My post
Beautiful People,
Marissa Mayer, Yahoo’s CEO, would probably be stored in the Valley’s memory chip as one of the most controversial executives.
That is rather an achievement in a local known for its eccentric, influential, and innovative leaders who in an effort to leave a mark will go places no one has gone before.
Don’t worry; I will not trouble you with facts. These days, most of us are already making a noble effort to ignore the facts as a way to suppress our gag reflex.
I will not elaborate about Yahoo’s massive data breach that stemmed from Mayer’s original sin to prioritize developing new products over making security improvements according to the NYT article, Defending Against Hackers Took a Back Seat at Yahoo.
In Yahoo’s case, the original sin committer was let off, and more than 500 million users were punished when their accounts compromised. To add insult to injury, Mayer complied with an order from the NSA and scanned all incoming emails of its users routinely, and kept secrets from the company’s security team according to Ubergizmo.com.
While M gave the NSA a license to pry, Tim Cook, Apple’s CEO, was fighting the FBI against their wish to do a somewhat similar thing. Apple did not compromise its values or its promise to users even in the case of a domestic-terrorism investigation.
I will not bring up the tedious details about the way Mayer gloriously failed to turn Yahoo around, betrayed employees’ trust, and went on a multibillion-dollar acquisition spree just to take another write-down in July. (BTW, A Yahoo spokesman said the firm is confident in its value, but then again, the company held the same belief about Mayer, you hear Verizon?)
As promised, in an effort to avoid facts, I’ll talk about claims. Earlier this month, a second REVERSE DISCRIMINATION lawsuit filed by Scott Ard, a former Yahoo editor claiming the company discriminated against men. He accuses Mayer of using the company’s performance review system “to the detriment of Yahoo’s male employees.”
For the industry’s sake- I hope Ard is mistaken.
The Silicon Valley may be composed of the most broad-minded individuals in the world, but clearly, bias isn’t limited to uneducated white farm laborers from the South. In the Tech Valley, only 30 percent are dolls.
Correcting the bias is imperative. Not because it is the right thing to do-- evidently the right thing is debatable-- but because diversity is one of the greatest catalysts for growth. In a place where growth is the spirit people worship, eradicating bias is existential.
However, the problem is the way by which bias should be eliminated. Affirmative actions including female quota hiring sound like a good idea until a company’s performance review system set up to disadvantage specific employees or hiring is not being based on skills and qualifications but on sex, or a diversity hire, under-qualified mismatched is given the leadership’s reins.
In my book, The Opposite of Comfortable, I wrote that “the recognition and acceptance of the differences between genders are completely unrelated to and should never be used to justify gender bias or impact gender equality.” Therefore, I think that the way to correct gender bias and hire the best person for the job is by establishing an environment that supports employees’ needs.
Men and women are different and they have different needs. If workplaces pay attention to women’s needs, they will earn a true diversity, not pseudo-diversity- a dangerous situation in which women are advised to think and behave like men to win positions and promotions.
Despite the current political climate, facts matter. And the facts are that success and failure are gender-natural, colorblind, and their favorite pastime is migration. They enjoy schmoozing and find their targets in a rich Christmas party or in a scruffy garage. They don’t care if you are a woman, man, black, white, orange or an alien. They pick and choose by worth, and the industry should take notes.
XO,
Sharon
Marissa Mayer, Yahoo’s CEO, would probably be stored in the Valley’s memory chip as one of the most controversial executives.
That is rather an achievement in a local known for its eccentric, influential, and innovative leaders who in an effort to leave a mark will go places no one has gone before.
Don’t worry; I will not trouble you with facts. These days, most of us are already making a noble effort to ignore the facts as a way to suppress our gag reflex.
I will not elaborate about Yahoo’s massive data breach that stemmed from Mayer’s original sin to prioritize developing new products over making security improvements according to the NYT article, Defending Against Hackers Took a Back Seat at Yahoo.
In Yahoo’s case, the original sin committer was let off, and more than 500 million users were punished when their accounts compromised. To add insult to injury, Mayer complied with an order from the NSA and scanned all incoming emails of its users routinely, and kept secrets from the company’s security team according to Ubergizmo.com.
While M gave the NSA a license to pry, Tim Cook, Apple’s CEO, was fighting the FBI against their wish to do a somewhat similar thing. Apple did not compromise its values or its promise to users even in the case of a domestic-terrorism investigation.
I will not bring up the tedious details about the way Mayer gloriously failed to turn Yahoo around, betrayed employees’ trust, and went on a multibillion-dollar acquisition spree just to take another write-down in July. (BTW, A Yahoo spokesman said the firm is confident in its value, but then again, the company held the same belief about Mayer, you hear Verizon?)
As promised, in an effort to avoid facts, I’ll talk about claims. Earlier this month, a second REVERSE DISCRIMINATION lawsuit filed by Scott Ard, a former Yahoo editor claiming the company discriminated against men. He accuses Mayer of using the company’s performance review system “to the detriment of Yahoo’s male employees.”
For the industry’s sake- I hope Ard is mistaken.
The Silicon Valley may be composed of the most broad-minded individuals in the world, but clearly, bias isn’t limited to uneducated white farm laborers from the South. In the Tech Valley, only 30 percent are dolls.
Correcting the bias is imperative. Not because it is the right thing to do-- evidently the right thing is debatable-- but because diversity is one of the greatest catalysts for growth. In a place where growth is the spirit people worship, eradicating bias is existential.
However, the problem is the way by which bias should be eliminated. Affirmative actions including female quota hiring sound like a good idea until a company’s performance review system set up to disadvantage specific employees or hiring is not being based on skills and qualifications but on sex, or a diversity hire, under-qualified mismatched is given the leadership’s reins.
In my book, The Opposite of Comfortable, I wrote that “the recognition and acceptance of the differences between genders are completely unrelated to and should never be used to justify gender bias or impact gender equality.” Therefore, I think that the way to correct gender bias and hire the best person for the job is by establishing an environment that supports employees’ needs.
Men and women are different and they have different needs. If workplaces pay attention to women’s needs, they will earn a true diversity, not pseudo-diversity- a dangerous situation in which women are advised to think and behave like men to win positions and promotions.
Despite the current political climate, facts matter. And the facts are that success and failure are gender-natural, colorblind, and their favorite pastime is migration. They enjoy schmoozing and find their targets in a rich Christmas party or in a scruffy garage. They don’t care if you are a woman, man, black, white, orange or an alien. They pick and choose by worth, and the industry should take notes.
XO,
Sharon
No comments have been added yet.
