2 ms·
Agreed. That company was unusual in that there always seemed to be a tension between the board and the company (distrust). And both sides (CEO and board) seeme
by busyant 8y ago
Agreed.
That company was unusual in that there always seemed to be a tension between the board and the company (distrust). And both sides (CEO and board) seemed to have a short-term view of everything (we were going to "flip" the company to a large pharma), which caused a lot of bad decisions to be made.
The other (more successful) start-ups that I worked at had a much more harmonious relationship with their boards (e.g., "We are in this together and we are here for the long-term.")
- archgoon 8y ago> seemed to have a short-term view of everything (we were going to "flip" the company to a large pharma), > which caused a lot of bad decisions to be made. Unfortunately, if they were trying to flip the company; then they may have made the 'right' (from the perspective of payoff) call. I can imagine under some models, that if you are 86% confident that it won't work, and only 14% confident that it will work; then the millions wasted may have been easily justified by the potential payoff if it was in the $100 million dollar range. Normally, we wouldn't bat an eye at such a decision; but the ugly part here is the high risk exposed to the people participating in the study :(. However, even that, a similar utilitarian calculus can be done to justify it. bleh. Remind me not to be a Pharma CEO, it sounds like an all around unpleasant job if you aren't a complete sociopath.