that though giving someone (Mayer) the benefit of the doubt might be humane, it may not be, strictly speaking, rationally appropriate. I believe the financial compensation angle is that because she was particularly well compensated, she is perceived to not have much skin in the game. As an aside, I don't think this is especially productive because it is incredibly rare to find someone running a company who isn't deeply emotionally invested in that enterprise, but the perception remains. Obviously, though the crowd wants to excoriate Mayer I think if folks have a problem with her compensation they should look to the board.
- thinkloop 10y ago
  > And what's unhealthy about tone policing? It silences discussion by subtly and indirectly labeling any critics as bad guys. Not all tone policing is bad, HN is the king of good tone policing, I don't think this makes it. For example, I like your non-tone related points, and I'm glad they were able to come out!
- Strom 10y ago
  > I'm wondering why people focus on financial compensation so much? Why does how much someone was paid justify more or less bashing, as the case might be? The payment and bashing might be slightly related, but I tend to think it's a minor factor. People focus on financials so much because that's what the western culture is built upon. The American Dream, if you will. However bashing, complimenting, or mentioning someone at all comes with fame. I'm fairly certain people would talk a lot about Marissa Mayer regardless of whether she got paid anything. The ratio of criticism-to-compliments tends to go hand-in-hand with the person's perceived success-to-failure ratio. Marissa Mayer wasn't that successful, and thus she'll mostly get criticism.
pgodzin 10y ago
What level of compensation would it take to make such a statement OK? I'm sure plenty of execs turned it down because of the risk of failure and the inevitable microscope and personal attacks associated with being the CEO of one of the most recognizable but failing companies in the world.
- psgbg 10y ago
  The previous CEO was so sunk by the credentials he couldn't met. I don't know if you share my vision, but for me in that moment it felt like the house was on fire, the firetruck was on fire and the fire was on fire. I don't know if a better job could be made, but at least some public face was saved, and the shareholders bought it until the last day.
kchoudhu 10y ago
I'm guessing her resignation comes with a hefty price tag as well. I'll be very interested to hear what that actual numbers are.
thaumaturgy 10y ago
(reasonable) tone policing helps prevent a bunch of armchair quarterbacks with modestly successful programming backgrounds from assuming they have any idea what happens at the executive level of a company like Yahoo.
- colordrops 10y ago
  So we shouldn't criticize anyone that does anything other than programming? I don't get your point.
- idlewords 10y ago
  Armchair quarterbacking on every topic is the bread and butter of this site. Why should Yahoo be exempt?
  - thaumaturgy 10y ago
    It's only the bread and butter of this site on threads that bring out the tabloid readers.
- shostack 10y ago
  Side note, but are there any good resources for learning how these things work in reality at the executive level? I haven't found much good reading that isn't a bunch of fluff. Any good educational resources on how these situations are run, how the politics work, how to navigate them, etc. Would be really helpful.
ones_and_zeros 10y ago
Indeed. I recently found out Michael O'Church was banned from HN because he called her the c word because of the anti-worker policies she implemented at Yahoo. (somewhat indirectly, and I'm hesitant to use it myself for fear of being banned).
- DanBC 10y ago
  You can use the word cunt. What you can't do is call other people cunts. EDIT: >somewhat indirectly No, he directly called her a cunt. > and I'm hesitant to use it myself for fear of being banned). Literally no-one on HN has ever been banned for using the word cunt. It's only a problem if you call other people cunts. Here's the relevant mod post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10016665#10019003 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10016665#10019003
  - ones_and_zeros 10y ago
    I didn't downvote you but I think you see the issue with your statement yourself. HN does not censor words. While name calling is completely childish it is most certainly tolerated by other users on HN (Do a search for "is a [insert derogatory word]" site:news.ycombinator.com. Steve Jobs is called an asshole in every HN thread. For sure ochurch stepped on toes here but one thing he was passionate about is improving the profession of software development and in general the tech industry and he saw MMs actions really harming the profession and the industry. I obviously think HN is worse off without his commentary.
    - DanBC 10y ago
      He was also repeatedly asked to tone it down.

I'd want to be well compensated for taking on a job where I was fairly certain I was doomed to fail because the company is being eaten alive by its competitors.

WalterBright 10y ago
Wouldn't it be unethical to take on a job you were certain you'd fail at? (If you disclosed that, and they hired you anyway, then there's no ethical problem.)
- blacksmythe 10y ago
  >> because the company is being eaten alive by its competitors What if you were the best qualified candidate? Would it be unethical then?
  - WalterBright 10y ago
    If you don't disclose that you could not deliver success, then yes, it would be unethical.
    - ceejayoz 10y ago
      We're not privy to the discussions around her becoming CEO, but I'd imagine everyone involved in the decision was fully aware of Yahoo's predicament.
- Bartweiss 10y ago
  "Fairly certain", though. If her odds of saving Yahoo were twice as good as an alternative CEO, that was a possibility worth a small fortune. And presumably, they knew the odds were low after sacking the last few CEOs. I'm hoping that she didn't even have to say it - a competent board could approach the whole thing with "we're in deep water, we think you're less doomed than most people would be". That may well have been the case, but if those odds are 1% and 2% I wouldn't want my compensation to depend on me saving the probably-doomed company.
  - WalterBright 10y ago
    It's perfectly ethical if you've had a frank discussion with your employer about your odds of success. If you sold them the idea that you could save it, but privately were certain you could not, that is plainly and simply unethical.

stanleydrew 10y ago

Upvoted since I think this discussion might be interesting. I'm wondering why people focus on financial compensation so much? Why does how much someone was paid justify more or less bashing, as the case might be? And what's unhealthy about tone policing? I'll leave aside the way you've negatively framed my attempt to steer the conversation in a more positive direction, and just say that I don't see what the purpose of publicly bashing a well-compensated CEO who didn't have much success is. Who is this unhealthy for? For her? For us? For future boards of directors who may be trying to attract a CEO to turn their company around?

AbrahamParangi 10y ago
I think the comment you're responding to is suggesting that though giving someone (Mayer) the benefit of the doubt might be humane, it may not be, strictly speaking, rationally appropriate. I believe the financial compensation angle is that because she was particularly well compensated, she is perceived to not have much skin in the game. As an aside, I don't think this is especially productive because it is incredibly rare to find someone running a company who isn't deeply emotionally invested in that enterprise, but the perception remains. Obviously, though the crowd wants to excoriate Mayer I think if folks have a problem with her compensation they should look to the board.
thinkloop 10y ago
> And what's unhealthy about tone policing? It silences discussion by subtly and indirectly labeling any critics as bad guys. Not all tone policing is bad, HN is the king of good tone policing, I don't think this makes it. For example, I like your non-tone related points, and I'm glad they were able to come out!
Strom 10y ago
> I'm wondering why people focus on financial compensation so much? Why does how much someone was paid justify more or less bashing, as the case might be? The payment and bashing might be slightly related, but I tend to think it's a minor factor. People focus on financials so much because that's what the western culture is built upon. The American Dream, if you will. However bashing, complimenting, or mentioning someone at all comes with fame. I'm fairly certain people would talk a lot about Marissa Mayer regardless of whether she got paid anything. The ratio of criticism-to-compliments tends to go hand-in-hand with the person's perceived success-to-failure ratio. Marissa Mayer wasn't that successful, and thus she'll mostly get criticism.

pgodzin 10y ago

What level of compensation would it take to make such a statement OK? I'm sure plenty of execs turned it down because of the risk of failure and the inevitable microscope and personal attacks associated with being the CEO of one of the most recognizable but failing companies in the world.

psgbg 10y ago
The previous CEO was so sunk by the credentials he couldn't met. I don't know if you share my vision, but for me in that moment it felt like the house was on fire, the firetruck was on fire and the fire was on fire. I don't know if a better job could be made, but at least some public face was saved, and the shareholders bought it until the last day.

kchoudhu 10y ago

I'm guessing her resignation comes with a hefty price tag as well. I'll be very interested to hear what that actual numbers are.

thaumaturgy 10y ago

(reasonable) tone policing helps prevent a bunch of armchair quarterbacks with modestly successful programming backgrounds from assuming they have any idea what happens at the executive level of a company like Yahoo.

colordrops 10y ago
So we shouldn't criticize anyone that does anything other than programming? I don't get your point.
idlewords 10y ago
Armchair quarterbacking on every topic is the bread and butter of this site. Why should Yahoo be exempt?
- thaumaturgy 10y ago
  It's only the bread and butter of this site on threads that bring out the tabloid readers.
shostack 10y ago
Side note, but are there any good resources for learning how these things work in reality at the executive level? I haven't found much good reading that isn't a bunch of fluff. Any good educational resources on how these situations are run, how the politics work, how to navigate them, etc. Would be really helpful.

ones_and_zeros 10y ago

Indeed. I recently found out Michael O'Church was banned from HN because he called her the c word because of the anti-worker policies she implemented at Yahoo. (somewhat indirectly, and I'm hesitant to use it myself for fear of being banned).

DanBC 10y ago
You can use the word cunt. What you can't do is call other people cunts. EDIT: >somewhat indirectly No, he directly called her a cunt. > and I'm hesitant to use it myself for fear of being banned). Literally no-one on HN has ever been banned for using the word cunt. It's only a problem if you call other people cunts. Here's the relevant mod post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10016665#10019003 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10016665#10019003
- ones_and_zeros 10y ago
  I didn't downvote you but I think you see the issue with your statement yourself. HN does not censor words. While name calling is completely childish it is most certainly tolerated by other users on HN (Do a search for "is a [insert derogatory word]" site:news.ycombinator.com. Steve Jobs is called an asshole in every HN thread. For sure ochurch stepped on toes here but one thing he was passionate about is improving the profession of software development and in general the tech industry and he saw MMs actions really harming the profession and the industry. I obviously think HN is worse off without his commentary.
  - DanBC 10y ago
    He was also repeatedly asked to tone it down.