3 ms·
Yeah, and that just means that the board is useless de facto. Nice story on a company, maybe, but really bad thing on a "non-profit".
by moralestapia 3y ago
Yeah, and that just means that the board is useless de facto.
Nice story on a company, maybe, but really bad thing on a "non-profit".
- aardvarkr 3y agoUseless in the sense that they showed themselves to be incompetent with their failed coup and had to pay the price. As the saying goes, “if you take a shot at the king you had better not miss”.
- powersnail 3y agoI don't think it means that the board is useless, but rather that their power has a limit, as all leadership positions do, and the way the fired the CEO has crossed the line too far.
- intended 3y agoIt means the board was out of alignment with their employees and their decision was unusually unpopular. If the board had communicated better (no 2 or different reasons) or had hard evidence (the claim was deceptive behavior) - it would have been different. I expect everyone who reads HN accepts that execution is 70% of the battle. It’s very unsurprising for employees to have made the choices they did, given the handling of the situation.
- cedilla 3y ago"Being useless" and "wielding absolute, unilateral, unquestionable authority like Sun King Louis XIV" are not the only two options here.