4 ms·

If that is the case then the board should state they removed her. And have a press release ready to go as soon as it's in effect. I've witnessed a few senior ma

by yardie 5y ago

If that is the case then the board should state they removed her. And have a press release ready to go as soon as it's in effect. I've witnessed a few senior management removals in my lifetime. Rarely has it been unannounced. Even rarer has it been the founder.

dpark 5y ago
Why would they do that? There is an ongoing investigation. It sounds like they essentially put her on paid leave during the investigation. Making a giant public statement about removing her before the investigation is concluded seems wildly inappropriate.
stickfigure 5y ago
Why does the company have an obligation to satisfy a bunch of gossips on HN? I love a good tale of corporate intrigue and betrayal as much as anyone, but I can wait for the podcast.
- yardie 5y ago
  Because they are a public facing non-profit who relies on donations from some of the same people who might be on HN. So if the narrative is "out of control board ousts founder" the next time they have a donation drive the donors thoughts might be "I don't know, your org seems kinda sketch". You ignore social media at your own peril. That is the reality.
- willcipriano 5y ago
  I give ten percent of my income to charity and spend a lot of time looking into them. While I personally don't engage with race or gender specific organizations as a matter of principal, looking at that Glassdoor this isn't a organization that deserves my money. Loudly correcting this behavior would go a long way to restoring trust for those who would donate. If given the choice between providing mosquito netting in Africa or allowing someone to show up late and bully her staff, I pick the former every time.
thesausageking 5y ago
Read the article. They didn't remove her. They brought in an interim CEO while they investigate the allegations. It's normal for a board to keep it quiet until you have the facts. You want the opportunity to make a good decision and, if the allegations are false, not slander the CEO.

by yardie 5y ago

dpark 5y ago

Why would they do that? There is an ongoing investigation. It sounds like they essentially put her on paid leave during the investigation. Making a giant public statement about removing her before the investigation is concluded seems wildly inappropriate.

stickfigure 5y ago

Why does the company have an obligation to satisfy a bunch of gossips on HN? I love a good tale of corporate intrigue and betrayal as much as anyone, but I can wait for the podcast.

yardie 5y ago
Because they are a public facing non-profit who relies on donations from some of the same people who might be on HN. So if the narrative is "out of control board ousts founder" the next time they have a donation drive the donors thoughts might be "I don't know, your org seems kinda sketch". You ignore social media at your own peril. That is the reality.
willcipriano 5y ago
I give ten percent of my income to charity and spend a lot of time looking into them. While I personally don't engage with race or gender specific organizations as a matter of principal, looking at that Glassdoor this isn't a organization that deserves my money. Loudly correcting this behavior would go a long way to restoring trust for those who would donate. If given the choice between providing mosquito netting in Africa or allowing someone to show up late and bully her staff, I pick the former every time.

thesausageking 5y ago

Read the article. They didn't remove her. They brought in an interim CEO while they investigate the allegations. It's normal for a board to keep it quiet until you have the facts. You want the opportunity to make a good decision and, if the allegations are false, not slander the CEO.