zlacker

This seems extremely presumptuous. Have you ever been inside a company during a coup attempt? The employees’ future pay and livelihood is at stake, why are you assuming they weren’t being asked to sacrifice themselves by not objecting to the coup. The level of agreement could be entirely due to the fact that the stakes are very large, completely unlike your choice for lunch locale. It could also be an outcome of nobody having asked their opinion before making a very big change. I’d expect to see almost everyone at a company agree with each other if the question was, “hey should we close this profitable company and all go get other jobs, or should we keep working?”

>>dahart+(OP)
I have had a long career and have been through hostile mergers several times and at no point have I ever seen large numbers of employees act outside of their self-interest for an executive. It just doesn’t happen. Even in my career, with executives who are my friends, I would not act outside my personal interests. When things are corporately uncertain and people worry about their working livelihoods they just don’t tend to act that way. They tend to hunker heads down or jump independently.

The only explanation that makes any sense to me is that these folks know that AI is hot right now and would be scooped up quickly by other orgs…so there is little risk in taking a stand. Without that caveat, there is no doubt in my mind that there would not be this level of solidarity to a CEO.

>>kcplat+em
> at no point have I ever seen large numbers of employees act outside of their self-interest for an executive.

This is still making the same assumption. Why are you assuming they are acting outside of self-interest?

>>dahart+Ve1
If you are willing to leave a paycheck because of someone else getting slighted, to me, that is acting against your own self-interest. Assuming of course you are willing to actually leave. If it was a bluff, that still works against your self-interest by factioning against the new leadership and inviting retaliation for your bluff.

>>kcplat+8j1
Why do you assume they were willing to leave a paycheck because of someone else getting slighted? If that were the case, then it is unlikely everyone would be in agreement. Which indicates you might be making incorrect assumptions, no? And, again, why assume they were threatening to leave a paycheck at all? That’s a bad assumption; MS was offering a paycheck. We already know their salaries weren’t on the line, but all future stock earnings and bonuses very well might be. There could be other reasons too, I don’t see how you can conclude this was either a bluff or not self-interest without making potentially bad assumptions.

>>dahart+zt1
They threatened to quit. You don’t actually believe that a company would be willing to still provide them a paycheck if they left the company do you?

At this point I suspect you are being deliberately obtuse. Have a good day.

>>kcplat+HT1
They threatened to quit by moving to Microsoft, didn’t you read the letter? MS assured everyone jobs if they wanted to move. Isn’t making incorrect assumptions and sticking to them in the face of contrary evidence and not answering direct questions the very definition of obtuse?