Yahoo CEO: No more working remote -- get to the office or quit

Yahoo doesn't even have a search engine. It never did, really, as the only search it did in house was directory-type listings and not context-based. If shareholders didn't act like little babies a few years ago when Microsoft put in a bid, Yahoo's products could have been worth a damn.

 

I kind of have changed my mind about this. I don't know the number of remote workers, but from the Slate piece linked above, it's not many.

I don't think losing 300 people, and that's even if every single person who has received this edict quits, makes a dent in what Yahoo! is going to need to do to its 11,500-person workforce.

 

Oh yeah, I agree with you on that. And I don't necessarily think wanting to shake things up is a bad idea for a new leader, at least if it's a good idea. I think this one makes her look hypocritical, which will not lead to good feelings for some, but hey.

I was more so talking about the point I made earlier (and you hit on) which was about culling the herd.

 

Shouldn't she be done if some important person says "No way" and that person doesn't get preferential treatment? I mean, letting some largely irreplaceable person go so as to preserve standing with the bulk of the troops seems like pretty bad management to me.

 

One of the big issues is that she's already given herself preferential treatment. She gets a daycare at the office, but everyone else has to figure it out for themselves. I know that hard-charging CEO types tend to exist on a different plane than the rest of us, but being so out there about all for me and none for thee I think hits as hard as the no-work-at-home edict.

 

If you're going to cull the herd, there are better ways to do it that issue some edict that you hope drives people out the door (in part so you don't have to pay their unemployment). Jettison what you consider to be noncore operations, or see if there is fat to be cut in some departments, or whatever. I can't imagine this is merely about cutting staff because, as a CEO, you're not really controlling who is leaving and who is staying. If it is about cutting staff, this is a chickenshit way to do it.

 

Good lord, what CEO doesn't give themselves preferential treatment?

 

There's giving yourself preferential treatment, and there's rubbing employees' noses in the fact that you are CEO and they are not.

 

Another sign Mayer is nothing special. Maybe the board shouldn't have fired Carol Bartz, who tried to undo some of the damage Yahoo!'s board did before she arrived.

 

Haha! Good one.

Carol Bartz was the Carl Pavano of CEOs.