Power Moves #1
Sam Altman, OpenAINovember 2023
What Sam Altman’s Firing Teaches Us About Power at Work
OpenAI’s board had the authority to fire its CEO. Four days later, he was back. What the episode reveals about formal authority, informal networks and how power actually works inside organisations.
In November 2023, OpenAI’s board fired CEO Sam Altman. Four days later, he was back.
We think authority solves a lot of problems, and that when authority is taken away, we cannot influence decisions or get the outcomes we want. In this incident, a board with legitimate and powerful authority had its decision turned around in four days by the very person whose authority it had stripped.
The Four-Day Power Struggle at OpenAI
On Friday, 17 November 2023, four of the six directors on OpenAI’s nonprofit board voted to fire Altman as CEO and remove him from the board. Once fired, Altman had no formal authority within OpenAI. This is the timeline of the four-day power struggle between the board and Sam Altman, from the time he was fired to the time he was reinstated.
Timeline
Four Days of Power Struggle at OpenAI
17 to 21 November 2023
-
Friday17 Nov
The board fires Altman and removes him from the board. Mira Murati is named interim CEO. Greg Brockman is removed as chairman and resigns.
-
Saturday18 Nov
Altman posts that he loves the OpenAI team. Employees repost it in large numbers.
-
Sunday19 Nov
Altman goes back to OpenAI’s offices on a guest badge to negotiate his return.
-
SundayNight
The board appoints Emmett Shear as interim CEO.
The move
Altman accepts Satya Nadella’s offer to join Microsoft.
-
Monday20 Nov
More than 700 employees sign a letter demanding Altman’s return and the board’s resignation, and threaten to join Microsoft. Ilya Sutskever, who voted to remove Altman, signs it too.
-
Tuesday21 Nov
Altman returns as CEO under a new board.
Sam Altman made several moves after he was fired that led to his comeback at OpenAI. Over the weekend, instead of starting a public slanging match with the board or complaining about how unfairly he had been treated and ousted from a company he built, Altman posted on social media that he loved the OpenAI team. The employees reposted it in large numbers and the post went viral. Altman also went back to OpenAI’s office on Sunday to negotiate his return and posted a picture of himself with a guest badge, which again went viral.
Meanwhile, over the weekend, Microsoft, which was OpenAI’s largest investor but had no seat on the board, started negotiating with Altman. Its CEO, Satya Nadella, offered to hire Altman and Greg Brockman (the board’s chairman, whom the board had also removed) to lead a new advanced AI research team at Microsoft. When Altman’s negotiations with the board broke down and the board appointed a new interim CEO, he accepted Nadella’s offer on Sunday night.
On Monday, more than 700 of OpenAI’s roughly 770 employees signed a letter demanding that the board resign and that Altman and Brockman be reinstated. If these demands were not met, they would resign and join Altman at Microsoft. Interestingly, one of the board members who had voted to remove Altman, Ilya Sutskever, OpenAI’s co-founder and chief scientist, publicly expressed regret and signed the letter too.
So in this situation the board found itself backed into a corner, where one of its members had done a volte-face, nearly all of the employees were threatening to quit and join one of its key investors, and it would be left with a shell of a company. Altman was now negotiating with the upper hand, as someone who could leave and take the company with him.
By Tuesday, 21 November, he had been reinstated as CEO under a new initial board, on which only one of the four directors who had voted to fire him kept a seat.
System Minus One & System One At Work
This is a fantastic example of how a decision taken by System One, the formal organisation, was overturned with the help of System Minus One, the live organisation. Sam Altman, the CEO, had cultivated his System Minus One networks with his employees, his leadership team and his investor, Microsoft. When the System Minus One rallied, one of the board members who had voted to fire him came over to his side.
System One: the formal organisation
System One is visible in the organisation chart. It tells you the formal roles, responsibilities and reporting structures.
System Minus One: the live organisation
System Minus One lives in the web of relationships, informal networks and alliances that shape and influence decisions, information and power.
From The Two Systems of Every Organisation
Meanwhile, the board, which held the maximum authority in System One, could influence little beyond its formal decisions because its members had not built informal networks inside the company or with the investors. Three of the four directors who voted to remove Altman were independent directors who did not work at OpenAI and were far from the day-to-day work and interactions. The fourth, Sutskever, was OpenAI’s chief scientist and worked inside the company. He was probably influenced by his colleagues and other employees at OpenAI, and when he expressed regret at the firing, it benefited Altman.
The Power Map
The map below separates what each player formally controlled from what they could influence, provide or withdraw.
| Player | What they formally controlled | What they could influence, provide or withdraw |
|---|---|---|
| OpenAI Board | CEO appointment and removal, governance, board structure | Little beyond its formal decisions |
| Sam Altman | Very little formal authority once fired | Competence, employee loyalty, relationships, credibility, fundraising and partnership power, ability to mobilise support |
| Employees | Little individual formal authority | Critical labour and technical knowledge. Collective exit, provided enough of them acted together |
| Microsoft | No authority over OpenAI’s board | Capital, compute, jobs, a credible alternative home |
| Investors | Limited governance authority | Economic pressure, confidence, reputational pressure |
| Ilya Sutskever | Board vote and technical legitimacy | Insider credibility. His reversal weakened the board’s position |
The Paradox of the Revolt
The striking part in this whole story was that Altman’s relationships inside OpenAI were deeply polarised. He inspired intense devotion from the majority of the staff, while having fractured relationships with the board and with some of his senior executives. According to later reporting and sworn testimony, two of those executives took major concerns to the board before the firing. They described a toxic atmosphere in which he undermined his executives, played them off against each other and told different people different things.
So one would expect the firing of Altman, in the interest of the company’s culture and productivity, to be well received by the employees. But the board fired Altman abruptly, without warning and without providing clear evidence of the behaviour that led to the decision. They exercised their authority with full might, without taking the employees, investors or even Altman along with them.
Many employees viewed this action as a reckless coup that jeopardised the company’s survival. Their own equity was likely to be worth less if Altman joined Microsoft, so backing him also protected their interests.
Even the two executives who had raised concerns signed the open letter demanding Altman’s return. Mira Murati, the CTO, had been appointed the first interim CEO. She has since said that she wanted Altman to stay and that she pressed the board to explain its decision. Ilya Sutskever, the co-founder and chief scientist, had voted for the firing and then publicly said he regretted it.
The Missing Power Move
It paid a huge price. Its decision was reversed and all but one of its members were replaced. In order to make a decision stick in System One, the System Minus One needs to support it. Without the System Minus One’s support, Sam Altman would have stayed fired.
A live organisation runs on interests and relationships.
Altman had built the relationships, and the board’s decision put people’s interests on his side as well.
Here again, System Minus One did not rally behind Altman because he was a ‘good leader’. It rallied for three other reasons.
Credible Exit vs Crippled Stay
Once Altman had accepted Nadella’s offer, Microsoft assured OpenAI’s employees that there was a position for each of them in his new team. A day later, its chief technology officer said publicly that those roles would match their pay. So for employees, the choice was not “Do I want to do the right thing for the company’s values, mission and culture?” They had two options.
Microsoft had made backing Altman the safer financial and career move for the employees.
A ‘Peer Pressure’ Avalanche
In a high-stakes power struggle, momentum is key. The first names on the letter were senior ones, including Mira Murati and the chief operating officer, Brad Lightcap. By Monday morning several hundred people had signed, and by the end of the day almost everyone had. Once most of the company had signed, the peer pressure on the rest would have been strong. If most of your colleagues are leaving, staying behind means staying in a sinking boat. It is likely that some of the employees and executives who had reservations about Altman’s character and behaviour signed to keep the team together.
The ‘Wartime CEO’ Effect
Many Silicon Valley engineers tolerate difficult, demanding or even manipulative behaviour from a founder if that founder is a ‘winner’. Altman fitted what Ben Horowitz calls a ‘Wartime CEO’, the leader of a company in a fight it cannot afford to lose. He had raised billions of dollars and, with ChatGPT, had made OpenAI one of the most valuable start-ups in the world. To many employees, his character flaws seem to have mattered less than his ability to ‘win’.
The Inference
The ‘Wartime CEO’ effect explains why employees tolerate toxic cultures and bosses when they think the boss or the company can make them successful. A rising tide, even if it is full of garbage, will lift everyone with it. And most people want to be successful, even if they do not say so.
Being right or competent is not enough on its own, especially as you move up the career ladder. Your ability to build coalitions, mobilise support and be in the fight matters more.
This is why it is easy for people who are isolated in a company to receive a poor performance appraisal, be passed over for promotion or be given the pink slip. They are especially vulnerable if their performance has dipped, or if they have a contentious relationship with their boss and no informal network, sponsors or mentors who will have their backs.
Understanding how the two systems of an organisation work is at the heart of political literacy. It gives you the choice to cultivate sponsor relationships, build coalitions, read the room and operate from a position of personal power.
How I Would Explain This to My Almost 11‑Year‑Old Nephew
Imagine a hockey club.
The club’s board is formally in charge. It has the authority to hire and fire the coach.
The coach is very good at what she does and is also popular. She has built strong relationships with the players and helped recruit key people, and the team trusts her methods.
Over time, the board notices a pattern that the coach does not always disclose the games the team is playing. The coach and the board argue about it but this communication gap does not get resolved. When the team plays an important game, the board gets to know about it via Instagram. So the board decides it cannot trust her and fires her. The board also appoints an interim coach.
The board has the authority to do that. It is hard to have someone run your team, and to learn the news about your team through social media instead of from the coach.
The coach goes back to negotiate her return to the club. But the talks go nowhere and the board appoints another interim coach. The coach also posts on social media about how much she loves her team.
And most of the players, staff and one of the board members say, “If she goes, we will go too.”
At the same time, another very wealthy hockey club, which uses the coach’s training method, says, “Come here. We have the money, facilities and space to take the coach and the team. They can run their own special club here.”
Now the original board has a problem. It still has the authority to fire the coach. But if it insists on sticking with the decision, it may keep the club name, the gear and the facilities while losing almost all the team that made the club successful.
So the coach comes back on the condition that a new board is put in charge.
The interesting question is, “Why was the board not able to enforce its authority?”
The board did not make friends with the team, did not hang out with them at the field, did not go to their parties and without explaining why, they fired the coach. So the players got upset with the board, and were ready to walk out with the coach to the new club.
That is roughly the story of the four-day power struggle at OpenAI.
Want to understand the power structure around you?
Most of us know the organisation chart. Fewer of us have mapped how the formal system actually works in practice. Start by mapping your System One.
Where to go from here
Enjoyed reading this?
Fluent is my weekly newsletter on workplace politics, careers and organisational life. Get one thoughtful note in your inbox every Sunday.
References
- OpenAI (2023, 17 November). OpenAI announces leadership transition.
- Field, H. (2023, 19 November). Former OpenAI CEO Sam Altman returns to headquarters for talks following his abrupt ouster. CNBC, via NBC Chicago.
- Singh, M. (2023, 20 November). Microsoft hires ex-OpenAI leaders Altman and Brockman to lead new AI group. TechCrunch.
- Hetzner, C. and Ivanova, I. (2023, 20 November). Ilya Sutskever, the OpenAI cofounder who helped oust CEO Sam Altman, says he ‘deeply regrets’ his role. Fortune.
- Goswami, R. (2023, 20 November). Hundreds of OpenAI employees threaten to follow Altman to Microsoft unless board resigns. CNBC.
- CNBC (2023, 21 November). Microsoft exec says OpenAI employees can join with same compensation.
- Fried, I. (2023, 21 November). OpenAI’s drama has two likely endings. Microsoft will like either one. Axios.
- OpenAI (2023, 29 November). Sam Altman returns as CEO, OpenAI has a new initial board.
- The New York Times (2024, 7 March). Key OpenAI Executive Played a Pivotal Role in Sam Altman’s Ouster.
- Hagey, K. (2025). The Optimist: Sam Altman, OpenAI, and the Race to Invent the Future. W. W. Norton.
- Decrypt (2025). Inside the deposition that showed how OpenAI nearly destroyed itself. Reporting on Ilya Sutskever’s deposition of 1 October 2025 in Musk v. Altman.
- Park, A. (2026, 6 May). Ex-OpenAI CTO Mira Murati testifies Sam Altman pit OpenAI leaders against each other, undermined her. Forbes.
- Vartabedian, M. (2026, 7 May). OpenAI CEO Sam Altman was dishonest, caused ‘chaos,’ ex-exec Mira Murati says in bombshell testimony. New York Post, via Yahoo Finance.
- Horowitz, B. (2011, 14 April). Peacetime CEO/Wartime CEO. Andreessen Horowitz.
- Horowitz, B. (2014). The Hard Thing About Hard Things: Building a Business When There Are No Easy Answers. Harper Business.