I realize this was probably said in fruatration, but I think it paints a pretty clear picture of Zuckerberg's arrogance and entitlement.
Now whether or not he was in the right to demand it, when actually doing so I doubt anyone expected to have a working relationship after that.
If that was the case, I doubt it would have been explicitly and legally formalized in the contract as disallowed without a payout.
If two parties decide that a clause of a contract doesn't need to be enforced, you rewrite the contract. Anything else is just stupid, as it allows the person likely to gain to say "well, I didn't really mean that...".
If you've formalized something in a legally binding contract, be prepared to follow through on it. Full stop.
Another account yesterday mentioned plans to put Kevin Systrom under a different manager that would have given him "less access to Zuckerberg." Earlier accounts described them as friendly, always seen together, etc.
It seems like Facebook is a company where access to the CEO is so tightly controlled that it's basically used as a political weapon.
This is true at almost any organization of scale. Access to top decision makers must be restricted. The people who make decisions about the restrictions, therefore, gain influence through that process. The power can be used properly or improperly. In this case, it appears to have been used properly: there was no further discussion on the matter, and the employee had shown themselves to be out of line with the CEO's strategy.
Is it different at any other Fortune 50 company? At that scale, the companies are basically nations.
Engaging instead of sending the thugs to empty the cubicle.
For example, an employee is rude to a client.
You call the client to do damage control, because you have a personal relationship, the client continues to be furious.
You say "Look, I know you're angry and I know this is probably the last time you'll ever talk to me, but if I can say one last thing, it will be that we have always tried to <insert conciliatory remainder of conversation>"
I don't know if that is always arrogance or entitlement, is it?
Who does Zuck think he is, the CEO of facebook?
What is less well-known is the elite institutions which groomed him tend to not do much of anything about the fact that they are sometimes, not always, sending these types of Stanford-Prison-Superiority-Complex personalities out into the world.