Wow. Front page of huffpost.com right now. Interesting...
this post was submitted on 17 Jun 2023
815 points (97.7% liked)
Lemmy.World Announcements
29026 readers
6 users here now
This Community is intended for posts about the Lemmy.world server by the admins.
Follow us for server news ๐
Outages ๐ฅ
https://status.lemmy.world
For support with issues at Lemmy.world, go to the Lemmy.world Support community.
Support e-mail
Any support requests are best sent to info@lemmy.world e-mail.
Report contact
- DM https://lemmy.world/u/lwreport
- Email report@lemmy.world (PGP Supported)
Donations ๐
If you would like to make a donation to support the cost of running this platform, please do so at the following donation URLs.
If you can, please use / switch to Ko-Fi, it has the lowest fees for us
Join the team
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
They do stuff like that sometimes, like twitter is doing now, by putting a woman CEO right after Elon set everything on fire, so that twitter vocal minority can blame her and say that Elon was doing everything better. It's what they call the Glass Cliff. Something similar might be happening here, without the anti-feminist part.
They have already done this once. I wonder if anyone here remembers the previous CEO...
What has that to do with the CEO being a woman? Every CEO after Elon "lost", trying to get that mess back on track is going to blow up on Twitter, regardless of sex
Pandering to his misogynistic neofascist fanbase?
It's the exact playbook they used on Bon Appetit. The previous guy was primarily damned with racial suppression and underpayment, They brought in a woman who was supposed to be known as firm but fair who was also a minority. The refilled the cast with minorities but everybody had already gone by then.
When they run that playbook I think it's an attempt to portray the image that the person they put in place isn't an old boy a friend of a friend It was somebody who fought to be where they are. I don't know that any of that's actually true but more as often than not they do put a woman in that position when everybody's mad at the asshole leaving.
They'll leave spez in at least until the next round of layoffs. He'll get a parachute no shove somebody unlikeable and see what they can salvage.
I've always struggled with the concept of a glass cliff because it's so hard to distinguish from a "Sacrificial CEO" like Ellen Pao was for Reddit, where they purposefully hire a short-term CEO to make unpopular decisions they can then blame on that CEO after replacing them, but not actually change. I've wondered if because it's harder for women to break into the C Suite they're more likely to take that type of role, even knowing they'll be vilified and only live in the short-term - but riding the fat severance package to the next company that needs a scapegoat. Men serve in that role too, but if you come at the analysis from that angle I wonder if it explains the inconsistencies in studies looking at the glass cliff.