Musk v. Altman trial exposes chaos in OpenAI's CEO selection

When companies choose a new CEO, the result is usually careful planning, candidate analysis and strategic calculation. In 2024, OpenAI did it differently: video calls, text messages between the current and former CEO, and no plan. The trial between Musk and Altman reveals just how chaotic it all was.

The Blip: the days that shook the industry

The Blip is the name given to those days in 2024 when Sam Altman was unexpectedly pushed out of OpenAI. It was not just a corporate scandal. It was a shock to the entire AI industry. The company that builds some of the most advanced artificial intelligence systems suddenly showed that its internal governance was in chaos.

But while the scandal was unfolding, few people knew what was actually happening behind the closed doors of the board. Various sources provided contradictory information. Until now, the details remained largely hidden behind the scenes of corporate politics. Now the trial between Musk and Altman is opening the archives. The documents under review by the court paint a picture that shocks not with the scale of the conflict, but rather with the absence of a basic governance structure.

Video calls instead of a succession strategy

One of the most striking details in the court documents concerns how exactly the new CEO was chosen. At most serious corporations, such a process is formalized: board meetings, prepared presentations on candidates, official votes, documentation of every step. At OpenAI it looked completely different.

The new CEO was chosen through video calls among board members. No documentation, no standard procedure, no formal candidate selection committee: just conversations on video.

But the most striking part: the sitting CEO of OpenAI sent text messages to the company's former CEO about who the next leader would be. Picture it: the current chief essentially clears candidates for his own job over a messenger app. There is no written succession plan and no formal procedure for assessing competencies. At any serious corporation, such an approach is considered a violation of basic principles of corporate governance. At OpenAI it became the normal way to make one of the most important decisions in the company's history:

• Choosing a new CEO through video calls
• Agreeing on candidates in private messages
• No documented succession plan
• Unclear division of responsibility among board members
• Haste in making a strategic decision

Haste, conflicts and systemic confusion

The court documents show that the whole process took place in a rush. Board members apparently did not have enough time to consider all potential candidates and their qualifications carefully. Decisions were made quickly, sometimes spontaneously, after video calls that could last just an hour or two.

In addition, people with conflicting interests took part in selecting the new CEO. The former CEO, the current CEO and various board members each had their own vision for the company's future and their own preferences for a successor. These conflicts were not resolved through a formal process. Instead, they simply piled up and created tension inside the organization.

What the trial reveals

Musk's view of how the CEO was chosen clearly differs from Altman's. The trial shows that the two sides interpret the events and decisions that were made differently. For the public, this means we are now getting what may be the first full look at how internal governance really works at one of the world's most influential AI companies.

What this means for the industry

The Blip story is more than a corporate scandal or an internal conflict. It is a reminder that even the most innovative companies, which build the most advanced AI systems, remain vulnerable to internal conflict and poor management. For investors in tech startups, it is a reason to reconsider what they actually look at when valuing a company: do they pay enough attention to corporate governance and decision-making structure? For leaders of other tech companies, it is a clear lesson in the critical importance of formalizing governance processes and leadership selection. And for OpenAI itself, it is an expensive experience that showed the real price of missing strategic planning at critical moments in a company's life.