The 33-Hour Reversal at Automattic
The turbulent sequence began last Thursday when Automattic—the company controlling WordPress—announced via email that Matt Mullenweg was on leave. Mark Davies, Automattic’s CFO, stepped in as interim CEO, backed by a board stating it had full confidence in his leadership to execute company priorities. Rather than accepting the ouster quietly, Mullenweg utilized his system access to remove the accounts of the acting CEO and other personnel, a disciplinary infraction that would typically trigger immediate termination for standard employees.
Instead of facing permanent dismissal, Mullenweg was completely reinstated by Saturday afternoon. A cryptic message sent at 2:26 AM Eastern on Sunday by the media team confirmed the rapid turnaround: “Matt and Automattic’s leadership team have great respect for everyone involved. While we can’t comment on specific individuals, we’re thankful for their contributions to Automattic and its mission, and we remain excited about what’s ahead with Matt at the helm. Matt was away for only 33 hours and 20 minutes — we’re now back to work.” The board offered zero public explanation for why it forced out the CEO in the first place, nor did it clarify the mechanics of the sudden weekend reversal.
Parallels to OpenAI and Historical Governance Failures
This episode bears a striking resemblance to the OpenAI board room crisis from almost three years prior, when directors fired the CEO over repeated dishonesty, only to reverse the decision within days. While observers often point to Steve Jobs being ousted from Apple only to return years later, Jobs at least spent time building NeXT before his comeback.
Independent oversight bodies are ostensibly designed to protect long-term corporate health, holding primary responsibility for executive hiring and termination decisions.
The Chasm Between Trustworthy and Unconditional Loyalty
The erosion of board independence often begins during formation. In early-stage venture-backed startups, founders frequently curate boards to secure compliance rather than genuine oversight. Legal counsel roles intended to protect the board’s fiduciary duties are sometimes steered toward candidates prioritizing unconditional loyalty to the executive suite over objective legal reality.
When boards function as echo chambers rather than critical checks on power, executive overreach goes unchecked.
Restoring Transparency to Executive Terminations
When a board takes the extreme step of relieving a chief executive, basic transparency demands public specifics—barring sensitive personnel situations like substantiated sexual assault.
