I don't understand, what could the founders have done differently? At some point they must make the initial step to notify leadership that they are leaving. This the step that was leaked. Were they supposed to write their own press releases before they even told anybody that they were resigning?
In my experience, it’s typical for senior leadership at a large company to have a carefully orchestrated departure. No internal announcement would be sent until after a press release is prepared. The set of people that know would be kept extremely small, even to the point of keeping direct reports in the dark.
If Facebook truly was unprepared, it’s reasonable to assume they weren’t expecting the announcement.
You don't think the co-founders of a company, who are leaving for purportedly benign/positive reasons, owe it to their company to have a prepared explanation? Given that the sudden resignation of a founder -- nevermind both co-founders at the same time -- is generally seen as worrying news?
edit: fixed punctuation. By "prepared explanation" I don't mean a formal press release, but a reason (even if vague) that can be publicly disclosed, even before the official announcement, so it doesn't look like the founders are jumping ship for bad/antagonistic reasons.
Because people worked under and followed the for the better years of their life to make them rich?
Because the people you work with are more important than the work you do?
Because when you form a relationship with someone, contractually, business, or otherwise, you do, in fact owe them something, be it money, respect, or even some simple common decency.
Not to Mark Zuckerberg, but to the colleagues who've worked for them for years in their shared mission and who would, as normal human beings, appreciate knowing that the high-level departures are not a sign of trouble.
