4 ms·
> presided over multiple years of lethargic development and glacial product evolution VP, Product is responsible for this not the CTO. And given Parag's maste
by threeseed 4y ago
> presided over multiple years of lethargic development and glacial product evolution
VP, Product is responsible for this not the CTO.
And given Parag's masterful display in forcing Musk to over-pay for Twitter it's obvious to me why he was chosen.
- moralestapia 4y ago>And given Parag's masterful display in forcing Musk ... Oh boy, here we go ... That's not even remotely true. Musk got into this trouble because of his immature antics (no source needed), then he was "over-paying" because the stock fell weeks after his offer without expectation (markets moved or whatever), finally the deal closed because Delaware courts don't fool around. Parag was circumstantial to all of this, it could've been anyone, really, it could've been a rock with eyes and the outcome would've been the same.
- Macha 4y agoIs this not part of the problem with evaluating senior management in general? Short of performing a drastic shakeup with drastic changes in fortunes as a result (i.e. Jobs returning to apple), you can always argue that the org would have got there anyway
- threeseed 4y ago> Parag was circumstantial to all of this That's an interesting concept. The Twitter CEO not being at the centre of a takeover deal. And in hindsight it all looks simple and clean but at many points it wasn't necessarily obvious that forcing Musk to acquire Twitter through legal means was going to pay off.
- nprateem 4y agoAnd had he not done it (or at least tried to force the sale), he'd have failed in his fiduciary duty to the shareholders and maybe they'd have sued or sacked him.