zlacker

>>himara+(OP)
It's worth knowing the specific reasons why the board fired Sam before assessing the value of this news. Too much rumor and not enough evidence.

>>d_sem+43
It seems clear that there weren’t specific reasons, just a kind of final straw in the product announcements that made the board realize how far from the original mission the company had drifted.

Turning it into an emergency and surprise coup with innuendo of wrongdoing looks to have been a huge mistake, and may result in total loss of control where a more measured course correction could have succeeded.

>>brooks+z4
Does the board not have final control? Why have they agreed (in principle) to step down? I wish more of the reporting around this was specific about who has the power to do what.

>>jmckib+lb
Power is a fuzzy thing. You can think about power as being distributed across lots of different entities (the board, CEO, senior execs, investors, rank and file employees, etc) with some having more concentrated power (eg the board) than others (eg individual employees). However, if you create a situation (eg lots of employees decide to walk out in support of the ousted CEO) that can aggregate enough power to overcome any other single entity. That seems to be what is happening here.

It does not matter that the board has the legal power to do whatever they want eg fire the CEO. If the investors and key employees that keep the company going walk away, they end up with nothing so they might as well resign and preserve the organization rather than burn the whole thing down.