Yes, of course. He didn't handle it well at all. The problems aren't going away with him stepping down, unfortunately, and considering his replacement, it doesn't seem like there's any interest in fixing the real issues that are plaguing the company.
He's fired half the team, he's making radical changes very quickly, he's requiring long hours, and likely any new employee needs to figure out how to do their job on their own because it seems he fired people without much thought and so it's very possible that the people who know how stuff works are gone or too busy to help.
Meanwhile, revenue seems to be going down, and the perception is that it may all go down the drain.
That seems a very un-fun situation to be in, with very little to gain or learn from it.
Now, if he somehow left or sold the company to somebody else, then trying to pick up the pieces afterwards might be an interesting challenge, assuming the new management is supportive.
He is being "relieved of his duties as CEO" according to the report. Saying he's "stepping down" is IMHO like saying a fugitive "turned himself in" when police arrived at his house with an arrest warrant. (Although I don't think he is being accused of anything criminal here.) Most of the incidents appear to stem from technical errors and poorly implemented processes, but the whole list points to his inability to lead this kind of company effectively.
I'm always skeptical of whether replacing a few executives can actually fix the cultural problems that were fostered/ignored in a company over time. The new leadership has to overcome a lot of inertia, and that's assuming they're any better than the old. They're also still answering to the same investors and pressures.
I don't think so. As I understand it, they wished things had worked out better for him because he was a founder/exec and a bunch of layoffs means it's already going down the drain.
This decision is correct, given all the incorrect strategic decisions he made leading up to it. The markets have clearly lost a lot of confidence in his leadership, and I would have to imagine the remaining employees have too. Stepping down would be a drastic step, but merely stating “I take responsibility” is unlikely on its own to restore confidence in his ability to right the ship either.
(I meant some people will, I personally don't expect anything, and don't really care - none of this is in my power in any way, shape or form.)
Or at least, to give the rough date at which he will resign, so that someone more competent will run the company, avoiding the mistakes that brought it so bad that it has to lay off 15%.
There are mistakes that you can recover from, and you don't fire an exec (or anyone) at the first blunder. But if you have to cut an arm to recover from your mistake, you have to be shown the door, or at least the direction of the door.
Baring that, he can substantially reduce his income in the next few years, so that the company can be more generous with the laid off people. Reducing his salary is a step in this direction, but we don't know how the structure of his compensation - salary might be symbolic.
Also, has he made clear to his board that the situation is so bad that shareholders will also have to chip in, and accept reduced or no return on their investment for a number of years ? Again, sharing the burden.
Again, in the grand scheme of things, this is a least closer to "taking responsibility". Just, not there yet.
We have bigger issues, but yes. We eventually cut him out of the loop and would not let him show stuff that was not ready. Working on quitting not from issues like these, but they are not too far off. If you are will to stretch the truth, then basically you are not trustworthy, whether when dealing with end-users, investors or employees. Next it will be 'mis-communications'regarding raises, options, titles, etc.
> At this point "taking responsibility" would mean resigning and letting someone more competent fix his messes.
Your derision is probably blinding you from the solution that's most likely to produce the best outcome -- him learning from his mistakes & cleaning up his own mess.
Resigning is not going to be a magical fix-all. I bet if he could resign and walk off in the sunset without the stock price tanking, he would do it in a heartbeat. Being the CEO of a company like this is painful, contrary to what the blood-thirsty mob would have you believe.
It's ironic that your definition of "taking responsibility" is him quitting and having someone else clean up his mess. Paying back a portion of his stock based compensation from 2021 or forfeiting his comp going forward would make sense though.
He had only been in the position for less than three years, this has been going on for over a decade. I'm sure he's partially culpable, but I also think he might the fall guy allowing Bobby Kotick (CEO) to stay in place.
From everything I've read, he voluntarily stepped down, without any pressure exerted on him by anyone above him or who otherwise has direct power over him. Has anybody seen any indication otherwise?
In this case, I'm more inclined to see it as a good move overall. He isn't a backroom coder or language designer or something, whose opinions and PR profile don't really matter. As CEO, his whole job is to lead, set the direction of the company, and be its public face. This issue, and his handling of it, seem to show that he isn't really cut out for the job and shouldn't be doing it. It was probably a mistake to take it in the first place, but I don't think he could have a good career just moving to a lower position at the company now.
I will say that I respect him more for stepping down on his own, and for not pulling some bullshit PR move like apologizing or making a token donation to some pro-LGBT cause. That always seemed so slimy to me - like saying "I probably still believe what I always believed, but I will kowtow to the PC gods and make a PR move to save my job without ever actually standing up for what I believe."
His response to the question of "should you step down?" was "no, absolutely not, people's lives depend on me leading this company." No one is that important, and 346 people died unnecessarily on his watch from negligent business processes. He should be forced out.
He's such a bad CEO that I can't believe he's still in the seat. Just the way he let the employees revolt and embarrass him. If he had any dignity or pride he would have resigned then. He may know all the facts on how businesses should be run and is a good guy, but he has 0 leadership skills. Just an awful, terrible leader. The ChatGPT fiasco is further evidence the place has been mismanaged the last 8 years.
I contend that even if he is a scapegoat, this should be considered a good thing. It's not enough to let them off the hook, but I don't think anything would be. However, needing to scapegoat someone is a materialized cost to a verifiable person in power. It is a precedent the next CEO and chair will have to pay attention to. They will need to be more careful in the future when they try to rip off their business partners.
This situation is being watched by all the other executives out there at other companies, who are just waiting for a moment where they think they could get away with the same thing. This resignation is a loud and clear "don't you dare!"
Yes, he was definitely fired after a short stint. Stories on why don't totally line up for me, but incompetence is one of the explanations, and I feel like it's pretty hard to get fired from a CEO spot that quickly.
reply