3 ms·

A big part in both stories is that the boards were unwilling to actually state what exactly the CEO did wrong or why they have lost confidence - be that profess

by _bent 13d ago

A big part in both stories is that the boards were unwilling to actually state what exactly the CEO did wrong or why they have lost confidence - be that professionalism or not wanting to deliver ammunition for lawfare - which perfectly sets up the CEO to position himself as a victim to the greed and power games of the shadowy board

palmotea 12d ago
> A big part in both stories is that the boards were unwilling to actually state what exactly the CEO did wrong or why they have lost confidence - be that professionalism or not wanting to deliver ammunition for lawfare - which perfectly sets up the CEO to position himself as a victim to the greed and power games of the shadowy board Which is really insane when you think about it. The CEO reports to the board, and since when have companies regularly provided real reasons for termination (I understand they try to say as little as possible, because there's no upside for them)? It's a coup when an underling "fires" his boss and takes control, but some CEOs managed to convince many that it's the opposite (or at least AstroTurf to that effect).
- Joeri 12d ago
  There are companies where the CEO reports to the board, and there are companies where the board exists to keep up appearances. We’re finding out in real time Automattic is the second kind. This should discourage investors, since an unbridled CEO is bad for them in the long term. But it won’t, because nobody thinks long term anymore.
  - BobaFloutist 12d ago
    Also because most of the investors, by ownership, are Matt.
  - Corrado 12d ago
    I think another example of the second kind is Tesla. Most (all?) of the board is loyal to Musk and not Tesla, as far as I understand it.
sumedh 12d ago
Were the OpenAI board members qualified to board members, they seemed like thay had no idea what they were doing.
kbelder 12d ago
But no one (within a decimal point or two of zero) believes that about either CEO.

by _bent 13d ago

palmotea 12d ago

> A big part in both stories is that the boards were unwilling to actually state what exactly the CEO did wrong or why they have lost confidence - be that professionalism or not wanting to deliver ammunition for lawfare - which perfectly sets up the CEO to position himself as a victim to the greed and power games of the shadowy board Which is really insane when you think about it. The CEO reports to the board, and since when have companies regularly provided real reasons for termination (I understand they try to say as little as possible, because there's no upside for them)? It's a coup when an underling "fires" his boss and takes control, but some CEOs managed to convince many that it's the opposite (or at least AstroTurf to that effect).

Joeri 12d ago
There are companies where the CEO reports to the board, and there are companies where the board exists to keep up appearances. We’re finding out in real time Automattic is the second kind. This should discourage investors, since an unbridled CEO is bad for them in the long term. But it won’t, because nobody thinks long term anymore.
- BobaFloutist 12d ago
  Also because most of the investors, by ownership, are Matt.
- Corrado 12d ago
  I think another example of the second kind is Tesla. Most (all?) of the board is loyal to Musk and not Tesla, as far as I understand it.

sumedh 12d ago

Were the OpenAI board members qualified to board members, they seemed like thay had no idea what they were doing.

kbelder 12d ago

But no one (within a decimal point or two of zero) believes that about either CEO.