Human brains naturally look for patterns. Those patterns have a uniform distribution with respect to the probability of them actually explaining the data. I re

Human brains naturally look for patterns. Those patterns have a uniform distribution with respect to the probability of them actually explaining the data. I remember pretty clearly when I first started seeing "the game", which is the politics that course through an organization like the wind through a mountain forest. It can be pretty heady at first, it is like wearing the special sunglasses in "They Live", but for me I also "saw" some things that weren't actually there at all. And acting on what I think I saw resulted in modest embarrassment and some awkwardness. So with experience, I learned to take what I saw with a bit of skepticism and to figure out ways I could "test", without revealing what I suspected to be true, whether or not something was what was actually going on. That test for Gruber was apparently the belief that you "cannot" hire a new CEO from another large company in the short amount of time that Away did it, so the "truth" (or what is "really" going on) is that the Verge story was cover for the swap and distracting from the distasteful element that a woman in technology was being forced out and a man coming in to replace her. I don't think that would be enough for me. Over my career I have met with a number of executive search firms, both helping them to identify good candidates, and sometimes as the candidate they were vetting for a possible move. And that experience showed me that executives are just as trigger happy as employees are for the 'right' move. That is especially true near the top because the only way you move into the 'big' seat is for the person in it to be ejected, and that can be a slow process for an aggressive person. Watching Ed Zander give up on Scott ever stepping down so that he could take over Sun he bailed and went to Motorola. It's a common story. So for me, I can see that if you talked to the right executive search firm, they might have a couple of candidates that were already 'loose in the socket' as they say. But it also can't be a "hopeless" company, like Uber seemed to be when Kalanick was clearly on the way out. But 'start up founder can't grow into the role' is a common enough reason to slot in someone who has more experience, and if it moves an executive closer to their ultimate goal, not as hard to pull off as you might think. (I'll admit it is probably easier for CTO roles than CEO roles but still) I am not saying that Gruber is wrong, I agree it is a plausible explanation. I just don't see the evidence as being as definitive as he does.