You don't really see any of this in most professional settings.
You are interpreting that as hostile and aggressive because you are reading into it what other boards have said in other disputes and whatever you are imagining, but if the board learned some things not from Altman that it felt they should have learned from Altman, less than candid is a completely neutral way to describe it, and voting him out is not an indication of hostility.
Would you like to propose some other candid wording the board could have chosen, a wording that does not lack candor?
Uhh no, I'm seeing it as hostile and aggressive because the actual verbiage was hostile and aggressive, doubly so in the context of this being a formal corporate statement. You can pass the text into NLP sentiment analyzer and it too will come to the same conclusion.
It is also very telling that you are being very sarcastic and demeaning in your remarks as well to someone who wasn't even replying to you, which might explain why you might have seen the PR statement differently.
Certainly, this is very immature. It wouldn't be out of context in HBO's Succession.
Whether what happened is right or just in some sense is a different conversation. We could speculate on what is going on in the company and why, but the tactlessness is evident.
The same conversation if it's "mature", surely? I'm failing to see how one thinks turning a blind eye to like, decades of sexual impropriety and major internal culture issues to the point the state takes action against your company is "mature". Like, under what definition?
So what was there to gain from the company speaking ill of their past employee? What was even left to say? Nothing. No one wants to work in an organization that vilifies its own people. It was prudent.
I will emphasize again that the morality of these situations is a separate matter from tact. It is very well possible that doing what is good for business does not always align with what is moral. But does this come as a surprise to anyone?
We can recognize that the situation is not one dimensional and not reduce it to such. The same applies to the press release from Open AI - it is graceless, that much can be observed. But we do not yet know whether it is reprehensible, exemplary, or somewhere in between in the sense of morality and justice. It will come out, in other channels rather than official press releases, like in Bobby's case.
At least we can be sure that ChatGPT didn't write the statement, then.
Otherwise the last paragraph would have equivocated that both sides have a point.
To tell it in an exaggerated way, maturity should not imply sociopathy or completely disregard for everything.
Obviously I am referring here to Kottick situation. But, the definition where it is immature to tell the truth and mature to enable powerful bad players is wrong definition of maturity.
It sucks, but that's the world we live in, unfortunately.
Injustices are made to executives all the time. But airing dirty laundry is not sagacious.
But, when people use "maturity" as argument for why someone must be enabler, should not do the morally or ethically right thing, then it gets irritating. Conversely, calling people "immature" because they did not acted in the most self serving but sleazy way is ridiculous.
This isn't about being better at all.
> "a deliberative review process by the board, which concluded that he was not consistently candid in his communications with the board, hindering its ability to exercise its responsibilities."
> The provided text is not explicitly aggressive; however, it conveys a critical tone regarding the individual's communication, emphasizing hindrance to the board's responsibilities.
Did you actually run this through GPT...or did you poll Reddit?
Obviously it's not aggressive by the standards of everyday political drama or Internet forum arguments.
It's fair to say that usually if the board isn't obfuscating or outright lying in their announcements, that itself is an indicator of acrimony.
But usually, the board can financially incentivize a CEO to "step down" or even help them find a soft landing at another company to make it look like a mutually agreed on transition. Since they know this oustered CEO isn't interested in making nice in public, they really had no choice but to try to get in front of the story.
Given the fallout which is still spreading, I think they would've rather cut him a fat check for an explicit or implicit NDA and thanked him for his amazing contributions while wishing him well on his future endeavors if that option had been on the table.