What kind of actions do you think the board could take that are not in the interest of Altman? Given what happened it seems pretty hard for a board to vote to get rid of him.
I’m not sure what you mean. The main things would have been removing him from the board and replacing him as CEO, which they did.
But the board wasn’t able to control whether a new company backed by Microsoft threatened to scoop up all the employees. So they negotiated Altman’s return as CEO but not the board since that seemed worse.
Maybe paying closer attention to the CEO from the start and doing something earlier, or limiting or preventing commercialization and not having employee equity that would be at risk if the CEO changed might have been able to create a different outcome.
One of the key ways a board exerts control through it’s ability to be able to fire a CEO. The ability to threaten to fire the CEO is also important. The new board likely can do neither.
You seem to argue that there’s something positive that the board can do.
What kind of actions do you think the board could take that are not in the interest of Altman? Given what happened it seems pretty hard for a board to vote to get rid of him.
I’m not sure what you mean. The main things would have been removing him from the board and replacing him as CEO, which they did.
But the board wasn’t able to control whether a new company backed by Microsoft threatened to scoop up all the employees. So they negotiated Altman’s return as CEO but not the board since that seemed worse.
Maybe paying closer attention to the CEO from the start and doing something earlier, or limiting or preventing commercialization and not having employee equity that would be at risk if the CEO changed might have been able to create a different outcome.
One of the key ways a board exerts control through it’s ability to be able to fire a CEO. The ability to threaten to fire the CEO is also important. The new board likely can do neither.
You seem to argue that there’s something positive that the board can do.