http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904353504576564761141370174.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection
Look, no one is saying Roy Bostock is a bad man or a good man. The people running to his defense keep talking about all of the good work he has done. He has done good work. The question that Bostock needs to ask himself is; Would he have given another person under his leadership this many chances to screw up? The answer is NO. He just fired Carol Bartz.
Bostock was one of the parties behind blowing off the Microsoft bid. The claims are that he is a tema player and not an independent thinker, which probably explains how Yang talked him into agreeing with Yang’s kiss off of the Microsoft deal.
The Bartz hiring decision was totally Bostock’s doing. I am sure the Bartz firing decision was also a Bostcok decision. Here is my question to Mr. Bostock: Would you have given another executive that many chances to screw up and more importantly would you have allowed them to fire one of their screw ups to help make up for the original mistake. If the answer is Yes; then my suggestion to every Yahoo executive is be prepared to ask for a “get out of jail free” card because you are owed one.
Corporate executives get paid the big bucks because they do ultimately make the big decisions; getting both the credit and blame for those decisions. When the decisions go right, they should earn the dollars. When things go wrong, they should be fired. If this were easy everyone would be doing it.
So, when is Bostock going to resign or get fired? James Gorman of Morgan Stanley makes a very interesting point; Bostock is no shrinking violet. What in the world does that mean? Does that mean that Bostock is owed or entitled to his job? Gorman sounds like the typical banker: “its mine and you cannot have it”. Well, guess what, you and everyone else on that board work for the shareholders; that means every grandma, grandpa, mom, dad, first time investors, and pension fund that owns a single share of Yahoo.
So, now tell me – Who does Bostock work for?
Are we seeing a repeat of Jerry Yang; all ego and no accountability?
Executives are measured in a few simple ways: 1. Performance – have your decisions resulted in greater revenues and higher profit margins? 2. How much revenue has been lost on your watch? 3. How much revenue has been earned on your watch? 4. If your company is publicly traded then has your stock performed well on your watch?
Guess what all of the reasons provided by Gorman and Steenland do not answer any of the questions listed above. I understand loyalty; you want to stick by your friend. But fellas you all work for publicly traded companies where you are accountable to shareholders who happen to be pensions, IRAs, 401(k)s, grandma, grandpa, mom, and dad.
Is it this simple to measure an executive? YEP, it sure is.
I may get dinged for not taking shots at someone like Dan Hesse. So here is my response; Sprint is in overwhelmingly better shape under Hesse than it would have been under anyone else. Hesse saved Sprint.
Yahoo is in a major operational restructuring and operational restructurings are essentially turnarounds. Turnarounds require tough people making correct decisions all the time; including knowing when to fire yourself.