The moral of this story is that you don't support a high-level executive that calls your users "sluts" and still keep your job as CEO. It was immensely bad judgment that made Rad a bigger liability for the company than whatever value he could provide going forward.
> The moral of this story is that you don't support a high-level executive that calls your users "sluts" and still keep your job as CEO.
That's an interesting conclusion to draw from this.
Because, as others have pointed out, he still would have had his job if he had control of enough seats on the board, like Zuckerberg did. Indeed Zuckerberg still has a job after calling FB users "dumb fucks" and offering his friend private information of anyone at Harvard (including private photos, private messages, etc. etc.) http://www.businessinsider.com/well-these-new-zuckerberg-ims...
Sure, if you're a sole founder with control of the board, you can do that. If you're someone like Rad, selected to head up what is essentially a subsidiary of a public corporation. Most CEO's have the favor of the board, but don't have so much pull that they won't be replaced if they become a liability.
Right, I only brought it up in light of rayiner's comment -- that saying misogynistic, shitty things makes you lose your job as CEO. It doesn't, at least not when you control the board.
There seem to be a preponderance of founders under the illusion that a) this is practical in their circumstance and b) that this is desirable in their circumstance. While it was true for Zuckerberg, it is hardly true for most.
Particularly if you are an inexperienced founder, there comes a point where you and everyone else is better off with some checks and balances on your judgement. Having to hold yourself accounting to some other parties, assuming they the best interests of the company at heart, is a good thing.
