1. Give employees free lunch 2. Give every employee an iphone 3. Github for code review
Also, having a cell phone paid for by my employer might give my employer the idea that I'm always available to them, which I don't want to encourage. Since I'm a developer of software that doesn't get deployed to the web in real time, it isn't likely that an issue can't wait until the next work day. For dire emergencies, they have my home number.
If stepping away from your coworkers makes you happy and productive, your company has bigger problems than charging for meals.
Heh. well, I've been on call forever. Nearly everyone I know that works at google is also on-call. (they seem to have a hierarchy, where the more valuable folks don't get called very often.)
So yeah, company cell phone? yeah, sure, that is expected. I think the thing is that most people think of an iphone as nicer than your average cellphone. From that perspective, e.g. we are going to call you anyhow, they might as well give you a nice cellphone to carry around.
(that said, a cellphone without a keyboard is of limited utility. I need to be able to type and see the screen at the same time. SSH on iphone doesn't cut it.)
And why even that? A laptop I could understand, but phone?
Years ago, that would have meant BlackBerries all around. Today, it means iOS.
As a regular desk-eater (like many I assume) you definitely miss that aspect in favour of getting a bit more work done.
Why isn't that, in itself, "visionary"?
That said, the biggest gripe I've read about Yahoo is the insane amount of middle management. If anyone (regardless of position -- an intern, an engineer, an architect) has an idea, I would hope there is a path for that idea to be evaluated and, if show potential, is allowed to come to fruition.
This is why I think Mayer was a great choice. If you're at Yahoo and disillusioned, or considering an offer and on the fence...you have to latch on to something representing change. Marissa wasn't the only possible choice, but she was at least as good as any other imaginable choices.
Now I'm making her sound like Obama. I'm much more comfortable with that conflation than the Steve Jobs one though.
Oh, and sorry about the motherhood pun. I didn't even notice it til the reread.
I've always said that was Carol's job at Yahoo. If she didn't make tough choices to cut costs and trim products, Y! may very well have face-planted, hard. She did very little to create growth, but she did a good job to realign & reorg the company to a position where someone like Marissa can come in and create growth.
A "Google-like office", without a seriously great product, will probably be tough sell, longterm.
Now the pessimist could see Yahoo! as a dying company/stock. Apple was in the same position before Steve Jobs came back.
Yahoo! could possible die a slow death or this could mark the start of a recovery. Marissa understands it begins with products and to have great products, engineers need to be happy and inspired. Perhaps Yahoo! could be seen as a down stock and is poised for growth? What if Yahoo! triples in value over the next 3 years? The best time to buy into a stock is when it is down.
I will add that what Marissa is doing is also making Yahoo! more attractive to prospective employees. If a prospective employee has the hypothetical choice between working at Facebook and working at Yahoo! and hears about the changes that Marissa has made then they may be inclined to work at Yahoo! Perhaps they have heard about the poor stock performance since Facebook's IPO. If that prospective talent chooses to work at Yahoo! instead of Facebook then it is a win.
And they couldn't have chosen anyone more appropriate for the strategy than Marissa Mayer. I have no use for Yahoo in my life, but I'm really rooting for her and them, and I hope they change my mind.
You raise an interesting point about stock. It defies all logic to believe that Marissa could achieve what Steve Jobs did. But that doesn't mean it isn't worth a small bet.
If you want to remove jams, just make sure decisions are taken as low as possible in the hierarchy.
