ensuring they got written statements from Altman on concerns they thought he might be dishonest about and comparing them to the actual facts then giving him concrete requirements to improve his behaviour,
and perhaps (if it’s compatible with an investigation) publicly expressing concerns and calling out Altman for his behaviour.
If none of that worked, they could publicly call for his resignation and if he didn’t give it, then make the difficult decision of whether to oust him on nonspecific grounds or collectively resign as the board.
Choosing instead to fire him to the complete shock of other employees and the world at large still seems like such a deeply counterproductive path that it inclines me towards scepticism of her subsequent justification and toward the interpretation of bad faith Peter presented in this comment.
The stated behaviour sounds like grounds for
opening an investigation,
ensuring they got written statements from Altman on concerns they thought he might be dishonest about and comparing them to the actual facts then giving him concrete requirements to improve his behaviour,
and perhaps (if it’s compatible with an investigation) publicly expressing concerns and calling out Altman for his behaviour.
If none of that worked, they could publicly call for his resignation and if he didn’t give it, then make the difficult decision of whether to oust him on nonspecific grounds or collectively resign as the board.
Choosing instead to fire him to the complete shock of other employees and the world at large still seems like such a deeply counterproductive path that it inclines me towards scepticism of her subsequent justification and toward the interpretation of bad faith Peter presented in this comment.