Lawsuit reveals chaos in OpenAI CEO selection

When companies select a new CEO, it's usually the result of careful planning, candidate analysis, and strategic considerations. OpenAI in 2024 decided to do things differently: video calls, text messages between the current and former CEO, and no plan whatsoever. The lawsuit between Musk and Altman reveals just how chaotic things really were.

The Blip — the days that shook the industry

The Blip — that's what they called those days in 2024 when Sam Altman was unexpectedly fired from OpenAI. It wasn't just a corporate scandal — it was a shock to the entire AI industry. A company that develops the most cutting-edge artificial intelligence systems suddenly showed that its internal governance was in chaos.

But at the moment when the scandal was just unfolding, few knew what was actually happening behind closed doors of the board of directors. Various sources provided conflicting information. Until now, the details remained largely hidden behind the scenes of corporate politics.

But now the lawsuit between Musk and Altman opens the archives. The documents being reviewed by the court show a picture that shocks not by the scale of the conflict, but rather by the absence of basic management structure.

Video calls instead of succession strategy

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

The selection of a new CEO happened through video calls between board members. No documentation, no standard procedure, no formed selection committee — just conversations in video format. But the most striking part: the acting CEO of OpenAI sent text messages to the former CEO of the company about who would be the next leader.

Imagine this picture — the current manager essentially coordinating candidacies for his own position through a messenger app. No written succession plan, no formal procedure for assessing competencies. Such an approach in any serious corporation would be considered a violation of basic corporate governance principles.

• Selection of new CEO through video calls
• Coordination of candidates in private messages
• Absence of documented succession plan
• Unclear distribution of responsibility among board members
• Haste in making a strategic decision

Haste, conflicts and systemic confusion

The court documents show that the entire process happened under conditions of haste. Board members apparently didn't have enough time for careful consideration of all potential candidates and their qualifications. Decisions were made quickly, sometimes spontaneously, as a result of video calls that might last only an hour or two. Moreover, the process of selecting a new CEO involved people with conflicting interests. The former CEO, the current CEO, different board members — each had their own vision of the company's future and their own preferences regarding the successor. These contradictions were not resolved through a formal process — instead, they simply accumulated, creating tension within the organization.

What the lawsuit reveals

Musk's opinion on how the CEO was selected is obviously different from Altman's perspective. The lawsuit shows that both sides have different interpretations of the events and decisions that were made. For the public, this means that we now get, perhaps, the first full look at how the internal governance of one of the most influential AI companies in the world actually functions.

What this means for the industry

The story of The Blip is more than just a corporate scandal or internal conflict. It's a reminder that even the most innovative companies that develop the most cutting-edge AI systems remain vulnerable to internal conflicts and poor management. For investors in tech startups, this is reason to reconsider what they actually look at when evaluating a company — are they paying enough attention to questions of corporate governance and decision-making structure? For leaders of other tech companies, it's a clear lesson about the critical importance of formalizing management processes and leadership selection. And for OpenAI itself, it's an expensive lesson that showed the real cost of lacking strategic planning at critical moments in a company's life.