The website Axiosrecently published a bizarreemail allegedly written by Binary Capital co-founder Jonathan Teo.
Binary Capital, of course, is the venture capital whose co-founder, Justin Caldbeck, recently resigned after admitting that he'd acted inappropriately towards female entrepreneurs.
According to Forbes, Teo subsequently admitted that he'd heard rumors about Caldbeck's bad behavior and took no action. Then, according to TechCrunch, Teo offered his resignation to the Limited Partners (the people who invested in Binary) which they subsequently accepted.
TechCrunch also reported that at least one CEO wanted to buy back Binary's shares and terminate their relationship and that LPs were hoping to appoint a female partner. So, to sum up, Binary Capital and Johnson are in the middle of a ****storm.
According to Axios, Teo sent two emails. The first was to the company's Limited Partners (the people who put the money) and the second was to the CEOs of the companies in which Binary invests. The second email included the first email as an attachment.
The Mercury News characterized both emails as "angry," but I don't think that's a fair characterization. The email that Teo sent to the LPs is restrained, polished and business-like while the email that Teo sent to the CEOs is nothing less than a half-crazed screed.
For example, one of Teo's issues was the way that the press has handled the controversy. Here's how he addressed the issue in the email to the LPs:
"The news media reporting that all our entrepreneurs are looking to buy back their equity is utterly misleading. That is simply not true. I would be disappointed if you as a group believe that we have invested in entrepreneurs that would take advantage of such an unfortunate situation without knowing full facts to renegotiate and do a shakedown. I am aware of one single entrepreneur who has done this, and only 2 others who have asked to have a discussion regarding it."
By contrast, here's how he addressed it in the email to the CEOs:
"The news we read and have access to is a problem. Media has been corrupted. The voice of many have been diluted by the agendas of a few. My offer of resignation was made to quell a news cycle that we are almost positive was exacerbated by a leak from someone in our investor base that had an agenda not in the best interest of the entrepreneurs we work with. Nor the value of the portfolio we are committed to building. I did it so attention was on what matters and not a distraction based on my personal life. Yes my offer quelled the cycle by giving the blunt-tooled media activists what they wanted. Yes it made me have to come across as someone with something to hide. No I do not have anything to hide."
The difference in tone, not to mention basic grammar, is extreme.
Here's another comparison. O ne of the issues he addresses in both emails is the reported desire of the LPs that Binary should appoint a female to replace him. Here's how he stated his position in the LP email:
"In the event that the LPAC chooses to replace me, I will work cooperatively with my replacement to transition these responsibilities in a way that maintains the integrity of the mission the entrepreneurs have and the resources we have committed to them. I have advised the LPAC to choose a replacement solely on merit and not based on convenience or for appeasing any public perception. Doing anything less will be irresponsible."
By contrast, here's how he addressed that same issue in the CEO email:
"As for those who are moronic enough to ask for a general partner replacement as long as it is a woman, please question their motives. We must choose the best person, male or female. But that net must be cast wide. Far and wide. Talent is universal if we only choose to recognize it. Anything else is again grandstanding for a personal agenda."
The vast difference between the two versions raises an important question: why would Teo craft a polished, diplomatic letter to the LPs and then dash off and send this screed to the CEOs, especially when he knows (and states in both emails) that anything he writes in emails are likely to be leaked?
Here's what I think happened: Teo carefully crafted the email to the LPs, sent it, and then sat down to carefully craft a similar email to the CEOs. He started, however, with a rough draft that reflected his anger and frustration, which he probably intended to edit down into a more diplomatic version.
Then, probably by accident, Teo sent the rough draft to the CEOs. That's all too easy a mistake to make if you compose the message inside the email program, because the default action in an email programs is "SEND" not "SAVE."
That's why the #1 rule when you're composing an important email is: Compose the message in a separate program.
Composing the draft as a separate document outside of the email program not only prevents an accidental SEND, it also interposes a copy-and-paste step that forces a moment to consider: Do I really want to send this?