Yahoo#: "We need to see winning CEOs, not more failures"

Note: This post originally appeared in 2012 when Yahoo was in the hunt for a COO, or number two to then CEO, Marissa Mayer. Yahoo was sold to Verizon earlier this week.

Yahoo is searching far and wide for a new chief operating officer (COO), according to All Things Digital's Kara Swisher, http://allthingsd.com/20120816/exclusive-yahoo-conducting-a-search-for-a-coo-as-no-2-to-mayer/?mod=tweet.

Where they'll look, who they'll find and hire remain open questions. Where can't exclude Google, former takeover partner, Microsoft, or even Facebook at this point. The executive search firm, Spencer Stuart and Jim Citrin, are leading the effort, which means whoever emerges will likely be a known commodity doing the job close by.

Since Yahoo has been a poster child of CEO failure over the past five years, "The Garlington Report (TGR)" decided to ask a few additional questions along the lines of why does Yahoo need a COO and what can this person contribute that's not already in the mix.

Responses among executive recruiters yielded some strong views that seemed worth sharing. Passion is never fleeting among true king and queen maker wannabes. Here is a sampling of comments not for attribution (primarily so people can speak freely without fear of being misquoted, mischaracterized or, a personal favorite, misunderstood.)

"...Marissa needs all the firepower she can get to turn the ship around. If she needs to call him/her a COO, a president, a head of industrialization.Whatever she just needs really great leaders around the table. I don't care whether she has five COOs. I just care that she makes it...I'm also sick of everyone, including myself, who want to attack the brave vs. wanting them to succeed. We need to see winning CEOs, not more failures."

It's worth noting that in today's rapid fire environment the time to develop into a great CEO simply isn't provided anymore. Everyone wants results overnight; few are willing to be patient like they should. Meddling boards bowing to activist pressure usually are to blame for this dynamic.

Other industry players aren't sold on Mayer's chops as CEO and see the COO hire as a way to bring much needed competency that doesn't exist at the top. Here's a particularly strong indictment (which now brings things full circle.)

"They (Yahoo) need a COO because their CEO has no content to do the job. Never reported to a board, never reported to a CEO, never led anything (other than products), never done a turnaround, is not financially literate, never led large teams, never owned a P&L (profit and loss statement), only worked in a monopoly with the wind at her back, never dealt with an activist shareholder -- should I keep going?"

# # #

Best Buy#: CEO Joly branded before even beginning

A friend who consults with Best Buy passed along the following tidbit yesterday: "Everyone is jazzed up. New CEO (Hubert Joly) was at headquarters today (Minneapolis). Isn't high visibility what leadership is about during times of distress?"

My sarcastic "does he have his work visa yet?" reply aside, the obvious across the board response is, "Yes!" The Best Buy case, however, is puzzlingly perilous. The company is essentially their own takeover target with behind the scenes efforts being led by founder Richard Schultz and private equity players. Shares are plunging based on sentiment that unless something changes the electronics retailer's business model is done. Enter Joly, a the former head of Carlson Hospitality, the privately held travel and hospitality company that runs restaurants yet has nothing truly retail in the portfolio. Joly is immediately branded by media and analysts as a "surprise choice with no retail experience," even though he has a proven track record turning around companies and increasing revenues.

Then in today's news cycle we learn that Joly negotiated some handsome change in contract terms, which are standard at this level. So basically from a personal leadership and executive compensation point of view, heads Joly wins, tails he doesn't lose.

But here's the rub. Great managers and leaders at this level don't do things solely for money. They take on opportunities where they think they can work hard and succeed. The ones who don't have this motivation are usually the "chasing stars" flame-outs making headlines later.

Back to the company for a minute. There is so much in flux right now that the new CEO won't be afforded the time to do long-term planning and execution to impact change. That's an unfortunately reality that a lot of companies and firms face right now. Fear and uncertainty rule the day until something changes that can be believed in.

 

# # #

First, you have to be a guru

Ram Charan is largely viewed as one of the most influential advisors and prolific writers ever to consult for a living. His latest views withstanding, http://management.fortune.cnn.com/2012/08/08/why-boards-fail-to-choose-the-right-ceo/, Charan's cult status points to relatively new realities in senior-level leadership circles that seem worth pointing out:

1.) While it still counts for a great deal, advisors no longer have to be "in the room" to have influence. Charan, for example, was not present when IBM chose Louis Gerstner to be CEO. And to no one's direct knowledge, Charan failed to play a direct role in this groundbreaking selection, which led to one of the most notable corporate turnarounds ever. Yet he opines as if he were.

2.) Guru status means you're granted grand leeway with characterizing situations. In the Fortune piece, Charan says "no one at Citi is questioning Pandit now." That may be true from Charan's point of view, but it was just a few months ago when the board rejected a new executive compensation plan outright that would have raised Pandit's pay substantially. That type of move usually doesn't happen if everyone is in the same boat. Citi remains a reputational lightning rod, but their bigger brethren, JP Morgan and Barclays, continue to steal critical light. The missing fact here is boards question their CEOs daily, especially ones in big brand name companies where performance lags. The not so missing fact is they rarely do anything about the situation until the bottom falls out. To that end, both Citi and Barclays have new Chairmen, leaving Jamie Dimon at JP Morgan all alone at the top as both CEO and chairman. It would appear that in the big bank class yesterday's governance mandate, separating the two roles, continues to be left solely to those holding the power.

# # #

Chick-fil-A: Unintentional endorsement?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/02/opinion/let-chick-fil-a-fly-free.html

Attached is what looks to be an unintentional endorsement for free speech from a Georgia Tech dean who happens to be gay. This is the type of discourse that a company under attack welcomes freely. Not all the echo chamber appreciation and kiss in days that media salivate over.

A couple months ago, a disillusioned manager at Goldman Sachs named Greg Smith issued a similar op-ed complaining about the firm's culture. It was like a shot heard across the world. It should be interesting to see if the dean's comments about Chick-fil-A travel as far and wide.

# # #