This confuses me somewhat. Didn't she get basically marginalized in the new Page world at Google? (the article inaccurately reports that she's on the OC; the OC ceased to exist, replaced by the L team, and she's not on it)
Is it normal for someone who isn't in the top 5-10 at a large company to serve on the board of unrelated large companies? I've seen CEOs of established companies serve on the boards of complementary companies, but I don't see much Google/Wal-Mart complementarity, and she's not the CEO.
I recall some commentary to that effect. But I also recall rebuttal commentary, stating roughly that she was realigning somewhat within the org but as part and central to the Page initiative, i.e. not marginalized.
I no longer recall the details. But, FWIW, there were two sides (at least) to those circumstances / that story.
Separately, my immediate reaction to this news is, "eww". I realize there are multiple sides to Walmart, and they are very big and successful at what they do. However, on balance, I don't see the, um, "moral" standards as aligning.
Might be good for Mayers' career, personally. I don't think it reflects so well on Google, to the extent there is spill-over. (Although there is a counter-point to that perspective, and Google is increasingly growing into the image of an established, top-tier corporation (i.e. blue chip -- not just in value, but in duration/longevity/entrenched, dominant business model and execution).)
Walmart does do some amazingly good and amazingly bad things.
Positives (which aren't publicized as well) are their great disaster response, incredible internal efficiency (in ways other than wages or pushing down supplier prices, which they also do), bringing increasingly healthy food to areas which didn't have access before (Wal-Mart shoppers are not really likely to go to Whole Foods or a CSA; Wal-Mart is mainly competing against fast food and discount grocery chains), and being one of the forces protecting their customers from a declining real standard of living (their prices remain low; wages and other opportunities also remain low for other reasons). Due to their great economic efficiency, I think they're in the lead on environmental protection as well (at least as much as a big box store can be).
They definitely need to improve on employee relations, health care, and there are questions about them forcing local businesses out of business -- in some markets, they're adding choice and improving things, and in others, they're driving out local stores. I suspect adding a wal-mart to most really deprived areas would on balance be a positive, to solve the "food desert" problem.
Is it normal for someone who isn't in the top 5-10 at a large company to serve on the board of unrelated large companies? I've seen CEOs of established companies serve on the boards of complementary companies, but I don't see much Google/Wal-Mart complementarity, and she's not the CEO.