So why just "interim," the befuddled observer of interesting corporations wonders.
Theory: Intuition at former company a bit...err...off?
Eastman Kodak (which, by the way, has had a history of layoffs over the years) dabbled in cryptocurrency (bitcoin like) in more recent years...
Cryptocurrencies come with some warnings...
A fact that led the New York Times to pen this critique of Eastman Kodak...
Well, it's certainly a disruptive concept.
Maybe didn't go over so well at Kodak though...
Does "mutually agreed" mean he was asked to leave, perchance?
Theory: Dude's career in a bit of a lull, hence needed a new gig to keep busy until finding next long term opportunity?
Kodak and cryptocurrency.
Sounds like kind of a desperate move to get attention to try to seem modern, high tech and more hip.
Kind of like putting Rip Van Winkel in Doc Martens and a nose ring as he's propped up after being roused from a very lonnng sleep. It just doesn't really work.
I think he was just brought in primarily to do what Kodak did do well, which was to cut workforce size. This is what conpanies do in certain stages of the business life cycle.
Salesforce = meteoric growth (Marc Benioff is such a tech rock star he even hangs out with rock star Lars Ulrich of Metallica)
Eastman Kodak? Chopping heads
These "interim" guys must just be brought in to "transform" (read plan layoffs to cut costs) and then the short term project they were hired for is overwith and a permanent CEO is brought in.
Makes sense! Hard to find anyone who wants to captain the Titanic immediately after a bankruptcy, so you hire a temp.
Just a theory.
So NOT Salesforce!