"Announced CEO transition..." Rawlinson out as CEO

[borski]

Reminder: stay on topic. There is an off topic forum for nonsense or politics (against my better judgment), but it is definitely not allowed on threads outside that forum. This is in the guidelines. Read them again, please.

Any future political or off-topic posts in this thread will be deleted, and if you make it heated about politics again it will get closed. Nobody wants that.

The topic is Peter’s departure as CEO and related. Try to stay in the airport, as much as you might like to take a flight somewhere else.

 

[Blue Lectroid]

Just a quick note here of gratitude, thanks so much to Peter Rawlinson for making a dream a reality. The cars that you and your team created are revolutionary, and I enjoy my AGT as much today as I did when I first got it 2 years ago. I think with most endeavors, there is a leader for the vision, a leader for the development, a leader for the execution, and a leader for the continued success. Very rarely it is the same person for all 4 as each stage requires a very unique and different skill set. To have successfully navigated even the first two phases is a complement in the highest honor. Wishing the board great wisdom in finding a new battle-tested and passionate CEO that can spearhead this car company to the prominence it deserves. There is much promise on the horizon. Thanks again Peter!

Loved your post and echo the sentiments!!

 

[ButMahElectrons]

In employment law, "cause" is something of a technical term. It usually means malfeasance, such as violation of law or company policies. Removal due to falling short of expected results in some area is more often termed "performance-related". People removed for cause almost invariably have all ties with an enterprise severed. People removed from a position for performance -- especially very senior people -- sometimes transfer to other roles and maintain some sort of relationship with the enterprise.

I feel certain Rawlinson was not removed for cause. Whether the Board was disappointed in some key aspect of his performance is a murkier question, particularly in light of the statement the Board released emphasizing that there was no daylight between them and Rawlinson on the policies, goals, and operations of the company. It communicated a sense of amicability, mutual understanding, and even gratitude that is often absent from such statements.

To tangent a bit, "with cause" is also used by companies to terminate when employment objectives and performance goals are not met. Either realistically or fictitiously.
I say fictitiously, because it was recently revealed at my former employer, that they would put multiple people on Performance Improvement Plans, out of the blue. Even when past performance was stellar. It's a way for them to drive out people they don't want, without doing layoffs. As well as being able to dismiss you "with cause" for not meeting their unattainable PIPs.
That way, they do not have unemployment metrics against them and can even rebuke benefits.

 

[Tym]

he is still getting 120k a month and 2m stock
i'd say thats a pretty decent offer his age, i'd probably take it too and retire.

 

[borski]

To tangent a bit, "with cause" is also used by companies to terminate when employment objectives and performance goals are not met. Either realistically or fictitiously.
I say fictitiously, because it was recently revealed at my former employer, that they would put multiple people on Performance Improvement Plans, out of the blue. Even when past performance was stellar. It's a way for them to drive out people they don't want, without doing layoffs. As well as being able to dismiss you "with cause" for not meeting their unattainable PIPs.
That way, they do not have unemployment metrics against them and can even rebuke benefits.

Sure, but this is technically illegal. That employee could then sue for wrongful termination, as the company would have to document any bad performance prior to the PIP.

Of course it happens, but so does armed robbery

 

[Amster]

he is still getting 120k a month and 2m stock
i'd say thats a pretty decent offer his age, i'd probably take it too and retire.

I'm having a hard time believing that the money and stock mean half as much to him as being involved in the company.

Sure, but this is technically illegal. That employee could then sue for wrongful termination, as the company would have to document any bad performance prior to the PIP.
Of course it happens, but so does armed robbery

Lots of ways of getting rid of people you don't want. My old company let go of a guy who really wasn't doing his job very well, but they didn't have any records on it. So they eliminated his position and let him go. And since they actually needed someone to do that job, they changed the title of it and hired someone else.

 

[tonybot]

I'm having a hard time believing that the money and stock mean half as much to him as being involved in the company.

I agree. I personally didn’t think that was too significant of an amount for the CEO either.

 

[hmp10]

I'm having a hard time believing that the money and stock mean half as much to him as being involved in the company.

I think this may be true if he had the opportunity to stay involved in the company.

However, I think that given his now being out of the company, money and stock might mean considerably more in the context of what keeps him from taking his talents to a competitor.

And remember that none of us know for sure why he left. If it was voluntary, he lessened his involvement of his own accord.

 

[Amster]

I think this may be true if he had the opportunity to stay involved in the company.

However, I think that given his now being out of the company, money and stock might mean considerably more in the context of what keeps him from taking his talents to a competitor.

And remember that none of us know for sure why he left. If it was voluntary, he lessened his involvement of his own accord.

Total agreement on the first two points, As to your third point, I've seen high level people leave voluntarily and some being forced to go by various means. It's true that none of us knows for sure why he's out, but it sure seems more like the second to me.

 

[hmp10]

Total agreement on the first two points, As to your third point, I've seen high level people leave voluntarily and some being forced to go by various means. It's true that none of us knows for sure why he's out, but it sure seems more like the second to me.

It does to me, too. But I'm feeling a bit of collective guilt that we're all (myself certainly included) assuming so much without really knowing. It just seems a bit disrespectful to a man who has done so many amazing things in his career, including playing a huge role in first igniting widespread public interest in EVs at Tesla and more recently putting many of us into some of the finest cars on the planet, EV or ICE.

 

[borski]

Lots of ways of getting rid of people you don't want. My old company let go of a guy who really wasn't doing his job very well, but they didn't have any records on it. So they eliminated his position and let him go. And since they actually needed someone to do that job, they changed the title of it and hired someone else.

Absolutely. Plenty of ways to break the law.

 

[RMSko]

To tangent a bit, "with cause" is also used by companies to terminate when employment objectives and performance goals are not met. Either realistically or fictitiously.
I say fictitiously, because it was recently revealed at my former employer, that they would put multiple people on Performance Improvement Plans, out of the blue. Even when past performance was stellar. It's a way for them to drive out people they don't want, without doing layoffs. As well as being able to dismiss you "with cause" for not meeting their unattainable PIPs.
That way, they do not have unemployment metrics against them and can even rebuke benefits.

While that can be the case, it is not the common definition of “with cause.” Cause is typically used as the prior poster indicated - for example, significant violations of policy or law. Also, in most cases whether or not there was “cause” is typically only meaningful as to whether the terminated employee will forfeit any deferred compensation, stock or other benefits. Given Peter’s continued relationship with the company, it is virtually certain that he was not terminated “for cause” under any definition of cause. IMO, at this cycle of of Lucid’s business, it can certainly be viewed as a positive factor that a change was necessary.

 

[Batteryman]

I personally adore Peter, and the team he put together is truly special. However, I think something like this has be coming for so many reasons. The fact he wasn't kept on as CTO, is only a resource to the chairman at the request of the chairman, not being on the ER call, and also not staying on until a new CEO has been identified in my eyes is truly telling.

I hope the team can continue to embrace the core ideology that came with Peter, evolve it and make it something unique to Lucid.

Finally, I hope Peter holds no ill will against Lucid; perhaps certain decisions makers but hopefully not the company. His knowledge is too dangerous in the hands of a competitor.

Peter is one of the founders of Lucid, he won't .....

 

[RMSko]

Peter is one of the founders of Lucid, he won't .....

I’m sure he’s also a very large shareholder

 

[RM-S8]

Why do people try to count Rawlinson's money?

 

[Amster]

Why do people try to count Rawlinson's money?

Why do people try to count anyone else's money, or what they have or don't have? I have no clue. But it seems to be a thing for a lot of people.

 

[borski]

Why do people try to count Rawlinson's money?

Envy, usually.

 

[Babyrocko1908]

Envy, usually.

Wrong word. You mean jealousy.

 

[RMSko]

Why do people try to count Rawlinson's money?

You’re completely missing the point. I made my post about him being a large shareholder solely to note that he still has a vested interest to make Lucid successful and he will continue to do everything in his power to do so. For many reasons, I couldn’t care less about how much money someone may have.

 

[borski]

Wrong word. You mean jealousy.

No, I mean envy. Jealousy is the fear of losing something you have, or it being taken away from you. Envy is the desire and coveting of something someone else has.