[dpark]

> The list of Yahoo's problems are long; and C-level people are not high on that list. "Vision" is also not a problem for Yahoo, if they'd just let the engineers just do their fucking jobs!

I've got to disagree with this. No one inside or outside of Yahoo seems to be able to concisely state what Yahoo does. There are dozens of properties and various initiatives, but no real statement of purpose. There's too much confusion about direction, about what Yahoo's goals are, or should be. I don't think the internal guidance is clear enough, either.

I think this is a distinct C-level problem. And if managers aren't being held accountable, that a C-level problem, too.

[wisty]

Yeah, managers are like salesmen. Don't trust 'em, and don't blame them if they become loose cannons.

Managers typically do whatever gets them the best ratings. The C-level execs must be giving them misaligned incentives.

I'm not saying there's not great people who work in management, but once the environment starts getting toxic (due to bad managers getting all the resources, or even being promoted to the point where they are managing the good managers), the good managers will turn bad or flee.

[5teev]

> I think this is a distinct C-level problem. And if managers aren't being held accountable, that a C-level problem, too.

The C-levels are content with directors who "manage up" instead of looking past them to see what's really happening on the ground.

[kenjackson]

The C-levels just need to look at stock performance and profit to see there's a problem. There is nothing that a director level person should be able to say to a C-level to make them feel comfortable.

[rbanffy]

Stock performance is a not a very good indicator, as it reflects emotion more than anything else. Profits and profit-margin, OTOH, are ones to keep an eye on all the time - whatever they do, you better know why they are doing it. If you lose control of both, you shouldn't wait for the chairman to fire you - help the board find a replacement and get out.