Re:WhatsApp Cofounder Brian Acton on Why He Left $850M Behind
by JumpCrisscross on Wednesday September 26, 2018 @01:53PM
(#18078518)
> access to the CEO is so tightly controlled that it's basically used as a political weapon
This is true at almost any organization of scale. Access to top decision makers must be restricted. The people who make decisions about the restrictions, therefore, gain influence through that process. The power can be used properly or improperly. In this case, it appears to have been used properly: there was no further discussion on the matter, and the employee had shown themselves to be out of line with the CEO's strategy.
Re:WhatsApp Cofounder Brian Acton on Why He Left $850M Behind
by macspoofing on Wednesday September 26, 2018 @05:51PM
(#18080582)
>It seems like Facebook is a company where access to the CEO is so tightly controlled that it's basically used as a political weapon.
Is it different at any other Fortune 50 company? At that scale, the companies are basically nations.
Another account yesterday mentioned plans to put Kevin Systrom under a different manager that would have given him "less access to Zuckerberg." Earlier accounts described them as friendly, always seen together, etc.
It seems like Facebook is a company where access to the CEO is so tightly controlled that it's basically used as a political weapon.