[asfarley]

I took a look to see if Softbank was hiring any vetting-watchdogs to prevent this in the future.

They had one open position. It required all applications to have an extensive history at a prestigous VC firm, i.e. they are looking for people from the in-group.

I think a less-incestuous vetting strategy would give more honest results. Too bad, I think there's a lot of people on HN who would excel at this position despite not having worked at a big VC.

[jessaustin]

I have no particular love for any of the big-name "prestigious" VCs, but ISTM they haven't had much influence at WeWork so far. Instead SoftBank just handed the keys to a crazy dude, with the thought that he would make it rain. Maybe it didn't rain hard enough, but the firm is still in business and now they've gotten rid of the crazy dude. Maybe SoftBank just sees this as a slightly more intense version of the traditional transition from founders to "professional" management? It seems likely to feature a great deal of the equity dilution that founders traditionally suffer...

[flukus]

Considering their current vetting is quite lacking, shouldn't they be looking to hire someone experienced? You don't hire a junior engineer to build you're new enterprise system.

[ms4720]

Perhaps shouldn't would be more accurate

[duxup]

I don't see why someone with that history would necessarily do a poor job.

[OnlineGladiator]

I think his point is an insider can't see the forest through the trees, and you need a fresh perspective to understand what's really happening. Basically that hiring an insider just perpetuates the echo chamber.

[duxup]

What makes that resume necessarily an insider?

[OnlineGladiator]

He means the entire VC industry is an echo chamber.

[duxup]

But is that what WeWork is?