In this article, I examine the defective corporate structure and the neglect of governance evolution in a year of great changes, which have led to the chaos surrounding Sam altman's dismissal. My conclusion is that the alternative governance structure is not the problem, as some people may easily speculate, although the establishment and management of such a special structure make it vulnerable to disasters, other alternative structures, such as the established structure, pass by. A more careful combination can better coordinate the interests of multiple stakeholders and should be more adaptable to slow goal differences or sudden organizational shocks. On Friday, May, the CEO and co-founder were unceremoniously dismissed by four members of the company's non-profit board of directors. As of Monday, May, it seems that he will join Microsoft as the CEO of the new artificial intelligence department he will help create. Mr. Altman will be appointed by Greg Brow, former chairman and chief operating officer of the board of directors. Kerman joined Microsoft, and the latter resigned within a few hours after Mr. Altman was ousted and demoted to the board of directors last Friday. Other senior employees subsequently resigned and planned to join the new Microsoft department, and more people are likely to do so. It is reported that at least one of the employees signed a petition asking the company to recall Mr. Altman and dissolve the board of directors. Apart from the shock and anger of the employees, investors were very uneasy about Mr. Altman's sudden dismissal without informing anyone in advance and it seemed to have no substance. The company is about to carry out another round of financing, which will require the second sale of employees' shares, with a valuation of $ billion, which is three times the current valuation. The financing seems to be in danger. Of course, the valuation can't bear the instability brought to the company, which harms the interests of employees and previous investors. Although the board of directors is busy repairing the losses caused by dismissal and returning Mr. Wang over the weekend, it still retains its role and temporarily and quickly demotes the chief technology officer of the interim CEO only last Friday. Emmett Hill, who was appointed as interim CEO to support the former CEO, expressed regret at the early morning of Monday, one of the members of the board of directors who co-founder and chief scientist planned to remove Mr. Altman. I deeply regret participating in the actions of the board of directors for what happened. I never thought that the fate of injury was pending, and it remains to be seen how the company was deeply hurt. No matter what prompted the board of directors to first think that it was appropriate to remove Mr. Altman, in anyone's perfect world. The confusion and uncertainty brought by the exemption and its implementation will certainly not be the goal. All this is a fiasco. There are many things to be said and yet to be discovered about Shakespeare's plays. Now it can be said with certainty that this is a complete failure of enterprise management. What happened represents a huge and clear failure of corporate governance. No matter whether Altman comes back after being fired or not, who knows that he may still be the case. How was he executed at first and what happened later? The confusion provides all the evidence of failure we need. From the perspective of governance, we can get an interesting and perhaps the most convincing view of the problem. The data points in the past few days are easily affected by multiple readings. Even those who agree with the failure of governance may blame it on different reasons. Some critics will be happy to see that the will of the board of directors has prevailed. They will think that this is the victory of board governance. For example, see here that after being fired, it is based on employees and investors. Others may accuse the company of alternative governance structure and think that any behavior that is too creative or exotic to make major shareholders out of supervision and decision-making is flawed. Basic information of corporate governance: For-profit companies usually have a board of directors, which usually includes one or two company executives and representatives from venture capital companies that contribute the most money. It is healthy to have other external or independent directors. They can bring new ideas to governance and management affairs without being excessively influenced by their own interests. Members of the board of directors of a company have fiduciary obligations to the company, usually in order to promote positive business performance, ensure compliance with laws and regulations and maximize shareholder returns. The board of directors of a non-profit company operates in roughly the same way. Independent directors may be representatives of one or more of the largest charitable supporters of the organization, and the biggest difference between some managers lies in the existence of non-profit organizations. At present, it is not to maximize shareholders' value or profits. They usually take charity or social welfare as their main mission. In addition to maximizing business performance in general, for-profit or non-profit boards have no specific fiduciary obligation to their employees or external stakeholders, such as customers or business partners. Most healthy organizations will pay attention to the interests of different stakeholders because they know what to do and what may be required beyond the fiduciary obligation or legal requirements. Corporate governance will often support the realization of business performance, whether in maximizing shareholder value or achieving charity or social welfare goals. At the end of the year, corporate governance was established as a non-profit organization. The purpose of choosing non-profit forms is to build a safe and beneficial general artificial intelligence for the benefit of mankind. As described by the company, it is believed that it will be the most effective tool to guide the development of safe and widely beneficial, and it will not be hindered by profit incentives. However, after several years of operation, the company realized that it is ambitious. As explained, it is more and more obvious that donations alone cannot match the computing power and talent cost needed to promote the core research, thus endangering our mission. Therefore, we have designed a structure to retain the governance and supervision of the core mission of non-profit organizations, and at the same time enable us to raise funds for our mission. It is expected that we will receive an initial investment of US$ 100 million from Microsoft in 2008 under the leadership of Mr. Wang, the original non-profit organization. Established for-profit subsidiaries, these for-profit entities will be able to legally accept external investment and provide equity to employees. This major for-profit subsidiary has adopted a profit ceiling mechanism. Investors can only hope to get up to times the return on investment, and the excess will be returned to non-profit organizations for their broader mission. The only board of directors controls the non-profit entities located above and controls all other subsidiaries. Before being removed, the board of directors was composed of three senior executives, chairmen and three independent directors and CEOs, and the strategy and strategy of Georgetown University Security and Emerging Technology Center. 比特币今日价格行情网_okx交易所app_永续合约_比特币怎么买卖交易_虚拟币交易所平台

注册有任何问题请添加 微信：MVIP619 拉你进入群

文章转载注明 网址：https://netpsp.com/?id=63009