4 ms·
It's supposed to be down to the board to decide what it means [0], and the CEO is supposed to follow the board's interpretation. In the event that a CEO fails t
by lolinder 3y ago
It's supposed to be down to the board to decide what it means [0], and the CEO is supposed to follow the board's interpretation. In the event that a CEO fails to keep the mission in mind or has a major disagreement with the board about what the mission is, we should expect the board to remove that CEO and replace them with another.
The board is the teeth to the mission. What happened here wasn't that the mission was vague, it was that the board turned out to be a paper tiger.
[0] https://www.councilofnonprofits.org/running-nonprofit/governance-leadership/board-roles-and-responsibilities https://www.councilofnonprofits.org/running-nonprofit/govern...
- peteradio 3y agoThe board fired him and then got reverse pile drived by microsoft. Now I'm not sure exactly how microsoft leveraged the individuals on the board but its history of buttfucking anything that gets in its way speaks for itself. Microsoft is the vampire hovering ominously at your window. Everyone likes to imagine they will resist the temptation and overpower and reverse pile drive the vampire but it is folly for inevitably it will be you who is reverse pile drived.