Did they actually say that theory, or was that his theory for why they "never listened to him"?
The article doesn't say explicitly, but I strongly suspect (having read a lot of Greenspun's online writing) that when he says "they developed a theory", he's basing that on things they said and did.
Also, of course, the objective data (plenty of which is given in the article) made it clear that Greenspun's criticisms were valid, so clearly the other Board members should have listened to him.
Maybe they did "listen" but couldn't do anything about it?
There's another side to that story, of course.[1] They were in the middle the dot-com implosion and all their customers were dot-com businesses. It's not hard to convince me that the professional managers were bozos (and the games they play to maintain board control should be required reading), but that boat was sinking no matter who was in charge.
Maybe they did "listen" but couldn't do anything about it?
Couldn't do anything because there was nothing that could possibly have been done, or couldn't do anything because they were the wrong people to be running the company? Certainly the dot-com bust didn't help, but you appear to agree that the "professional managers" brought in by the VCs were not up to the task, which leaves open the question of what managers that were up to the task would or could have done. Unfortunately we can't re-run the experiment to see what would happen if ArsDigita had not taken the VC investment and the original management had remained in charge.
There is another side to Ars Digita
True, and Michael Yoon's story is a good counterpoint to Greenspun's.
Comments
Did they actually say that theory, or was that his theory for why they "never listened to him"?
I'm biased because I've been around boards where some guy says "you never listen to me!" and it's not just because we are all precious snowflakes.
Did they actually say that theory, or was that his theory for why they "never listened to him"?
The article doesn't say explicitly, but I strongly suspect (having read a lot of Greenspun's online writing) that when he says "they developed a theory", he's basing that on things they said and did.
Also, of course, the objective data (plenty of which is given in the article) made it clear that Greenspun's criticisms were valid, so clearly the other Board members should have listened to him.
Maybe they did "listen" but couldn't do anything about it?
There's another side to that story, of course.[1] They were in the middle the dot-com implosion and all their customers were dot-com businesses. It's not hard to convince me that the professional managers were bozos (and the games they play to maintain board control should be required reading), but that boat was sinking no matter who was in charge.
[1] http://web.archive.org/web/20061015135632/http://michael.yoo...
There is another side to Ars Digita
Maybe they did "listen" but couldn't do anything about it?
Couldn't do anything because there was nothing that could possibly have been done, or couldn't do anything because they were the wrong people to be running the company? Certainly the dot-com bust didn't help, but you appear to agree that the "professional managers" brought in by the VCs were not up to the task, which leaves open the question of what managers that were up to the task would or could have done. Unfortunately we can't re-run the experiment to see what would happen if ArsDigita had not taken the VC investment and the original management had remained in charge.
There is another side to Ars Digita
True, and Michael Yoon's story is a good counterpoint to Greenspun's.