A CEO has the power to do anything, but employees have the power to collectively, quietly sandbag if they don't like the leadership. I think the AI effort led to a broad disillusionment, causing an unwillingness to put extra effort into their work. Across the company, everyone starts to take the path of least resistance. The CEO senses his influence waning and becomes more accommodating to avoid further morale death spiral. So situations can arise where a CEO would like a cleaner product (no one likes to ship garbage), but has lost the political capital to make it happen.
Aurornis|9 months ago
If you read the article you’ll see how the CEO wrote a memo about how productivity expectations will rise and started cutting contractors in favor of AI.
To suggest that this CEO was afraid of reducing morale by asking employees to put fewer pop-ups in the app is completely backward.
I don’t understand why you’re so intent on defending this particular CEO as trying to maintain morale when we’re quite literally in a comment section for an article where the CEO made a drastic anti-employee move that everyone could have seen was a morale destroyer.
It’s also hard to imagine a situation where the people making the app really, really want to pollute it with pop-ups and other junk, and they have to band together to resist the CEO’s efforts to make a good app, and then on top of all that the CEO rolls over and lets them do it despite wishing they wouldn’t.
The simplest explanation is that the employees are building the app and setting direction as mandated by executives. The app we see is the result of what executives are rewarding and asking for.
amsilprotag|9 months ago
[edit: thinking about it more, I think I have built up a lot of goodwill with the app over the years, and it's a strange mental process for years of goodwill to evaporate over the course of a few weeks]