[AndrewPGameDev]

How can a company be "people first" when they sell out to a larger company who isn't "people first"?

[joshcanhelp]

This is a good question. A lot of people, all over the world, put a lot of work into something and getting acquired turns stock options worth $0 into options worth a lot more than that. It’s just my $0.02 but, knowing the founders and who they are, I’m fairly sure this was more about giving back to the folks that made it happen than it was a purely business decision.

Also, Auth0 was investor-backed so there was likely a lot of pressure to sell at the price being offered. I don’t know how all that works exactly but I can imagine that this kind of decision is made by more people than just the founders.

[whoisthemachine]

Ethics are tricky!

[scott_w]

Just off the top of my head:

- They didn’t know the purchasing company wasn’t “people first”

- The founders burnt out and needed an exit

- The purchasing company was “people first” at the time of purchase

I’m not placing a judgement on Okta here, by the way, because I know nothing about them. Just answering your question.

[plagiarist]

At billions of dollars in acquisition you'd think any employee wouldn't have financial stability as a top concern like mentioned a few times here.

[akira2501]

The management was people first. The owners were VC. So maybe the original owners didn't care enough to interfere with the working management policy. The new owners do.

So.. "incidentally people first just until we can exit."

[eurg]

For a company I once worked, it was because the VCs held more than 50% of the company, and the founders - ultimately - didn't have a say.