3 ms·

I assume Dave Clark is the former CEO. Why should he pay? What if he thought that they needed these roles? What if the new CEO disagrees and they both have v

I assume Dave Clark is the former CEO. Why should he pay? What if he thought that they needed these roles? What if the new CEO disagrees and they both have valid points? At this point, the new CEO (who is also the founder) has to take responsibility for his decision.

bdcravens 3y ago
He was recently replaced (ie, strongly encouraged to resign), ostensibly for poor performance of the company. It's all about accountability related to his leadership, including hiring decisions.
- StressedDev 3y ago
  Dave Clark either resigned, was pushed out or was fired. It's hard to see how he did not suffer consequences or was not held accountable. Also, you need to establish that Dave Clark performed poorly and should have known the company could not afford these jobs. We cannot prove he performed poorly because we do not have enough information. Claiming he performed poorly because he left/was fired does not work because lots of people are unjustly fired. Even if the firing was in some ways justified, it is very possible that this is not a black and white situation. It could be he had a vision, executed on his vision, did a good job delivering it, and then the board and founder decided they did not like it. This does not mean his vision would have failed. It just means the board and founder thought getting rid of Dave Clark and taking a different course would probably lead to a better outcome. Your basic argument does not work because you assume Dave Clark deserved to get fired and that he somehow knew these 75 offers were bad for the company. You do not prove this. My guess is Dave Clark did his best, thought he was taking the company in the right direction, and was let go because the board and founder disagreed. I do not think punishing him is justified because it is not clear he did anything wrong.

bdcravens 3y ago

He was recently replaced (ie, strongly encouraged to resign), ostensibly for poor performance of the company. It's all about accountability related to his leadership, including hiring decisions.

StressedDev 3y ago
Dave Clark either resigned, was pushed out or was fired. It's hard to see how he did not suffer consequences or was not held accountable. Also, you need to establish that Dave Clark performed poorly and should have known the company could not afford these jobs. We cannot prove he performed poorly because we do not have enough information. Claiming he performed poorly because he left/was fired does not work because lots of people are unjustly fired. Even if the firing was in some ways justified, it is very possible that this is not a black and white situation. It could be he had a vision, executed on his vision, did a good job delivering it, and then the board and founder decided they did not like it. This does not mean his vision would have failed. It just means the board and founder thought getting rid of Dave Clark and taking a different course would probably lead to a better outcome. Your basic argument does not work because you assume Dave Clark deserved to get fired and that he somehow knew these 75 offers were bad for the company. You do not prove this. My guess is Dave Clark did his best, thought he was taking the company in the right direction, and was let go because the board and founder disagreed. I do not think punishing him is justified because it is not clear he did anything wrong.