Re:Uber Board to Discuss CEO Absence, Policy Changes: Source
by twblalock on Sunday June 11, 2017 @01:42PM
(#14532885)
The board didn't ride his coattails -- the board's money is the reason the company still exists.
Your argument about "coattails," and your Steve Jobs example, make it seem like you believe that a company exists for the benefit of its founders. That's true if the entire company is the founders in a garage making things, but it all changes once the company takes outside investment -- after that, the company exists for the benefit of its shareholders.
The board has a right to make sure the company is run well -- they company gave the board that right in exchange for the board's money. If the CEO is hurting the company, its investors, and its employees, it is good for the board to step in and prevent him from doing so, even if he was the founder.
Your argument about "coattails," and your Steve Jobs example, make it seem like you believe that a company exists for the benefit of its founders. That's true if the entire company is the founders in a garage making things, but it all changes once the company takes outside investment -- after that, the company exists for the benefit of its shareholders.
The board has a right to make sure the company is run well -- they company gave the board that right in exchange for the board's money. If the CEO is hurting the company, its investors, and its employees, it is good for the board to step in and prevent him from doing so, even if he was the founder.