3 ms·
I guess it depends on whether any of them actually got the assignment. One way to interpret it is that nobody is taking that assignment seriously. So depending
by fluidcruft 3y ago
I guess it depends on whether any of them actually got the assignment. One way to interpret it is that nobody is taking that assignment seriously. So depending on what that assignment is and how important that particular assignment is to the board, then it may in fact be a big deal.
- kumarvvr 3y agoDoes a board give an assignment to the CEO or teams? If the case is that the will of the board is not being fulfilled, then the reasoning is simple. The CEO was told to do something and he has not done it. So, he is ousted. Plain and simple. This talk about projects given to two teams and what not is nonsense. The board should care if its work is done, not how the work is done. That is the job of the CEO.
- fluidcruft 3y agoFrankly the information that is available is extremely non-specific and open to interpretation and framing by whoever wants to tell one story or another. The way I see it something as specific as "has not done xyz" is a specific thing that can be falsified and invites whatever it is into the public to be argued about and investigated whereas "not sufficiently candid" does not reveal much and just says that a majority of the board doesn't trust him. Altman and all the people directly involved know what's going on, outsiders have no need to know so we're just looking at tea leaves and scraps trying to weave narratives. And I agree the board should care if the work is actually done and that's where if the CEO seems to be bluffing that the work is being done or blowing it off and humoring them then it becomes a problem about the CEO not respecting the board's direction.