4 ms·

The board does not remove a CEO it is happy with for something this trivial, because it is too disruptive to the company. This was probably used as a pretext in

The board does not remove a CEO it is happy with for something this trivial, because it is too disruptive to the company. This was probably used as a pretext in a power struggle.

mdoms 5y ago
Getting zonked on a class A drug during an important meeting with investors - so zonked you can't even read your own figures on a whiteboard - is no trivial matter.
Mauricebranagh 5y ago
Yeh my thought too there's a lot of shady shit that goes on in the VC world. I think he could have done with advice from a mentor who wasn't at all involved with the vc side - even on how formal meetings like board should be run. He is right about different cultures around how meetings are run though.
jeffchuber 5y ago
Additionally, I think it's pretty obvious that the journalist knew this and the editor picked the clickbait title.
GCA10 5y ago
Board-CEO relationships come in three flavors: - We love our CEO! We'll do anything to keep this boss happy - We're stuck with a loser, and we need to make a change - We're in the middle. This CEO has real strengths, which we appreciate, and real weaknesses, which concern us. We're regularly taking stock of the situation, and we'd probably like an orderly transition down the road. But we're probably okay for now. The third situation is quite common. And in those cases, you don't really need a "pretext" or a "power struggle." You just need the board to say: "We've tolerated a lot, but maybe we've tolerated too much. This new incident is not what we'd be seeing if we had the right CEO."
- itake 5y ago
  "This new incident" happened almost 2 years ago.
  - colinmhayes 5y ago
    The incident is him going to bloomberg, not the actual meeting.
  - dplavery92 5y ago
    True, but it's an incident he only informed the board (including new board members) about in late 2020, and is one aspect of his communication with Bloomberg Business that the board told him to stop for 10 months before being terminated.
gopalv 5y ago
> This was probably used as a pretext in a power struggle. The article has a specific quote which would indicate there's some disconnect between the average board and this ceo. >> He believed that he and the company were too focused on sales and money at the expense of altruistic goals This is an obvious point of conflict with a board, which would not align itself with a CEO who said that even privately.
- Apofis 5y ago
  The company is pre-IPO... this would conflict with any board. I'm assuming the co-Founder that replaced him as CEO had no such qualms.

The board does not remove a CEO it is happy with for something this trivial, because it is too disruptive to the company. This was probably used as a pretext in a power struggle.

mdoms 5y ago

Getting zonked on a class A drug during an important meeting with investors - so zonked you can't even read your own figures on a whiteboard - is no trivial matter.

Mauricebranagh 5y ago

Yeh my thought too there's a lot of shady shit that goes on in the VC world. I think he could have done with advice from a mentor who wasn't at all involved with the vc side - even on how formal meetings like board should be run. He is right about different cultures around how meetings are run though.

jeffchuber 5y ago

Additionally, I think it's pretty obvious that the journalist knew this and the editor picked the clickbait title.

GCA10 5y ago

Board-CEO relationships come in three flavors: - We love our CEO! We'll do anything to keep this boss happy - We're stuck with a loser, and we need to make a change - We're in the middle. This CEO has real strengths, which we appreciate, and real weaknesses, which concern us. We're regularly taking stock of the situation, and we'd probably like an orderly transition down the road. But we're probably okay for now. The third situation is quite common. And in those cases, you don't really need a "pretext" or a "power struggle." You just need the board to say: "We've tolerated a lot, but maybe we've tolerated too much. This new incident is not what we'd be seeing if we had the right CEO."

itake 5y ago
"This new incident" happened almost 2 years ago.
- colinmhayes 5y ago
  The incident is him going to bloomberg, not the actual meeting.
- dplavery92 5y ago
  True, but it's an incident he only informed the board (including new board members) about in late 2020, and is one aspect of his communication with Bloomberg Business that the board told him to stop for 10 months before being terminated.

gopalv 5y ago

> This was probably used as a pretext in a power struggle. The article has a specific quote which would indicate there's some disconnect between the average board and this ceo. >> He believed that he and the company were too focused on sales and money at the expense of altruistic goals This is an obvious point of conflict with a board, which would not align itself with a CEO who said that even privately.

Apofis 5y ago
The company is pre-IPO... this would conflict with any board. I'm assuming the co-Founder that replaced him as CEO had no such qualms.