4 ms·
I don't know anything about this company. But, just because the valuation went down, doesn't mean it's the management's fault. Maybe the old valuation was base
by Maro 9y ago
I don't know anything about this company.
But, just because the valuation went down, doesn't mean it's the management's fault. Maybe the old valuation was based on wishful thinking, and over time it sunk in [to everybody] that there are core problems with the product/biz.model/etc that they can't solve. This I've seen multiple times are startups. There's some fundamental problem which is masked by growth. Management keeps hiring people and hopes somebody eventually magically fixes the problem. After ~5 years the company accepts the problem. OR a new competitor emerged, etc.
Even a shitty management team is a management team that keeps the company running.
- mgkimsal 9y agoIt sounds like this particular company was engaged in 'wishful thinking' re: the valuation, and sounded like they were using deception at the core (if they were trying to deceive employees, probably tried to deceive investors too).
- s73ver_ 9y ago"But, just because the valuation went down, doesn't mean it's the management's fault." Yes, it does. The justification for the extremely high salaries and bonuses that execs get is because they are the ones who are "taking risks" and "are responsible for the company." Here, they are literally being rewarded for failure, and at the expense of people who were actually doing work.
- mgkimsal 9y ago> Here, they are literally being rewarded for failure, Because who else would 'risk' so much - like only getting a $400k bonus instead of an $1m bonus? It takes special character and fortitude to steel yourself for such challenges!