Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

After Firing CEO, Yahoo Puts Itself Up For Sale

Posted by samzenpus on from the make-me-an-offer dept.

Reeses writes "Fare thee well, Yahoo: In addition to firing CEO Carol Bartz, Yahoo's board has now put the company up for sale. From the article: 'It was once the world's leading search engine, its founders held talks about a merger with Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation – and it even managed to fend off a $44bn takeover bid by Microsoft. But Yahoo has put itself up for sale, after firing its chief executive of 18 months Carol Bartz by phone.'"

5 of 264 comments (clear)

  1. Moral of the story.... by Lumpy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    if the CEO has no personal deep financial stake in the company's success, then they are worthless.

    Require a CEO to buy a large chunk of your company. IT's why the people that built the company are always far more successful at running it than some idiot that got his masters in Business Administration, and has connections.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    1. Re:Moral of the story.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The main reason the founders are more successful is that if they're not very good at it, the company never gets off the ground, and you just don't hear about it. Natural selection, let's call it. Unfortunately, you can't choose their successor the same way - you can't have many iterations of the company, each managed by different potential successor, and then choose the best one.

    2. Re:Moral of the story.... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Unfortunately, that theory captures an incomplete picture of the founder effect:

      Requiring the CEO to buy a chunk of the company can provide them with a greater financial stake in the company's success, or it can just provide them with the incentive to axe the R&D department, pump out a few quarters that Wall Street loves, and give themselves a giant bonus in the form of "shareholder value" before moving on...

      If anything, having a CEO without major holdings(and without a "Congratulations, you fucked up!" bonus larger than a peon's lifetime earnings, if that isn't to scary to think about) might actually help ensure that they take the long view; because they don't have the same financial incentive to pump, loot, and leave.

      Founders(except of built-for-acquisition jobs) tend to have major holdings and personal emotional investments, and it takes both to make them do what they do...

    3. Re:Moral of the story.... by SlippyToad · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Better yet, why not bar all forms of golden parachute compensation. If the CEO is fired, they're FUCKING FIRED, not given a huge handjob on the way out the door.

      Our corporate culture rewards failure rather than success, which is why our economy sucks so badly.

      --
      One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel / the next it's rolling over me / I can get back on / I can get back on
    4. Re:Moral of the story.... by gbjbaanb · · Score: 4, Insightful

      seriously, the reason for not airing bad laundry is the interview for the next job - you do not want to turn up to an interview with the guy hiring you reading all about the nasty bitchy things you said about your previous company in the newspaper.

      The board makes decisions you don't like, then quit. The CEO is part of the board don't forget, its not some personal fiefdom where you and only you are the guy who has to do everything. Its not much different from being one of the peons whose boss and/or peers and/or upper management make a decision that you disagree with.

      Payments for leaving despite making an almighty f***up are just plain wrong.