Sign up FAST! Login

Choices for a C.E.O.: Quit Now, Quit Soon or Be Fired

Stashed in: Decisions, Communication, CEOs, Boards

To save this post, select a stash from drop-down menu or type in a new one:

Getting backstabbed after someone on the team has spent months of planning in order to make it happen while pretending to be a friend.

"Choices for a C.E.O.: Quit Now, Quit Soon or Be Fired"

Wow. Sounds like a terrible, terrible experience.

Some people are just good at playing politics and pretending to care about a future of a company when in reality it was always about the money for them or the fame.

Months of planning? Sounds like he's been planning it for YEARS:

The seeds of the turmoil were planted in April when Mr. O’Neill, who had been on the board since 2009, took over as chairman from Richard D. Parsons.

Some executives close to Mr. Pandit immediately identified Mr. O’Neill’s ascent as bad news for Mr. Pandit, regardless of how the bank was faring. After all, Mr. O’Neill had vied for the chief executive position before it ultimately went to Mr. Pandit in 2007.

Think about how cold hearted deceptive someone has to be, to plan for someone's removal for years without that person knowing it.

It's still striking that this was a complete surprise:

Vikram Pandit’s last day at Citigroup swung from celebratory to devastating in a matter of minutes. Having fielded congratulatory e-mails about the earnings report in the morning that suggested the bank was finally on more solid ground, Mr. Pandit strode into the office of the chairman at day’s end on Oct. 15 for what he considered just another of their frequent meetings on his calendar.

Instead, Mr. Pandit, the chief executive of Citigroup, was told three news releases were ready. One stated that Mr. Pandit had resigned, effective immediately. Another that he would resign, effective at the end of the year. The third release stated Mr. Pandit had been fired without cause. The choice was his.

This demonstrates a significant communication breakdown.

Ultimately, it's a Board's prerogative to keep a CEO or not.

What's striking about this example is how much the CEO thought he was doing a great job despite the Board preparing for him to exit. can see why some CEOs like Pincus retain iron-fist control.

Not that that's a good thing, either.

Zynga would probably benefit from more sharing of control.