I'm sorry, but I can't connect the dots in that story.
1) He did great (like, there's actual metrics mentioned)
2) Others wanted a different direction (even though he did great?) and didn't tell him
3) They excluded him from meetings
4) They fired him
5) He blamed not "re-centering" himself
In the notes, he mentions that one of his later decisions (splitting engineering) was a bad choice. So isn't that the core of it, then?
The way he describes it, it sounds like the problem was him not being himself but it sounds like it's a simple management error that the others were too socially awkward to point out to him, instead firing him outright.
1) He did great (like, there's actual metrics mentioned)
2) Others wanted a different direction (even though he did great?) and didn't tell him
3) They excluded him from meetings
4) They fired him
5) He blamed not "re-centering" himself
In the notes, he mentions that one of his later decisions (splitting engineering) was a bad choice. So isn't that the core of it, then?
The way he describes it, it sounds like the problem was him not being himself but it sounds like it's a simple management error that the others were too socially awkward to point out to him, instead firing him outright.