Workers at Twitter claim that no one is in charge when Elon Musk leaves.
The public was confused by Elon Musk suddenly withdrawing from the $44 billion buyouts of Twitter on July 8. This move may have violated the terms of his takeover deal. Chaos also ensued among Twitter’s staff members. An anonymous Twitter employee who isn’t allowed to speak to the media claims, that Twitter is a shit show inside. They are not alone in holding this opinion. A second current employee of Twitter, who also wished to remain anonymous, said there was no real leadership at the time. The entire business is operating automatically. Staff members at Twitter claim they are being kept in the dark and have been warned not to discuss the takeover publicly on their platform. The first employee claims that upper management has not given them any information. Only a message directing users to a tweet by Twitter board member Bret Taylor, who stated that the company is committed to closing the transaction on the price and terms agreed upon with Mr. Musk and plans to pursue legal action to enforce the merger agreement, has been shared internally about the most recent developments.
The corporation has requested that employees refrain from adding their commentary about what is happening there. The problem appears to be headed toward the court. To ensure that Musk upholds his part of the bargain, Twitter has recruited the Delaware litigation law firm, Wachtell Lipton. According to Dan Ives, managing director at the New York-based analyst firm Wedbush Securities, “this catastrophe is a nightmare scenario for Twitter and will result in an Everest-like uphill climb for Parag Agrawal, Twitter’s CEO and Co. to handle the various obstacles ahead.” Employee turnover and low morale, problems with advertising headwinds, a loss of credibility with investors due to the yo-yoing share price, and embarrassing claims about bogus accounts on the site are just a few of the difficulties Twitter is facing.
If a trial does occur, Ives predicts it would be drawn out and contentious, “throwing a gloomy cloud over Twitter’s head in the near term.” Twitter’s leadership, monetizable user base, and ability to report the number of bots on the network truthfully have all taken hits to the company’s reputation. It’s a flaw Musk is all too aware of and has made public by making fun of Agrawal in a series of tweets that cut through lengthy, meticulously crafted arguments on Twitter’s bot capabilities. Prateek Waghre, policy director at the Internet Freedom Foundation, claims that Musk, however, has created issues with his goals for the company, particularly concerning free speech. If the deal had gone through, he claims, “I think that would have generated confusion about Musk’s view on that, along with uncertainty on many other things.”
Following Musk’s announcement of his takeover bid, several executives have already departed the company, having an influence on countless others below in the corporate food chain. The first Twitter employee explains, “The feeling internally is that people have been applying for jobs and they’re going to keep looking for employment. Employees claim that when many staff members were the targets of Project Veritas sting operations intended to catch them publicly disparaging their possible new employer, they felt particularly betrayed by the lack of management support. First employee: “I joined Twitter and wanted to remain.” “I enjoyed my work. Even if things went back to being precisely how they were, nothing would keep me here now.
Because current employees are concerned that Twitter might withdraw employment offers to applicants and the effect it might have on future applicants, the brain drain is likely to continue. One job seeker whose offer of employment at Twitter this year was later withdrawn after the takeover says they would reapply to the organization, but not before inquiring of the manager to whom they would ultimately report about internal politics and plans. Others are not as confident that Twitter faces the same reputational problems as Twitter’s internal stakeholders. According to Cary Cooper, a management lecturer at Manchester Business School, “the underlying concern was he would democratize it too much and allow individuals to say things that would be unacceptable on it.” Investors would be concerned because of his business savvy.