[danenania]

Right, and another factor to consider is what percentage of the company was owned by investors. After a series B, they may have owned a majority. Apart from exerting pressure, it’s possible that this decision was made 100% by the investors and the founder(s) had no choice. It could also be considered poor form for a founder to make this public if that’s what happened.

It’s important to understand who is actually in charge before assigning blame to anyone.

[digging]

> It’s important to understand who is actually in charge before assigning blame to anyone.

But also,

> It could also be considered poor form for a founder to make this public if that’s what happened.

I mean, they asked the CEO what was going on and he didn't seem to give good explanations. Especially if it wasn't his decision.

[swyx]

maybe he knows the actual explanation that would be satisfactory is also the one he is contractually or professionally bound not to give.

[stevage]

If that were the case, why wouldn't the CEO say so?

[setgree]

I probably would have in their shoes, but that is one of many reasons I am not CEO. Bosses tell polite fictions that preserve relationships.

[vertis]

I've had some very close relationships with C levels at some big and medium companies. I've caught them lying in varying degrees more than once.

Sometimes though the job demands it. They're potentially not allowed to disclose something which leaves lying or saying nothing as the only other options. This works well until someone already knows the truth -- has their own source of information.

I didn't take offense, I just learned not to take what they said at face value. It's not a bad lesson in general. C level executives often learn to be ruthless, depending on the org, they can end up in real internal power struggles as well.

[Euphemistic]

Polite way to say that. Self-preservation almost always outweighs transparency regardless of the whether the truth is good or bad