You could imagine him [Twitter Chief Executive Officer Parag Agrawal] giving an answer that employees did want to hear. “This will make our product stronger than ever.” “This will give us the funding we need to improve the service.” “This means we can focus on delighting our users rather than on the stock price.” “This means more free speech, which is a core value of ours.” “Elon Musk is a business visionary and he will run the company better.” “Elon Musk loves Twitter and uses it way, way more than any of the current executives or directors, so he will run it better than we do.” I don’t know. I’m not saying that I necessarily believe any of those things, or that Agrawal does, or that you should. I’m just saying you could imagine the CEO of a company, who had just voted to sell that company, telling the employees of the company that that was the right decision for the company, whatever that means. You could imagine some enthusiasm. You could imagine the CEO thinking that the person who values the company the most and will pay the most for it — Musk — will do good things with it. Agrawal said the opposite. The implication is that Twitter has interests as a company that are distinct from the interests of its shareholders, but that Twitter’s board felt it had no choice but to do what was best for shareholders even if it was worse for the company. (Emphasis mine)
This deal, whether it happens or not, will be taught in business and law schools for years. I’m of the opinion the deal will not close, but I would not be surprised if it did.
Leadership seminar speakers will also probably mine this rich vein as maybe a cautionary tale? Employment coaches certainly will, telling their clients that if the company says stuff like Agarwal has, fire up the job search.