An edict from Her Majesty: Yahoo's CEO betrays her womanhood and workers of both genders

then they'll get dressed and get to work with their crew mates. That said, I think she needs to trim a lot of dead weight to increase productivity/profits. This might induce some attrition to help her meet some of that goal. Some will simply quit. Others will come to work in a group setting where their superiors can closely observe and prod as necessary. If they don't deliver and participate to expectations, they can be fired.

you will get rid of a lot of your crew. That doesn't mean you will trim the dead wood. In fact, the barnacles are the worst ones to get off. You will also be left with many who can't afford to leave but are highly resentful and thus not motivated. They will do just enough to get by and no more.

Fear is a motivator, but it rarely brings about groups who want to work together and produce their best. They will begrudge you every step they take.

Many of those at Yahoo have built their lives around working at home. This is no small thing. People have arranged their lives around it. In addition, the budget will take a hit. they will probably have to find childcare which is reliable and affordable. That alone will bring about stress. She has the power to have a nursery built next to her office for her kids. Those who work for her don't have that option.

If she had phased this plan in and/or set up a daycare, there would have been a better response. Her best plan should have been to solicit the advice of those in her company. She certainly doesn't have to ask or include her employees in any decisions, but by truly listening to them, she will get more respect and cooperation.

The best manager I ever had was one who was secure enough in his abilities that he wasn't afraid to find out what his employees thought. He also would act on items that he thought could help the store as a whole if they were presented to him. As important was his willingness to explain why certain suggestions or problems had to be handled in certain ways. It was always clear who was in charge, but that message was never given by arbitrary power plays just for the sake of proving who the boss was.

This manager also made it clear that while there were times when he might need 110%, there would also be reciprocity on his part. He would somehow find ways to help employees such as letting them leave early when he could or other things. He was limited in what he could do in some ways such as raise salaries. That did not stop him from doing what he could.

His stores were always at the top in areas measured by the company. People wanted to do well for him after they worked with him for a while. If he called me today to come work for him in a ditch digging venture, I'd do it in a heartbeat. It might be hard, but it would be a cohesive effort and as enjoyable as a job can be. I would know I would not be jerked around and would be kept in the loop.

were I to take the helm of a flailing company i might do the same. seeing how employees work and how their managers behave will give senior management a better idea how to pare down the company.

Onsite daycare would have been a very good idea. Like all things yahoo, it mat be a necessary , even good, idea, but he rollout was HORRIBLE. Her marketing skills are nonexistant. I'll give ya that!

Prod? Like cattle? Jesus, this is comic GOLD.

Get it? "Buying"?

Thank you!

this is exactly what is wrong with america, capitalism and conservatism. The idea that increased productivity and production should be the primary objective.

That's a really pathetic attitude.

Heartless.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is how our kids are being taught to relate to their peers: the master owns the house and does what he/she wants; the workers are likely dead weight to be trimmed in order to reach "goals;" workers can and should be prodded under surveillance - a close observation - and their lives can be trifled with if they don't meet "expectations." If all of this sounds like a perfectly reasonable way to organize relationships in society, and it always was and always will be like this everywhere, then, well, that's the force of capitalist hegemony.

What I particularly like in this case is the baldness of the presentation. This is the way the capitalist class and their management flunkies talk among themselves - when workers aren't listening. This is the way they talk in the actual business school classes. Usually, when they "tailor" that "message" for workers, they include a lot of nonsense about "empowerment" and "partnership," and "co-development" and "enabling people to reach their full potential," and "developing lean, efficient organizations by strengthening effective relationships," and similar bullshit of this kind. To just say outright Master does What She Wants, and Fuck Anybody Who Can't Keep Up is very much a no-no in general company, and shows the poster to be a poor study in these sorts of things.

But don't take my word for it, ask the happy crew.

Which usually happens when people of your mindset run things.

The CEO of Yahoo would be well advised to build a big nursery where all employees can bring their pre-school children for top notch daycare, she would have taken the one enormously critical step needed for a great turnaround. Her current tact says to employees that she and those important to her are privileged and that others should suck it up and make due as best possible.

I don't question the CEO's dedication to her job and love for her work and desire to turn around a troubled company, but setting up daycare for her child and maybe those of a few lucky higher-ups is cooking up a recipe for failure.

"dead weight"? Who talks about human beings that way?

Jesus.

to drastically change the rules mid-trip isn't really fair.

she was nothing but vocal she was changing fundamentally how the company operated, if they liked the status quo to leave. There's nothing ambiguous about that...her intent clearly stated was to kick over the apple cart and remake Yahoo! from the foundations, gutting previous corporate culture.

This may be an unpopular decision (and for that matter, I think it's a wrong decision) but you really can't argue that it's unexpected or unfair. If I tell you months in advance that I'm going to do some things you won't like, encourage you to leave and you don't leave then you have no right to be outraged that I do exactly what I said I was going to do. Who, forewarned, stands around waiting to be slapped?

By your logic, nothing would ever change in failing companies; every failing company would be eventually become a failed company...because it's "unfair" to change the rules of a corporate culture.

Not to make a profit?

Even if we hire a person to move dirt from one side of the building and then back again that person should be kept on for eternity out of charity and good will, because the purpose of capitalism is supposed to be to pay people wages not to produce goods or make a profit.

Get with the program!!!!

finding a new job hasn't exactly been easy these past five and a half years or so.

So, while somebody may wish to quit and move to a more family-friendly environment, finding that new job may not be very easy.

"enhancing morale by having everyone live at the office a-la-Google," but she's playing that card to get everyone in the building. Once she's got her eye on all of 'em, she can sharpen the guillotine and start cutting.

Unless she provides a cheap daycare center in the building for the workforce, where they can click on their screen and see little Billy and Susie playing, and maybe pop down at a break to see how they're doing or give the infants a feeding, then she's a ... what's the word? It begins with H and ends with crit.

so true...

to crack through that glass ceiling.

allowed.

having women in high places is no feminist victory if only margaret thatcher types are allowed to get there.

They're pretty much like the male sociopath CEO model.

If they'd been born to another class, they'd be in prison for kiting bad checks, credit card fraud, and other crimes, just like the male variety is usually in there for violence of one type or another. Instead, their violence is by proxy, against anyone unlucky enough to work for the companies they head.

As well as sitting on the board of directors of Walmart and Yahoo! Mayer also sits on several non-profit boards such as Cooper–Hewitt, National Design Museum, New York City Ballet, San Francisco Ballet and San Francisco Museum of Modern Art.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marissa_Mayer


and supposedly exists on 5 hours of sleep and no meal breaks while working from 9 to midnight. or did while working at google, anyway.

the ruling class is super-super human. they work harder than ordinary people and deserve everything they get.


Marissa Mayer VP, Search Products & User Experience Google

8:00 a.m. Wake-up, get ready for work

9:00 a.m. Arrive at work, take conference call about a new technology

10:00 a.m. Meeting with Udi Manber, VP of engineering to discuss search, engineering staffing, etc.

10:30 a.m. Meet with Associate Product Managers to brief and prepare for upcoming international business trip

12:00 noon Product review with Larry and Sergey; review product direction and strategy and potential future collaborations

1:00 p.m. UI (User Interface) review to review/approve user interface designs/changes for multiple products

3:00 p.m. Meet with a new member of my team to welcome him and discuss career goals/trajectory

3:30 p.m. Meeting with Google Video product manager

4:00 p.m. Google Product Strategy meeting with Eric, Larry, Sergey, and other executives to go over weekly site traffic and a few special topics

5:00 p.m. Executive strategy meeting on Google China

6:00 p.m. Office Hours

8:30 p.m. Catch up on the day's e-mail

11:15 p.m. Visit to the Google Gym to run

12:00 p.m. Go home

12:30 a.m. Watch TV, do e-mail

3:00 a.m. Go to bed

http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2006-06-18/marissa-mayer-the-talent-scout

!

Let's face it, beyond a certain level in a corporate hierarchy, sociopathic greed-headedness is practically a prerequisite.

eom

I suppose she would say that she earned the right to work next door to her child while deciding unilaterally that others would not get the same privilege. And I suppose she would have a point.

But if she really wanted to do what she says she wants to do, and have everybody working together under one roof to unify the company, she wouldn't have a special set-up that makes her child-care arrangements ridiculously luxurious and deny it to everyone else.

I haven't read anything about this change being phased in over time, over a period of months to give families time to prepare (maybe even move!) for this. She may have had perfectly good reasons for stopping the working-at-home option but she's being very autocratic about it.

The 20th Century was the Century of the Common Man (or Person)

This century, the pendulum swings back in the opposite direction.

So a little time for people to prepare.

Ending a relatively unusual business policy because - presumably - it isn't working doesn't sound like as appalling at thing as this thread seems to be making out.

and it's not unusual at all in white collar professions these days.

then all of a sudden changed the rule with no discussion or consultation, without caring how it affected anyone. She just handed down an edict. So much for the workplace being a team.

It isn't unusual in IT, but that isn't what makes it unfair. People accepted this job under one set of rules, and are having everything simply changed because that's how she wants it, when as I understand it she plans to continue to bring a child or children with her to work. So one set of rules for her, another set for everyone else. It stinks.

Assholes come in male and female varieties

It seems as one rises up through the strata of "success," they become less individualistic and more "corporate."

They tend to shed their ideals and adopt a corporate mentality...

....Yahoo will lose a lot of the people who prefer to work at home and won't replace them. They will also lose people who don't like what they're seeing from the new CEO, and most of those people won't be replaced either.

It's basically a very sneaky RIF that shareholders love because it improves the company's bottom line.

in good paying jobs, we should be increasing the number. But this works in the opposite direction...

And she wants to hold on to her job...

I think you are right. It wouldn't be a stretch to say it's possible that the women who work there and might end up quitting make a better living then their spouse given they work for a major company. In that case it would be a severe blow to the families finances.

The unending technical issues that just couldn't be addressed remotely were why we pulled the plug. But there was also the issue we called "ghosting" where people just became apparitions.

of measuring that. Make performance expectations clearer. If "ghosting" was a problem, can't that be addressed? Why get rid of a practice that has societal and environmental benefits without making performance expectations/markers more specific? I would try that first.

This is quite literally throwing the baby out with the bathwater...

Ghosting meant that people just became irrelevant on a day-to-day basis to their co-workers unless they were directly working with them. People wouldn't think, "Hey, John knows a lot about this, lets ask him." - They wouldn't think about John at all, they don't know John as anyone other than somebody who periodically shows up at meetings.

The largest technical issue was the telecommuters were often trying to work from vacation properties with terrible internet connections. We can't run a fibreoptic line to a beach house in Oregon.

everybody's thrilled, but we do have to come in and see each other at least twice a week.

Of course, it depends on the industry you are in, so it would have to be part of the consideration. It also seems obvious that people should be required to take their vacation times for vacation and make that clear.

What this gets down to, can this person do the job, rather than taking a meat axe to a whole practice. Obviously, a receptionist can't work from home, but an editor often can. Anything that requires the worker to be in reasonable contact with the office during office hours is a bona fide rule.

With telecommuting practices in the workplace you can have more women contributing and overall you have less pollution in the environment and less reliance on carbon fuels.

It sounded to me like your company's experience required more resourceful thinking. Why should women's talents, in particular, be undervalued because they are more likely to telecommute? You are depriving the workforce of a good portion of the female half of the talent pool.

But the whole can't be greater than the sum of its parts if people don't know the other parts beyond CC's on emails.

And yeah... I think the gender issue is being just a little overblown here. Of the 25 odd people who wanted to telecommute, less than a third of them were women. It didn't bother us that people wanted to telecommute from their vacation home, the problem was that most of these places lacked decent IP connectivity. I did not know you could still get ISDN (first generation broadband) service, I got rid of it sometime around 1997, but in many sparse areas it has never been upgraded further.

My sense was that since women do more of the share of childcare and housework overall telecommuting makes sense. My daughter did that until her child care provider became just too unreliable when her second child came, so she reluctantly had to resign. It was too bad, really. She liked her job. Now my daughter in law is facing the same prospect. She has someone all lined up for after she uses up her maternity leave. My son can't telecommute since he is a prosecutor. If their plans break down she will have to seek day care because she has to work (they live in NYC). Both my daughter and dtr in law were/are editors. Both highly educated from high ranking schools.

Personally, I think a good solution can be found in on-site affordable day care, since we aren't about to get extended maternity leave like that of the Western European and Scandinavian countries. I also think that your experience is probably not the norm. My experience has been that women have found themselves willing and wanting to work and contribute their own gifts to the workplace but are constrained for lack of child care. Generally speaking, they give up their jobs and the men continue to work. And we wonder why more women are high ranking CEO's...

I think you've just described every large business.

Presently between the US, Canada, UK and France there are just under 150 of us.

in order to telecommute, no?

Before we moved last year, we lived in an upscale neighborhood in Connecticut and we had several people just on my small street of 12 homes that telecommuted for one of the big insurance companies in Hartford. They all had pretty high level jobs for the company as well, and they maintained these jobs for the 5 years we lived there. One person was in IT, another was an actuary, and one was, I think, an APRN. (Another woman was a lawyer, but she only worked part-time.) However, I think they all went into the office maybe once per week just to maintain the human contact... but, when the woman that was an actuary's husband's job transferred him to China, she just worked remotely from Hong Kong instead of suburban Connecticut.

Of the people who signed on pretty much all of them wanted to use it from some far flung location, rather than their homes in Southern California or the Bay Area.

Had the standard been FiOS, well I don't think there would have been any potential users.

The types of problems that I deal with requires full attention on the task at hand and eyes on the problem.

But, I have issues with what Mayer is doing. If Mayer setting up next door daycare for her child but forcing men and women with young children to scramble for daycare will prove to be counter-productive.

...she could have used this as an opportunity to pioneer efficient remote presence technologies.

but no, she just wants an excuse to fire people. Oh well, yahoo will thus continue its slide into obscurity.

... onshore and offshore.

You have to hire people who are on task and have clear goals along with clear metrics to measure them

It forces management to focus on getting ish done IMHO, if they offer mushy goals then they get mushy results....clear goals ... clear results.

The company only wanted contractors to come into office, the FTEs they wanted them to work for home but have the choice.

All meetings were virtual and team building excercises were done to put face to name.

No big deal, work life was great improvement .... people saved money....company saved money because they didn't have to lease another building...

This is a dumb move on her part...

At Yahoo you ON DOUBT do NOT have to come into the office to work

There can be work environments where it sucks and is abused, but it can also be incredible, especially when you have people scattered across the world. You expect Mr. or Ms. Park from Korea to commute here every time you need a prop gram fixed, or would you rather set up something where they can not only talk, but work with colleagues from the UK, Australia, New York and Chicago.

The issue is that when she did this, she sent a big old FU message by having the company build an on site private nursery, while leaving the rest of the female employees to scramble. Yes, she is the CEO famous for living in her cubicle, sleeping 5 hours a night under her desk, yadda, yadda, but the message is still clear that she did not give a damn about her employees. She could have actually set up an on site daycare center, or even made arrangements with one near the site, and that way she could have built solidarity, an esprit du corps, which is exactly what you need, if you want people working together making ideas.

Now, when you tell the employees that they are just drones, and that you are the spoiled CEO who has no loyalty to them (after all, she used to work for Google), then no one feels free to offer ideas, to work together as a team for a common goal. NO, this CEO has basically reminded the drones that the company owes them NOTHING, so that an employee that sticks his ir her neck out is a fool, one that will get a fool's wages when the axe falls. Of course, we know that the real goal could be to make people leave,as the stockholders like that.

Of course, you wonder when the stockholder will realize that CEOs can be outsourced too, for much cheaper. Even more so, you wonder how many of these stockholders realize that they are expendable ammo as well, after all, the billionaires cannot keep eating the middle class forever, they have to start eating the millionaires.

And as far as her gender goes, I will not deny that any CEO woman has a tougher time than the glorified frat boys who seem to get forgiven no matter what. However, just as I will not laud that fiasco Marco Rubio because he is a Latino, I would not laud this Ceo if I were a woman. As another Duer put it, if the ones that advance are the ones that are the "margaret thatcher" types, what do we gain?

Here's how it works..

Your top employees are initiative takers and problem solvers. The identify problems, and they take the initiative to fix them.

And she just presented them with a problem. Initiative takers will identify this problem, and they will start to look around for new jobs. Many of them will find new, better, jobs.

Meanwhile, her lower performing employees don't have that kind of initiative, so they will stay.

I'd sell YAHOO if I held any of its stock.

Which again, might be a part of the plan, after all, get rid of the people who might actually not agree with you.

I'm having a hard time feeling really sorry for these poor downtrodden workers who insist on staying home in their PJs all day.

Facebook and Google find that gathering workers together is better for the creative process because of brainstorming and idea exchange.

equals pj's all day? I work from home 2 days per week (IT for a bank); my wife works from home everyday (RN case manager for Medicare). We both get up, get dressed, and log into our computers which are located in a working offices in our home. The offices are used for nothing else except work. My wife has worked from home for years-- and we both exceed our productivity quotas regularly.

People need to get over the idea that telecommuters are lazy. Many times it is the best solution for everyone.

Also- we don't work from home because of kids. We have none in the house. And at both jobs- you are expected to have your kids in daycare or somewhere else while you are working.

Shorter version of her statement below:

"I don't think that I would consider myself a feminist. ... I certainly believe in equal rights. I believe that women are just as capable, if not more so, in a lot of different dimensions. But I don't ... have sort of the militant drive and ... the chip on the shoulder that sometimes comes with that. And I think it's too bad, but I do think 'feminism' has become, in many ways, a more negative word. ... There are amazing opportunities all over the world for women, and I think that there's more good that comes out of positive energy around that than negative energy."

I can afford nannies. You little people.

Sickening.