> I find it hard to believe this was the kind of environment he was cultivating at OpenAI if 95% of the staff were ready to follow him out the door.

I work for a startup that's on the cusp of having an exit event valued at 70 billion dollars. Drama within the board, who I have no connection with, has reduced the probability of that happening to 0. There's a chance another company will hire me and my co-workers and match our total compensation in liquid stocks we can actually sell.

It's really hard to imagine why I or anyone else would sign a letter that turns back the decision impacting the exit event or join the company that'll actually let me cash out the equity portion of my compensation. It definitely reflects my feelings for the CEO and not my own self interest.

I can believe the staff likes or even loves him, but the following him part was mostly because of money/shares and because they know he's influential and well connected to people with money. And peer pressure may have had a part in that letter signing. You don't want to be on the side of the losers if Altman gets his way.

I want to know other people's opinion on this.

Because if it was me working at OpenAI, I would've signed it just out of peer pressure even if I disliked him. As the CEO, Altman undoubtedly shaped senior management that would've one way or another put pressure on everyone else under them.

When I was salaried, my main concern would've been to just get my pacheck and keep things going as smoothly as possible in my day-to-day with the least amount of drama. And I feel like a lot of people are like this.

I suspect the signers were a combination of wanting to follow their comp out the door and a bit of Tom Wambsgans from Succession: "Because I've seen you get fucked a lot, and I've never seen Logan [in this case Sam] get fucked once."

There's very little risk in signing if everything falls apart, but there's a lot of risk to not signing if Sam comes back on as lead.

> I find it hard to believe

I also find it hard to believe that anyone on HN interested in this space doesn't at least have a "friend of a friend" who works at OpenAI. Based on what I've heard (which is nothing particularly quotable), it certainly gives off the vibe of being exactly that "kind of environment"

OpenAI is more religion than company. Sam could be a deeply flawed leader and still have extreme loyalty due to what OpenAI has achieved under his leadership. The people at OpenAI are believers in a mission and that means they’re far more likely to allow personal failings to slide. He’s more a Musk figure than a whoever-the-ceo-of-McDonald’s-is figure.

> 95% of the staff were ready to follow him out the door.

I'd rephrase that to:

- "95% of the staff were ready to follow him and join Microsoft"

Amid so much confusion and uncertainty, the prospect of joining Microsoft through an acquihire would appear quite appealing and like the safest choice. This sentiment is strengthened considering the team's approval of Sam's leadership.

> 95% threatening to leave

Have you never had that employee or colleague who threatens to leave once a year? Curiously around pay negotiations?

Nobody joined Microsoft. Nobody left. Two people were fired. Lots of threats were made, every one magically leaked within minutes to Twitter.

Nobody followed anyone anywhere. Instead we saw $81bn vaporise, and the people who stood to gain from it panic and throw their weight around.

Isn't this how you gain power? You influence as many people as you can through suggestion that you can give them what they desire? Then grow that group to be large enough so that you're cemented within the org?

Manipulation doesn't even necessarily feel bad. Just promising something, or offering a place inside the "in-group" could do the trick for most. It's when you're up against someone whose job it is to safeguard something (like someone on the board dedicated to a mission) where you start needing to get a bit more gangster with your tactics.

If there _was_ a good reason to fire Sam, and the board had appropriately and clearly communicated their decision, I think less of the staff would have signed a the petition to walk. From the public's perspective, and probably most rank and file employees, this decision came from left field and had no logic behind it. The waffling and back peddling that followed certainly didn't help perception

If you give me the choice between making a lot of $$$ by working for a for-profit company or staying at a nonprofit with limited upside I'd also choose the former, even if I don't like the CEO much. Don't know where this myth of "people followed him" comes from. There is no evidence for it.

"95% of the staff" -- this is Kim Jong Un approval rate territory. caution advised.

When Ilya signed the letter, most of the researchers would follow suit.

As for the rest of the non-researching roles, most of them were hired after Altman's expansion for commercial operation. The existence and future prospersity of their jobs rely on having someone like Altman to push for profitabilty/go-to-market vision.

You don't need to manipulate all employees. Just key ones ;)

I feel the same way, however.

The 95% will lose a huge chunk of money if Sam leaves, at least their fortune are all in serious jeopardy. So, money might have played a bigger role here.

I don't know anything about the specific situation, but in general this is totally possible with a tyrannical leader.

If he does come back and you didn't sign, he'll make your life hell; if he comes back and you did sign, you will be rewarded for your loyalty.

Well maybe they were not as good at manipulating as others can be.

Cult of personality and connection to the 1% of 1% given our tech fueled economy skews worker motives.

If you had such a chance to sit around while everyone else grew your potatoes, you would.