You misunderstand how these corporate situations work. He will fall upward to a better job someplace else if he chooses.
Adam Neumann, who started then destroyed WeWork, already raised $350 million from Andreessen Horowitz for another real estate company called Flow.
Well, he did get a few billion dollars of lesson on how to not run such a company, making him quite uniquely qualified for this position.
I'll argue in this day and age, that any founder/C-level person who has "created" billions in value, no matter how much of a paper tiger it is, will almost always get another shot. If SBF or Elizabeth Holmes weren't physically in prison, I bet they'd be able to get investment for whatever their next idea is.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/softbank-takes-14b-hit-wework...
Adam is good making people rich, but those people are not his investors.
Neumann and Holmes and SBF lost their benefactors money.
The claim is that investors are interested in executives who they perceive to have created billions in value, and that's analogous to how NFL teams are interested in people who run fast.
Yes: suggesting he was not as candid as necessary is business libel unless true.
And since Brockman was also booted, he may have been involved.
It's not clear what the Board was trying to do that he interfered with. There is no clear legal standard on what a CEO must divulge, and CEO's often get to wait to tell board members bad news until the whole board meets and the issue has been investigated.
NFL teams are interested in players that can actually run fast, not players that can say they do, but are found to be lying and it turns out they cannot run fast causing the team to lose.
Investors are interested in people they can use to make money. The latter are easier to use, but the former will suffice. It just depends on when you sell.
I take "fall upward" to be a typo of "fail upward".
The next sentence explicitly compares the situation to WeWork.
My interpretation is correct, it's a bizarre post, I'm done with this thread, have a good day.
I think the business of running a scam or a fraudulent company is quite different to an actual business.
Not OpenAI will fall upward. Sam Altman is not OpenAI, especially after this latest announcement.
The next sentence compares him to the WeWork CEO.
It's not OpenAI is like WeWork. It's the disgraced CEO of OpenAI is like the disgraced CEO of WeWork.
Now? Yes for Kenneth Lay (assuming he was still alive and/or not hiding on a desert island under a new identity if I put on my tin foil hat)... Madoff, probably not.
AND ... post the WeWork debacle, Neumann has once again succeeded in raising a massive investment.
I have no doubt that Altman is deeply embedded in the techbro good old boys network to get another job, but that doesn't change the fact his (now previous) employer released a blog post saying he LIED TO THE BOARD about something severe enough that they had to insta-sack him.
No clear transition plan. In what situations world a board fire the ceo from the worlds greatest tech sensation since who knows when, in a matter of hours ?
There is bound to be a few people who have a soft spot and will give him money again .