Netflix CEO Reed Hastings To Depart Facebook Board of Directors (cnbc.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Netflix CEO Reed Hastings To Depart Facebook Board of Directors (cnbc.com)

Posted by BeauHD on Friday April 12, 2019 @10:00PM from the see-ya-later dept.

Netflix CEO Reed Hastings will not be nominated for re-election at the company's 2019 annual stockholders meetings, Facebook said on Friday. CNBC reports: Hastings has served on the board of the social media company since 2011. The company said it will also not be re-nominating Erskine Bowles the president emeritus of the University of North Carolina, and it will instead nominate Peggy Alford, PayPal senior vice president of core markets. The addition of Alford, an African-American woman, comes as Facebook and other Silicon Valley companies strive for the inclusion of more women and minorities in their boards and throughout their workforces.

Hastings departure had been talked about for some time due to Facebook's growing interest in video services, according to Andrew Ross Sorkin. In 2017, Facebook launched Watch, its video streaming service, and last year, the company released IGTV, its Instagram video streaming app. Hastings' departure comes about three years after he got into a tussle with fellow board member Peter Thiel over their political leanings. In an August 2016 email, Hastings told Thiel that he planned to dock his performance review over his endorsement of then Republican Presidential-nominee Donald Trump, according to a New York Times report.

13 of 41 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Merit Considered Harmful by Kunedog · 2019-04-12 22:35 · Score: 3, Insightful

The addition of Alford, an African-American woman, comes as Facebook and other Silicon Valley companies strive for the inclusion of more women and minorities in their boards and throughout their workforces.

Nothing says "We don't care about qualifications or achievement" more than "striving" to promote job candidates based on two attributes they were born with.
1. Re:Merit Considered Harmful by SDF-7 · 2019-04-12 23:18 · Score: 1
  
  They don't have much choice. SB826 says they need to get to 50% by 2021.
2. Re:Merit Considered Harmful by N1AK · 2019-04-13 00:34 · Score: 1
  
  To be fair, the reason this is happening is that enough people think it was already happening, thus the lack of gender and race diversity in senior positions, and that organisations weren't addressing it voluntarily so laws were enacted to force them to.
3. Re:Merit Considered Harmful by SpankiMonki · 2019-04-13 01:50 · Score: 1
  
  They don't have much choice. SB826 says they need to get to 50% by 2021.
  Actually, SB826 is a little more complicated than that. By the end of 2021, Public Companies must meet the following:
  If a Public Company’s number of directors is six or more, the Public Company must have a minimum of three female directors;
  If a Public Company’s number of directors is five, the Public Company must have a minimum of two female directors; and
  If a Public Company’s number of directors is four or fewer, the Public Company must have a minimum of one female director.
4. Re:Merit Considered Harmful by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-13 03:40 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  The problem is obvious, if you stop to think about it: there is a very limited supply of "diversity hires" available on the market, and an even smaller number of those are actually talented in their field (unless you're going to claim that being a minority automatically makes them competent). And that small supply is hotly demanded by a great many employers. Once the cream of the crop is skimmed off by the largest, highest paying companies, the leftovers will be hired anyway -- because even though they might be incompetent, they still provide PR and legal compliance value to the company that outweighs their lack of job ability.
  Of course many will disagree with that logic on an emotional level, but simply ask yourself, if you were forced to undergo a risky medical procedure, would you be ok with your surgical team being chosen according to ethnicity first and experience/ability second?
5. Re:Merit Considered Harmful by doesnothingwell · 2019-04-13 04:06 · Score: 1
  
  It worked for the former CTO of Equifax, maybe she's still available. Yeah, I went there.
  
  --
  They can have my command prompt when they pry it from my cold dead fingers.
6. Re:Merit Considered Harmful by alexo · 2019-04-13 04:23 · Score: 1
  
  They don't have much choice. SB826 says they need to get to 50% by 2021.
  Not really 50%, just at least 3 women if the number of board members is 6 or more, 2 if the number is 5, and 1 otherwise.
  Other than that, I find two loopholes in the bill large enough to drive a medium-sized planet through:
  Regarding violations and penalties:
  301.3.(e)(3) For purposes of this subdivision, a female director having held a seat for at least a portion of the year shall not be a violation.
  301.3.(f)(1) “Female” means an individual who self-identifies her gender as a woman, without regard to the individual’s designated sex at birth.
  So for one day a year (I suggest May 1st for maximum Irony), the chairman of the board should come to work in drag.
7. Re:Merit Considered Harmful by alexo · 2019-04-13 04:24 · Score: 1
  
  I suggest May 1st for maximum Irony
  Ugh, meant March 8th. Sorry.
shouldn't be allowed, anyway by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-12 22:45 · Score: 1

the BOD should not contain a CEO from another company, the BOD is meant to be a check on the CEO and stuffing the board with CEOs is a definite conflict of interest.
Because it's the law? by qubezz · 2019-04-12 23:17 · Score: 1

Because they strive to comply with the law requiring at least one woman, while there is no law requiring at least one man.
Re:Minorities by LostMyAccount · 2019-04-12 23:18 · Score: 4, Insightful

My guess is she's better than you think. It's probably a real job with real responsibilities that has a really high income. And if she was half-smart, she'd also know that a black female executive who's actually good at her job is worth a giant pay premium to many companies for the black and female part.
It seems kind of ironic, but so many companies need/want to virtue signal their ethnically diverse makeup that they're fairly desperate to retain and promote female, and especially black female, executives, and will pay premiums to keep the ones that are average-or-better in their positions.
My wife (who isn't black) actually squeezed more money out of her employer for this reason. Her boss actually told her that female executive recruiting and retention was a big deal to global management ("You're actually on a high-value, high achievers list at corporate in Dublin."), and despite getting a bunch of unrequested deferred compensation thrown at her, she also asked for a big raise and they didn't even negotiate, they just gave it to her.
My guess is Peggy Alford doesn't give a shit whether some right wing cranks think she's only where she's at because she's female or black, she's too busy cashing checks and figuring out her new company-supplied Mercedes.
Re:Minorities by TimothyHollins · 2019-04-12 23:33 · Score: 1

I very much doubt FB would put a quota hire on the board. Directors only like quota employees that are kept far away from the director, and this is a person they would have to converse with frequently. She's there because she's good, though the black woman thing doesn't hurt the image either.
Re: Just wrong by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-13 03:36 · Score: 1

I agree. This should be just as disturbing as diversity laws being being passed dictating the board members race and sex. Smacks of having to be a good nazi or communist party member in order to have a job, etc.