4 ms·

Depends on the reasons why she was late and if they were legitimate or not.

jonnathanson 12y ago
"Depends on the reasons why she was late and if they were legitimate or not." It really depends on how "invariably" she was late. If she was late almost all the time, and by 45 minutes or more each time, then it's patently irresponsible. She should have set a different time for the meeting every week. Or she should have blocked out her schedule to make the time. On the other hand, if she was late maybe 25% of the time, that's a different story. The CEO of a huge corporation is going to be late to a lot of meetings. It's the nature of the job. There isn't enough time in the working day for all the people, situations, and projects she needs to handle. Having worked every now and then with C-level executives at huge companies, some much bigger than Yahoo, I can tell you that they're often late to meetings. Staff meetings especially, because staff meetings are standing, and standing meetings usually lose in an ad-hoc triage battle against spur-of-the-moment meetings. Almost axiomatically, anyone or anything important enough to hijack a CEO's time is going to be important enough to win the priority battle against a standing staff meeting. All of that said, "invariably" needs to be defined here. Especially given the circumstances, i.e., requiring all direct reports in various timezones to be there every Monday on Mayer's clock. If it was, indeed, "invariable" -- as in, she was always at least 45 minutes late -- then she should have found a new time for the meeting. That's completely unacceptable.
- RBerenguel 12y ago
  Having meetings at a time that suits you with people that may be considering going to bed, and actually are outside any kind of office hours whatsoever should be unacceptable behaviour of any leader.
  - jonnathanson 12y ago
    I agree completely, but to me, this speaks to an organizational design issue as much as a scheduling issue. If you have direct reports in N different timezones, and there's almost no functional overlap between some of those timezones and your own, then why are they your direct reports? You are fundamentally incapable of directly managing them, and they are incapable of directly reporting to you. Put a better org structure in place, and shed whatever reasons you have for insisting on those people's directness -- be they playing to people's vanity, an overreaching desire to be "flat," or something else entirely. (Obviously, this is easier said than done. At that level, the politics of moving around direct-reporting lines is going to be a nightmare.) But I do agree. The complexity of scheduling increases dramatically as the number of timezones N increases. You try the best you can to schedule a standing meeting that accommodates everyone. Someone's going to have to make a sacrifice in convenience. As the leader, you should try to find a time that makes a sacrifice on your end, provided it's not too ridiculous.
    - alexqgb 12y ago
      At the very least, start the standing meeting at 7-8 am California time. That's the decent way to run a global organization from the West Coast.
- echoless 12y ago
  Yeah, it would have been better if the article went into detail about its use of the term "invariably". I don't know if the author was just loosely using the term or if he actually meant that she was habitually late. Still, I don't see that as "unacceptable" behaviour. It's something to be frowned upon for sure and it would be great if she could be punctual all the time, but being the CEO of an incredibly large and diverse organisation, she could be forgiven if she was late due to some other meeting or work-related issues. Also, remember she's getting only about 4 hours of sleep everyday and practically lives at her workplace, so I doubt she's being late on purpose.
  - jonnathanson 12y ago
    I'm with you on all of this. I use the term "unacceptable" as a conditional. If "invariably" actually means close to 100% of the time, then I think it's unacceptable. And if not unacceptable, then certainly inconsiderate. I am using conditional logic here because, like you, I have no idea what "invariably" really means here. Writers have a tendency to throw around words that sound good, without always considering the true extent of their meaning. As a sometime-writer, I suffer from this problem myself. "Invariably" is a tall claim, which is why I'd like to see the evidence for it before rushing to conclusive judgment.
  - TheOtherHobbes 12y ago
    I'd suggest it's practically impossible for anyone to get by on 4 hours sleep a day and remain even remotely sane. Sleep deprivation is classed as torture. Even if you're a Type A personality, 4 hours is not enough to avoid issues with basic cognitive competence (at best) and general mental health (at worst). See e.g. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sleep-t.html http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sleep-t.htm...
    - crpatino 12y ago
      Tell that to my manager :P
    - jonnathanson 12y ago
      There's been a really unfortunate (and pseudoscientific) meme going around in the tech world these past few years, about the supposed abilities of "extremely high-performing people" to make do on little to no sleep. It's possible that Mayer herself buys into this myth, or at least that she cultivates it as part of her personal brand. While it's true that not everyone requires the exact, same sleep schedule or regimen, there is no human on Earth who can successfully go years and years on 4 hours or less every night. You'll pay that debt eventually, with interest. Maybe not today, and maybe not tomorrow, and maybe 20 years from now. But you'll pay it back. Often in the form of a heart attack, a stroke, or brain damage.
dickbasedregex 12y ago
No job is worth that. Also consider the performance and morale damage from being forced to deal with that at the start of every week. Thanks but no thanks.
phaus 12y ago
Everyone is late once in a while. Some executives are late pretty often. But every single one of them that is worth anything at all will at least send a text or a phone call letting you know they aren't going to make it. Unless someone is on their way to the hospital, there really isn't a reason to leave someone hanging.

"Depends on the reasons why she was late and if they were legitimate or not." It really depends on how "invariably" she was late. If she was late almost all the time, and by 45 minutes or more each time, then it's patently irresponsible. She should have set a different time for the meeting every week. Or she should have blocked out her schedule to make the time. On the other hand, if she was late maybe 25% of the time, that's a different story. The CEO of a huge corporation is going to be late to a lot of meetings. It's the nature of the job. There isn't enough time in the working day for all the people, situations, and projects she needs to handle. Having worked every now and then with C-level executives at huge companies, some much bigger than Yahoo, I can tell you that they're often late to meetings. Staff meetings especially, because staff meetings are standing, and standing meetings usually lose in an ad-hoc triage battle against spur-of-the-moment meetings. Almost axiomatically, anyone or anything important enough to hijack a CEO's time is going to be important enough to win the priority battle against a standing staff meeting. All of that said, "invariably" needs to be defined here. Especially given the circumstances, i.e., requiring all direct reports in various timezones to be there every Monday on Mayer's clock. If it was, indeed, "invariable" -- as in, she was always at least 45 minutes late -- then she should have found a new time for the meeting. That's completely unacceptable.

RBerenguel 12y ago
Having meetings at a time that suits you with people that may be considering going to bed, and actually are outside any kind of office hours whatsoever should be unacceptable behaviour of any leader.
- jonnathanson 12y ago
  I agree completely, but to me, this speaks to an organizational design issue as much as a scheduling issue. If you have direct reports in N different timezones, and there's almost no functional overlap between some of those timezones and your own, then why are they your direct reports? You are fundamentally incapable of directly managing them, and they are incapable of directly reporting to you. Put a better org structure in place, and shed whatever reasons you have for insisting on those people's directness -- be they playing to people's vanity, an overreaching desire to be "flat," or something else entirely. (Obviously, this is easier said than done. At that level, the politics of moving around direct-reporting lines is going to be a nightmare.) But I do agree. The complexity of scheduling increases dramatically as the number of timezones N increases. You try the best you can to schedule a standing meeting that accommodates everyone. Someone's going to have to make a sacrifice in convenience. As the leader, you should try to find a time that makes a sacrifice on your end, provided it's not too ridiculous.
  - alexqgb 12y ago
    At the very least, start the standing meeting at 7-8 am California time. That's the decent way to run a global organization from the West Coast.
echoless 12y ago
Yeah, it would have been better if the article went into detail about its use of the term "invariably". I don't know if the author was just loosely using the term or if he actually meant that she was habitually late. Still, I don't see that as "unacceptable" behaviour. It's something to be frowned upon for sure and it would be great if she could be punctual all the time, but being the CEO of an incredibly large and diverse organisation, she could be forgiven if she was late due to some other meeting or work-related issues. Also, remember she's getting only about 4 hours of sleep everyday and practically lives at her workplace, so I doubt she's being late on purpose.
- jonnathanson 12y ago
  I'm with you on all of this. I use the term "unacceptable" as a conditional. If "invariably" actually means close to 100% of the time, then I think it's unacceptable. And if not unacceptable, then certainly inconsiderate. I am using conditional logic here because, like you, I have no idea what "invariably" really means here. Writers have a tendency to throw around words that sound good, without always considering the true extent of their meaning. As a sometime-writer, I suffer from this problem myself. "Invariably" is a tall claim, which is why I'd like to see the evidence for it before rushing to conclusive judgment.
- TheOtherHobbes 12y ago
  I'd suggest it's practically impossible for anyone to get by on 4 hours sleep a day and remain even remotely sane. Sleep deprivation is classed as torture. Even if you're a Type A personality, 4 hours is not enough to avoid issues with basic cognitive competence (at best) and general mental health (at worst). See e.g. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sleep-t.html http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sleep-t.htm...
  - crpatino 12y ago
    Tell that to my manager :P
  - jonnathanson 12y ago
    There's been a really unfortunate (and pseudoscientific) meme going around in the tech world these past few years, about the supposed abilities of "extremely high-performing people" to make do on little to no sleep. It's possible that Mayer herself buys into this myth, or at least that she cultivates it as part of her personal brand. While it's true that not everyone requires the exact, same sleep schedule or regimen, there is no human on Earth who can successfully go years and years on 4 hours or less every night. You'll pay that debt eventually, with interest. Maybe not today, and maybe not tomorrow, and maybe 20 years from now. But you'll pay it back. Often in the form of a heart attack, a stroke, or brain damage.

dickbasedregex 12y ago

No job is worth that. Also consider the performance and morale damage from being forced to deal with that at the start of every week. Thanks but no thanks.

phaus 12y ago

Everyone is late once in a while. Some executives are late pretty often. But every single one of them that is worth anything at all will at least send a text or a phone call letting you know they aren't going to make it. Unless someone is on their way to the hospital, there really isn't a reason to leave someone hanging.