4 ms·

Once the employees know that their CEO is "shopping" the company, it seems like the CEO should have known they would be looking towards the exits (unless, of co

Once the employees know that their CEO is "shopping" the company, it seems like the CEO should have known they would be looking towards the exits (unless, of course, they had lots of equity which would turn into $$ once the acquisition happened, which case they would likely stay put). It was not only kind of sleazy to try to, essentially, sell your employees to another company as if they are your property, but also not very business-savvy. If she had simply taken Apple's "acqui-hire" offer, she would have made money, burnished her reputation as a founder who successfully "flipped" to Apple, and probably gotten VC money to try again. Now, I think she may have acquired a reputation as someone who ends up treating her employees like her personal property? Maybe she's an awesome boss normally, but if this is all you knew about her, I think I would not be interested in working at her next gig, whatever it is.

mthoms 6y ago
It was Apple that ultimately backed out of the "acqui-hire", not the target company's CEO. Edit: Nope, I was wrong here. I think the rest of this comment is still relevant though. And for all we know, it may have been her investors that encouraged (demanded?) her to go the route of "selling" the employees[0]. It appears the company would be winding down and they stood to benefit by recouping some of their investment. I can't see how she would benefit. But... who knows. [0] Just typing the phrase "selling the employees" makes me feel icky.
- runT1ME 6y ago
  Not what it says, direct quote: "Hooked’s CEO declined, saying there were other acquisition possibilities she would like to see play out."
  - mthoms 6y ago
    Right you are. I stand corrected on that point. I think the rest of the comment is still valid.
- tptacek 6y ago
  I'm not sure it really matters? A consequence of getting into deep talks with corpdev is that they'll be alerted to employees they want to hire. And there's no way to look good suing someone for offering your employees a better job.
  - mthoms 6y ago
    She certainly deserves lots of flack, but it seems reasonably likely (if not certain), that it was her investors pushing for the "sale" of the employees (ugh), and the lawsuit against Apple. In that context, I don't think the comment I replied to (quoted below) is entirely fair. >Now, I think she may have acquired a reputation as someone who ends up treating her employees like her personal property Why don't we name and shame the investors involved here? They're just as culpable IMHO.
    - fleshdaddy 6y ago
      I don't understand why you think that. I will freely admit that I don't have a great grasp on Silicon Valley investor relations but I just assume when you're the head of the company something like this falls back on you. I don't know this just seems to me like a CEO's responsibility not to do.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

mthoms 6y ago

It was Apple that ultimately backed out of the "acqui-hire", not the target company's CEO. Edit: Nope, I was wrong here. I think the rest of this comment is still relevant though. And for all we know, it may have been her investors that encouraged (demanded?) her to go the route of "selling" the employees[0]. It appears the company would be winding down and they stood to benefit by recouping some of their investment. I can't see how she would benefit. But... who knows. [0] Just typing the phrase "selling the employees" makes me feel icky.

runT1ME 6y ago
Not what it says, direct quote: "Hooked’s CEO declined, saying there were other acquisition possibilities she would like to see play out."
- mthoms 6y ago
  Right you are. I stand corrected on that point. I think the rest of the comment is still valid.
tptacek 6y ago
I'm not sure it really matters? A consequence of getting into deep talks with corpdev is that they'll be alerted to employees they want to hire. And there's no way to look good suing someone for offering your employees a better job.
- mthoms 6y ago
  She certainly deserves lots of flack, but it seems reasonably likely (if not certain), that it was her investors pushing for the "sale" of the employees (ugh), and the lawsuit against Apple. In that context, I don't think the comment I replied to (quoted below) is entirely fair. >Now, I think she may have acquired a reputation as someone who ends up treating her employees like her personal property Why don't we name and shame the investors involved here? They're just as culpable IMHO.
  - fleshdaddy 6y ago
    I don't understand why you think that. I will freely admit that I don't have a great grasp on Silicon Valley investor relations but I just assume when you're the head of the company something like this falls back on you. I don't know this just seems to me like a CEO's responsibility not to do.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]