If Mayer were a man people wouldn’t be using the “they are picking on a woman” defense to justify a stupid decision.
Maybe it was just a dumb blonde joke.
If Mayer were a man, the OP wouldn’t use the word “bitch”.
I’m a little surprised this bit of latent misogyny wasn’t brought up.
We have a variety of words we might use for a male CEO making an unpopular decision - asshole, jerk, dick, jackass, etc - but a woman CEO in the same position is almost always referred to as a bitch.
So, I call for more creativity/equality in how we denigrate our female CEOs. It must get boring using the same word every single fucking time, no?
If so then it’s a dumb dumb blonde joke.
I don’t think anyone is saying, “they are picking on a woman, therefore her decision is justified.”
Marissa’s gender is brought up exclusively by those who are against her decision, not by those defending it. They are using her gender as a reason why she shouldn’t have done it, or as an example of how she’s a hypocrite since she has to deal with “woman issues” and so should be sensitive of all the needs of the mommies who work for her.
It’s not that they’re picking on a woman, it’s that they’re picking on her extra-special hard because she’s a woman.
I’m not in silicon valley but my company has offices there and I visit a few times a year. So I’m not exactly “in the know” but I thought the general consensus was the “better employees” at Yahoo are long, long gone. Yahoo! has been a wreck or a long time and is not one of those gems to be working for in the valley anymore. Their best people left awhile ago and they’re going to be challenged to get the best and brightest in the door.
Anyone local and more tied into the tech sector care to comment on whether my distant perception is accurate?
MeanJoe
What corporate world do you work in? Everywhere I’ve ever worked, everything major just seems to be implemented at once, with no consideration beforehand.
We come in one day, my department is told we’re doing a 9/80 schedule if we want. About a year and a half later, we come in, and we’re told that my department is doing away with the 9/80 schedule effective in 2 weeks.
We get told we can’t telecommute. Then out of the blue, we’re told we can telecommute 5 days a year (for cable installation, ice days, etc…) without cutting into our personal time off. Now we’ve just been told that the cap is off, and it’s up to our managers. I fully expect there to be some cap, or an absolute prohibition in about 9 months.
If there’s anything I’ve learned, it’s that the majority of upper managers are in their positions due to an unholy combination of the Peter Principle (people get promoted just past what they’re good at, and then stay there) and being equal parts unrepentant yes-men, saying the right buzz-words, and playing office politics well. These people don’t generally really care about their workers- they go with management fads, and buzzword crap because it sounds cool and seems like it might make sense.
A perfect example - our former CIO (before she got shit-canned) was in the midst of trying to implement some sort of culture change whereby we’d move faster and decide faster and all that, when in fact, the biggest problems we were experiencing as a department were directly due to hurried and inadequate requirements gathering, planning and execution, not because we weren’t moving fast enough. It doesn’t look sexy when magazines call to interview you, if you say you’re slowing the process down to focus on fundamentals, so we got treated to a little while of this speed-up culture change BS, with no warning, no focus groups, etc…
I fully expect that Marissa Meyer got it in her head that since Google and other tech companies make people show up, that Yahoo must follow suit, and be damned to anyone or anything that tells her differently.
Which should tell anyone that such announcements aren’t the end of the world. My employees did the same thing - grouse that the company doesn’t stick with the changes, but freak every time a change is announced. Jeez, just ride it out, Yahoo people.
That’s great if those were the rules when you started working. When they change the rules, they’re changing your job. And changes like this might be costing you money, effectively reducing your compensation and your quality of life. Of course people are going to be upset.
And what exactly would be so outrageous about a three-hour lunch if you had been accustomed, for example, to working a 9-12, 3-8 schedule?
We don’t work in factories any more. It’s not a given that the boss gets to schedule our lives.
Cite?
People are picking on the CEO because the CEO built a nursery at work so the CEO could keep the CEO’s baby within arm reach, and now the CEO is moving to deny other employees a similar child care solution which they have long enjoyed.
Better?
I don’t think she is a bitch. I think she is a smart woman that fully realizes that she is responsible for turning around a large company that is doomed to the history books if she doesn’t take drastic action. I am sure this is only one of many changes coming soon. I wouldn’t happy if I worked there and couldn’t come into the office to save my job but that is better than thousands of people being suddenly laid off suddenly in one to five years if she can’t turn the company around.
I think it is funny though that one major feminist position has been that more women need to be in high corporate positions to foster the natural feminine caring and understanding that they somehow innately possess. Have you ever worked with or known high-powered business women? I have, lots of them. They are almost always the most hard-core and brutal of all and lots of them aren’t nice people by any measure. Those traits go with the job and the responsibility involved, not the gender.
This depends an awful lot on the kind of job you have. If you’re a pure code monkey who gets a set of tasks and is responsible for completing them in a set time, then sure, it probably doesn’t matter where you’re doing that work. But if you’re trying to do any sort of creative collaborative work, it’s really hard to do that when some of the people involved aren’t in the office.
I know that I wouldn’t be effective in a pure telecommuting environment. If I were left to my own time and could keep whatever hours I wanted, then maybe (since I’m a night owl and I’m most productive after most of the world has gone to bed), but if I have to be at my computer and working from 8:30 to 4:30 then I’d rather be at the office where there are fewer non-work-related distractions. I suspect a lot of people are like me.
Yeah, CEOs do that kind of shit. Like it? Bust your ass and become a CEO. Or hang around middle-management and pay for child-care. Sure it sucks. Call me when the Fairness Fairy shows up to fix all our lives.
…just to give an idea of how much trouble Yahoo are in: for the last few years they have supplied email services to NZ’s largest internet provider. The service they have offered over the years hasn’t been great and their latest mistake left nearly a hundred thousand people with delayed emails or locked out of their account (due to spam attacks). Yahoo stands to loose half a million customers in one hit.
In the grand scheme of things this particular contract is “small fry”: but if the level of service is the same company-wide then it will take a drastic change in culture to give the company a chance.
I’m sure that this move is just the first of many.
Expecting you to show up for work, and actually work when you’re there, is not changing your job, nor your compensation, assuming your contract states you don’t have an absolute right to telecommute. If you do have that in your contract, your employer will have to negotiate the change with you.
Of course, unless you’re this mythical telecommuter that’s actually a worthwhile employee, that negotiation will consist of “do as we say or fuck off”, and rightly so.
It is of course not a given that your boss can schedule your life, but they can schedule your work. That’s their job.
Agreed. If Yahoo! really is a sinking ship (and I’m not convinced that’s true), then these are the lifeboats that will happily float to the island of profitability.
As the owner of a (small) business, I agree. The cash infusion from my new partners will be a big help!
See, this is the problem. That paradigm that partnership only comes with capital. That’s outdated. Everyone in the chain who works to produce is a partner. Giving one hour of one’s life to a company is as much an investment as cash.
Sure, if you give it. If you exchange it for money, not so much.
There’s also something called government regulation, and collective bargaining, and public pressure. Were you standing there making sarcastic remarks about the Fairness Fairy when people were fighting for the 40-hour week, the two-day weekend, overtime pay, occupational safety standards, etc.? CEOs are not feudal lords who can do what they want with impunity. They get away with what society lets them get away with.