I think that's a reasonable position in response from an employee trying to "activate a clause written into their contract to allow them to immediately get all their stock if the company began “implementing monetization initiatives” without their consent" .

Now whether or not he was in the right to demand it, when actually doing so I doubt anyone expected to have a working relationship after that.

In a vacuum, perhaps, but I think there's more to it than that.

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.

> 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.

>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.

But it was Mark & Co that went predatory and started implementing monetization initiatives, right? It still paints Mark in bad light, it's not like Koum & Co weren't entitled to that part of the contract and instead were the primary violators?

To be fair, I don't know if exploring/researching/soliciting input on monetization ahead of the "implementation" standstill is bad faith at all.

Why would you agree to a contract with that clause if you aren't prepared for it to be invoked?

> perhaps they had previously discovered terms in which monetization would be agreeable.

If that was the case, I doubt it would have been explicitly and legally formalized in the contract as disallowed without a payout.

If two parties decide that a clause of a contract doesn't need to be enforced, you rewrite the contract. Anything else is just stupid, as it allows the person likely to gain to say "well, I didn't really mean that...".

If you've formalized something in a legally binding contract, be prepared to follow through on it. Full stop.

But he must have signed of on the contract, so he would know it could happen? Why act all offended by it? Especially since Facebook's agenda seem pretty clear-cut: put ads into WhatsApp

That's brutal and manichean, you can organize a soft transition, you can organize a change of role at the same company, you can try to convince the person to do something else than resigning, you can even discuss with the person what they want to do after they are gone and see if you can help.

Engaging instead of sending the thugs to empty the cubicle.

It could also be empathizing with an angry person.

For example, an employee is rude to a client.

You call the client to do damage control, because you have a personal relationship, the client continues to be furious.

You say "Look, I know you're angry and I know this is probably the last time you'll ever talk to me, but if I can say one last thing, it will be that we have always tried to <insert conciliatory remainder of conversation>"

I don't know if that is always arrogance or entitlement, is it?

It’s clear from his testimony in front of Congress that dealing with people isn’t his fortay.

*Forte

Thanks! I’d blame autocorrect but this one is a layer 8 issue.

Or could it just be Zuckerberg realizing that he is burning all bridges by implementing the monetization?

>entitlement

Who does Zuck think he is, the CEO of facebook?

This. I'd always assumed Zuck was like this, great to see some confirmation that my expectations for him weren't too low.

I'd be careful about assuming that. A context switch can make anything sound like anything.

This paints a clear picture of the opposite. An employee saying "this is probably the last time you’ll ever talk to me" to their employer is an arrogant and entitled behavior on behalf of the employee.

Because the "I'm the CEO, bitch" business cards weren't clear enough.

What?! Zuck dropped a cool $21B on the app - I believe he's entitled to expect a return on investment without being bullied, using a public business model everyone knew about. Facebook isn't a non profit, and zuck is actually accountable to investors

And of course he is well known for that.

What is less well-known is the elite institutions which groomed him tend to not do much of anything about the fact that they are sometimes, not always, sending these types of Stanford-Prison-Superiority-Complex personalities out into the world.