zlacker

>>davidb+(OP)
For a company that's executing so well (at least from an outside perspective), shipping so fast, growing so fast, and so ahead of the curve in arguably the hottest segment of the tech market, at this moment, to do this right now, means this must be REALLY bad.

>>nlh+x3
The board in question is the non-profit board.

If Sam was pursuing profits or growth (even doing a really good job of it) in a way that violated the objectives set by the non-profit board, that could set up this kind of situation.

>>lukev+Rf
This, to me, seems like the most likely root cause: Sam was going too far into the "for profit" world, and lied to the board and misled them about his plans.

>>1024co+Rm
But would that warrant outright firing him like this? No exit plan where they can give the appearance of leaving on good terms?

>>Wowfun+to
To make an example out of him?

>>airstr+Ap
They clearly did it in a hurry, this is a “pants on fire” firing, not a difference of opinion over his leadership and direction.

>>zarzav+Gu
I assume you mean ‘hair on fire,’ which suggests a move done in a panic. “Pants on fire” means the subject is lying.

>>aaronb+DG
They fired him for lying. I think GP meant what they said, which is that what he was doing was blatantly lying, rather than whatever softer interpretation can be made for "not consistently candid in his communications".

>>Legibl+SJ
Actually I did mix up “hair on fire” and “pants down”. Fortunately, “pants on fire” still works in context.

>>zarzav+3N
Ok, but it fits so well with "liar, liar, pants on fire" and their reason for dismissal.