3 ms·
> The comments here and on Twitter are really weird. I don't like the guy either but surely anyone has to agree that there's a difference between being told, "W
by tivert 2y ago
> The comments here and on Twitter are really weird. I don't like the guy either but surely anyone has to agree that there's a difference between being told, "We don't want you on as CEO anymore", and being told "We want you as CEO but we need a CEO who's only focused on one company"? It seems weird to describe the situation where Altman is asked to choose and chooses OpenAI as "he was fired from YC".
But maybe not as big a difference as some make it out to be. A PIP is technically a statement of "we want you to be an employee, but we need you to change X to stay," but someone doesn't meet the PIP requirements you'd still say they were fired.
- mort96 2y agoIf someone can't meet the PIP requirements, then they're fired. If someone could easily meet the PIP requirements, but decides to leave instead, then they left. In my mind, the entire question is about who has agency.
- bradlys 2y agoA PIP is almost always a formal nothingburger as a paperwork enforced means to get someone fired. Very often the goals of PIPs are either ridiculously high or nonsensically vague as to be interpreted in whatever way that would please the person doing the firing. It gives a false sense of "agency" for the employee. In reality, the employee was already fired 3 months ago in the mind of the manager.
- mort96 2y agoRight. So there's no real agency, so it's a firing. Unlike the case where you're just asked which of the two companies you want to be CEO of.
- tivert 2y agoNo, it's not a simple binary like that. PIPs aren't about ability, they're about performance (as in "doing the thing"). For instance, someone who can meet the PIP requirements can still choose not to meet them yet also choose not to resign. Those choices will probably lead them to be fired.