Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×
Businesses Blackberry

BlackBerry's CFO, CMO, and COO Leave Company 159

cagraham writes "In a pretty major executive shakeup, BlackBerry's Chief Financial Officer, Chief Marketing Officer, and Chief Operating Officer have all left the company. It's unclear whether the changes were brought about by new interim-CEO John Chen in order to facilitate company change, or represent an abandon-ship style exit after BlackBerry's failed bid to go private. The company announced that the CFO position would be filled by current SVP James Yersch, but gave no word on the other vacancies."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

BlackBerry's CFO, CMO, and COO Leave Company

Comments Filter:
  • Yes! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 25, 2013 @12:15PM (#45515327)

    That's three more rim jobs available.

  • Don't worry for them (Score:4, Interesting)

    by bob_super ( 3391281 ) on Monday November 25, 2013 @12:24PM (#45515419)

    They shipped themselves out with the full security and convenience of cryptic golden parachutes.

    • by Dr. Evil ( 3501 ) on Monday November 25, 2013 @12:31PM (#45515507)
      Those golden parachutes are needed to encourage top talent. A reward for a job well done.
      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Indeed. Who in their right mind would accept a job with a 7 figure salary without the guarantee of financial stability for the remainder of your natural life?
      • The problem is how many get them even when they've proven they're not top talent, and haven't done a job well.
      • by alexander_686 ( 957440 ) on Monday November 25, 2013 @01:34PM (#45516299)

        I know you are trying to be funny, but you are half-right.

        It is not to attract high level talent, it is kick them out. If I am a high level executive and I have a choice – quite my job for the benefit or the firm or fight to keep my job (which means being a distraction, promoting infighting, etc.) I am going to choose to fight for my job.

        Unless, of course, I have a golden parachute. Parachutes tend to be less lucrative then having a job but they can be used to ease people out of their positions.

        • Sounds like another clause to go in potential "maximum wage ratio" legislation. If the company uses "at-will" employment for it's normal employees, then it would be at-will for execs too.

          • Well, most execs are employed at will – so no change there. The issue that golden parachutes are supposed to fix is that the person who can fire the executive at will is that executive. Who is going to fire themselves?

            Most of the time it is not that bad, but in almost all cases there is a complex (and I would say incestuous) relationship between the executive and the person doing the firing. In most cases the person who would fire the executive was hired by that executive.

            • by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

              That's why there are boards of directors and shareholders. It doesn't have to be incestuous.

              • Your right, it does not have to be and in the case of strong boards it’s not.

                However, when shareholdings are defuse it is the current board who nominates who will be their replacements, and can be influenced by the CEO. Thus the current board tends to be captured by current management. It’s particularly bad when the same person is the CEO and chairmen of the board or when the board is packed with insiders. They like to choose docile people.

                You might even have issues with a strong board. Often th

                • by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

                  Which is a strong argument in favour of externally mandated checks and balances. The chief executives cannot be board members, the board must be elected by direct shareholder vote, executive salary caps, uniform company severance packages, etc.

                  When corporations were fairly small and their success or failure wasn't much more important than a spectator sport freewheeling corporate crap was fine. With companies that are so important that they are too big to fail, making or breaking entire national (or intern

                  • by Meski ( 774546 )
                    If you don't think it is acceptable, buy stock and change it. But don't ask for legislated change, that's entirely the wrong way to change. You think you, the 99% can''t do this? :^)
                    • by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

                      Sorry, I'm not an extreme capitalist (nor an American, where lots of the extreme capitalists live). Business exists to serve the people, and the people have both the right and the responsibility to regulate it, particularly when, in the absence of that regulation, the behaviour of business becomes detrimental. Particularly when that business becomes large enough that it exerts significant control on the market.

                      Switzerland is on the right track.

                      And by the way, I own stock in several companies, and I vote i

  • by Anonymous Coward

    And now that they have made all the money and killed the company. The rats are leaving the ship.

    • Re:So long (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Captain Splendid ( 673276 ) <<capsplendid> <at> <gmail.com>> on Monday November 25, 2013 @12:35PM (#45515571) Homepage Journal
      Somebody explain to me again how private enterprise is just in every way better and more efficient than government?
      • Well here you see the job creators rewarded for making things better than they might have been. They could have adopted Windows Phone.
        • Windows Phone is doing better than Blackberry at the moment. And given how Windows Phone is barely clinging to a fraction of marketshare, that's saying something. Blackberry is so bad at this point that a switch to Windows Phone would be an improvement!

      • by 0123456 ( 636235 )

        Somebody explain to me again how private enterprise is just in every way better and more efficient than government?

        If RIM was a government department, they'd just have raised taxes to cover their losses, and told everyone how much better they'd do their job if only they were paid more.

        When was the last time a government kicked out most or all those at the top of a failing department, rather than throw more money at them?

        • Governments are not businesses.

          • by 0123456 ( 636235 )

            Governments are not businesses.

            If they were, most of them would have had to declare bankruptcy long ago.

            • I think you mean posted their national debts.

      • Somebody explain to me again how private enterprise is just in every way better and more efficient than government?

        one word: healthcare.gov

        • Re:So long (Score:5, Insightful)

          by H0p313ss ( 811249 ) on Monday November 25, 2013 @01:14PM (#45516057)

          Somebody explain to me again how private enterprise is just in every way better and more efficient than government?

          one word: healthcare.gov

          Created by private enterprise on contract.

          • funded by taxpayer dollars, with no accountability

          • Re:So long (Score:5, Insightful)

            by LordLimecat ( 1103839 ) on Monday November 25, 2013 @01:36PM (#45516343)

            Managed by government agency, to a spectacular result: Noone is to blame, noone knows why, and noone is getting fired. Hooray!

          • by Meski ( 774546 )

            Somebody explain to me again how private enterprise is just in every way better and more efficient than government?

            one word: healthcare.gov

            Created by private enterprise on contract.

            Who did this?

            And this for the lulz
            http://www.redstate.com/2013/11/18/healthcare-gov-site-advertising-sql-injection-attacks/ [redstate.com]

        • by ewieling ( 90662 )
          Here are some counter words: EPA, FDA, FTC. For every high profile failure of a government project or government agency there are dozens of government agencies which quietly do a very good job. The solution to high profile failure of governmental projects is to fire the people responsible, find out what went wrong, make sure it doesn't go wrong again, and hire people who can get the job done right. Much like private companies. The solution is not to preach that government always does a worse job than
          • by 0123456 ( 636235 )

            The solution to high profile failure of governmental projects is to fire the people responsible, find out what went wrong, make sure it doesn't go wrong again, and hire people who can get the job done right. Much like private companies. The solution is not to preach that government always does a worse job than free enterprise.

            And when did that last happen?

        • Somebody explain to me again how private enterprise is just in every way better and more efficient than government?

          one word: healthcare.gov

          Two letters: EA

      • Because we're not on the hook to keep RIM on lifesupport. They screwed up, they disappear, and taxpayer dollars arent lost in the process.

        Imagine if RIM were a government-run agency.

      • Government measures success by whether a candidate is more or less re-electable. So the product of government is a series of 'positions' their candidate appears to adopt to communicate their feelings about an issue that polls have shown is dear to the hearts of their electorate, thereby increasing their re-electability.

        Business measures success by whether the owners of the company are buying or selling more or fewer shares of the company. When more people wish to be owners than sellers, the share pric
      • Somebody explain to me again how private enterprise is just in every way better and more efficient than government?

        Just compare the 95% of mega-corps that aren't in a bankruptcy death spiral to the 70% of governments that are.

      • by Meski ( 774546 )

        Somebody explain to me again how private enterprise is just in every way better and more efficient than government?

        When it goes broke, it can be liquidated. There's the difference.

  • by mlts ( 1038732 ) * on Monday November 25, 2013 @12:24PM (#45515429)

    I have a feeling that RIM is going to be the next company fought over in the Apple/Microsoft versus Google/Samsung patent wars...

    • you are getting silly, very silly... repeat after me... "patents are cheaper in Chapter 7. patents are cheaper in Chapter 7..."

      • by mlts ( 1038732 ) *

        Very true, but after Google lost the Nortel battle, I think the fight for a large company may heat up. It is either fight in the auction, or fight the lawsuits from the parent company the very day the deal buying the company is sealed and the IP rights changed hands.

        RIM has a lot more relevant patents which could be used for ammo on either side, so it might be that their best position is to show off their patent portfolio, similar to what Kodak did, which would attract buyers.

  • No big deal (Score:5, Funny)

    by hawguy ( 1600213 ) on Monday November 25, 2013 @12:26PM (#45515441)

    That's not necessarily a sign of trouble at the company - they probably just wanted to spend more time with their families and maybe pursue some hobbies, just like all top executives that leave a company.

    • That's not necessarily a sign of trouble at the company - they probably just wanted to spend more time with their families and maybe pursue some hobbies, just like all top executives that leave a company.

      I would agree with you, if it wasn't for the fact that there were three of them that left. Of course, being RIM, we don't need any additional warning signs to figure out that there are problems.

    • Re:No big deal (Score:5, Insightful)

      by davidbrit2 ( 775091 ) on Monday November 25, 2013 @12:36PM (#45515581) Homepage
      Hobbies like working for a company that's not in a nosedive.
  • Good riddance (Score:5, Insightful)

    by faclonX ( 759436 ) on Monday November 25, 2013 @12:31PM (#45515511)

    The CMO didn't do anything, did you see any ads for BlackBerry 10? The marketing for the "flagship" product never existed, because the CMO dropped the ball. I'm actually surprised the CFO is leaving, he's been with BlackBerry for a long time. I would expect there to be a top exec shuffle with a new CEO considering the old CXX execs were pretty useless.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Except that the CFO leaving usually means that a company is bankrupt. After all, he is the first one to know.

      • I think this was just a "Friendly Termination". It's common at that level for them to be offered to leave on their own. They still get a package AND they leave with their dignity. In the end it's all about image and reading into it too much creates ridiculous amounts of comments on /.

    • The CMO didn't do anything, did you see any ads for BlackBerry 10?

      I can't figure out if you are being sarcastic or not. We were bombarded with ads for the 10 series BBs. Magazine ads. Airport ads. TV ads, Website banner ads. Ads at retailers.... On and on.

      Pity it was too little too late. My wife has a Q10 and it's a sweet device.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    were booted. THAT is the question.

  • by wiredog ( 43288 ) on Monday November 25, 2013 @12:47PM (#45515695) Journal

    EJECT! EJECT! EJECT!

  • It keeps saying "World Leader", last time I checked really crappy software, 1/2 ass designed hardware and never meeting deadlines doesn't make you a world force. ....Of course Microsoft would laugh and say I'm wrong.
  • No biggie (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Executive positions are some of the most generic jobs in the world, and anyone can fill them - in fact, executive decisions are no better than random.

    Just give them to three of the most loyal janitors at RIM - I'm sure they would do no worse a job than any random super-rich executive in the US.

  • More executives get rich running a company into the ground, and then flee with their ill gotten gains. News at 11.

  • I heard one top executive from a very famous EDA company brag, "Every Fortune 100 company that actually makes some product, [he was excluding pure retailers and finance companies] uses our design and analysis tools. The only exception is RIM". This was back in 2007-2008 time frame. I was very surprised because there were so many models of blackberry phones, it was called crack berry. There were news items about aides prohibiting Obama from using his blackberry etc. But basically it never designed anything!
    • by jimicus ( 737525 )

      But Apple and Google provided so much, the top executives demanded their IT departments support these devices. When it was no longer the exclusive mobile email provider for corporations, it had nothing else to offer. It just withered.

      The writing was on the wall long before then.

      Blackberry's biggest selling point was half-decent email integration. At the time, nobody had a mobile IMAP client worth a damn - and even if they did, Blackberry offered features that weren't possible with IMAP (eg. remote wipe, policy enforcement).

      Exchange 2003 - yes, 2003 - integrated ActiveSync. Now, while there weren't any ActiveSync capable phones worth a damn either - and wouldn't be for some years - the technology had promise:

      • No need for a third-party ser
    • by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

      Um, Google outsources handset design to HTC and Samsung, don't they?

  • 3 main CXX's left the company near the same time. CEO has been replaced.

    LIRC, the company is still running (though in bad shape). This is proof positive: CXX's are not critical to a company, but we sure pay them like they are.

Whenever people agree with me, I always think I must be wrong. - Oscar Wilde

Working...