4 ms·
I'm of the opinion he was a scapegoat to draw the ire of the decision. The board were going to try to make that change anyway. If it went well enough that they
by BearOso 3y ago
I'm of the opinion he was a scapegoat to draw the ire of the decision. The board were going to try to make that change anyway. If it went well enough that they didn't have to fire him, they'd still have him as a buffer for another unpopular change.
- munk-a 3y agoI think it's fair to target the board with a large amount of blame as well - but as CEO it's your responsibility... if the decision is going to torpedo the company then refuse to carry it out or leave.
- s_dev 3y agoI'm of the opinion it was his idea, he convinced the board it would be a change with some pushback but he'd get it across the line. He has a history of these changes (he worked at EA Games previously) while the board do not have a history of these changes. Thus I'm prepared to give the board the benefit of the doubt here and it was the board alone who could oust the CEO which they did so there are some small redeeming qualities here.
- duped 3y agoBoards don't make decisions, the executives do.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]