4 ms·

I was with you until you mentioned Bartz as an example. She was actually really good as the head of Autodesk. Yahoo has languished, but at least she didn't make

I was with you until you mentioned Bartz as an example. She was actually really good as the head of Autodesk. Yahoo has languished, but at least she didn't make any company killing decisions like Fiorina or Apotheker.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
plinkplonk 15y ago
sure (and upvoted) but I was just using "incompetent as incompetent does" as the guiding rule, not really looking at past records etc. What exactly did she do at Yahoo anyway that made the situation there better? AFAIK the good engineers at Yahoo are running out the door as fast as they can. Not sure that is the sign of a thriving company (but then I have zero upper management experience etc and am just a dev and so could be missing something very obvious - and hence the question). That said, feel free to substitute Bartz with anyone else you consider an incompetent CEO. Doesn't affect my post much. My curiosity is about what the hiring of CEOs at great cost then firing them (also at great cost), and replacing them with even more dubious people, reveals about the system and the forces at play. For eg: if Apotheker was let go at SAP then what made him a good choice for HP?If he couldn't be an effective CEO at SAP which is an enterprise software company, then how is he a good choice for turning HP into an enterprise software company? I just don't get the logic there. Why aren't the people who made that decision now being fired along with Apotheker? How are such decisions taken, and more importantly how do such poor decisions survive the scrutiny of investors etc?
slantyyz 15y ago
I wonder how hamstrung Bartz was by the board of Yahoo, and perhaps the culture of Yahoo itself. I don't have any knowledge of Bartz's experience at Yahoo, but I can definitely say that it's very hard to make systemic changes when you're not given the tools to do so.
- brianbreslin 15y ago
  All the reports seem to indicate it was a culture thing that caused tons of infighting and excess bloat in the ranks. People would have 6 different bosses on a project or no one knew who was responsible for anything. This is what I've gathered from all the blogs.
qq66 15y ago
It was a huge gamble bringing a successful enterprise software CEO into a media company and it failed.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

plinkplonk 15y ago

sure (and upvoted) but I was just using "incompetent as incompetent does" as the guiding rule, not really looking at past records etc. What exactly did she do at Yahoo anyway that made the situation there better? AFAIK the good engineers at Yahoo are running out the door as fast as they can. Not sure that is the sign of a thriving company (but then I have zero upper management experience etc and am just a dev and so could be missing something very obvious - and hence the question). That said, feel free to substitute Bartz with anyone else you consider an incompetent CEO. Doesn't affect my post much. My curiosity is about what the hiring of CEOs at great cost then firing them (also at great cost), and replacing them with even more dubious people, reveals about the system and the forces at play. For eg: if Apotheker was let go at SAP then what made him a good choice for HP?If he couldn't be an effective CEO at SAP which is an enterprise software company, then how is he a good choice for turning HP into an enterprise software company? I just don't get the logic there. Why aren't the people who made that decision now being fired along with Apotheker? How are such decisions taken, and more importantly how do such poor decisions survive the scrutiny of investors etc?

slantyyz 15y ago

I wonder how hamstrung Bartz was by the board of Yahoo, and perhaps the culture of Yahoo itself. I don't have any knowledge of Bartz's experience at Yahoo, but I can definitely say that it's very hard to make systemic changes when you're not given the tools to do so.

brianbreslin 15y ago
All the reports seem to indicate it was a culture thing that caused tons of infighting and excess bloat in the ranks. People would have 6 different bosses on a project or no one knew who was responsible for anything. This is what I've gathered from all the blogs.

qq66 15y ago

It was a huge gamble bringing a successful enterprise software CEO into a media company and it failed.