When the CEO falls, the board must rise
When CEOs stumble, boards must act fast. Dan Byrne outlines why the boardroom response to corporate missteps is so critical to reputation and recovery
The recent gossip-laden controversy concerning Astronomer CEO Andy Byron’s resignation prompted more than a few giggles online…maybe even from the Astronomer board of directors themselves, for a tiny moment, before they zoned in on the faces involved and realised, “that’s our chief executive.”
Cue the inevitable scramble to find out what actually happened at that Coldplay concert in time to make an informed decision.
The story illustrates how quickly boards can be thrust into high-risk scenarios. Just one public misstep by a high-profile executive can throw a company directly into the harsh spotlight.
In an instant, all eyes are on your next move, and it becomes a make-or-break moment, at least as far as reputational risk is concerned.
So, while we digest this latest CEO blunder, let’s look at similar past events and whether the relevant company boards handled them well or made the situation worse.
1. Astronomer (2025)
Let’s start with this one, just to provide a brief assessment of the board’s actions.
To recap: Astronomer CEO Andy Byron and Kristin Cabot, the company’s Chief People Officer, were caught embracing on a kiss-cam at a Coldplay concert in the US.
The video went viral, as did speculation about their personal circumstances since both are married.
Astronomer’s board of directors placed Byron on administrative leave, and shortly after, accepted the CEO’s resignation.
Board response
The response was quick and simple. They rapidly and publicly distanced themselves from Byron as the clip went viral and didn’t waste time accepting his resignation. The episode is by no means a closed book, but, for the moment, this appears to be the cleanest response.
We need to wait and see how Byron’s replacement fares, however, as well as how easily the board can find that person. This will reveal the board’s succession planning capability, which is crucial regardless of the company’s situation.
2. WiseTech Global (2025)
Australia’s largest listed technology company suffered a leadership meltdown in February 2025, and it all surrounded CEO and co-founder Richard White.
White had been on the receiving end of several allegations of misconduct, forcing the board into a tricky scenario.
The CEO had—and continues to have—a sizeable reputation in Australian corporate life, so WiseTech Global directors were naturally thrust into unfamiliar territory when accusations began to surface.
Board response
Very messy.
White resigned when allegations first emerged, but the board opted to keep him on in an advisory role. Over the next few months, it became clear that the board suffered from internal divisions concerning White’s future.
Eventually, most of the board, including all of its independent directors and chair, resigned over these differences. White, who had considerable influence over investors and a financial stake in the company, was appointed as WiseTech’s new Executive Chair in a spectacular comeback story.
From a governance perspective, the board proved ineffective in taking the decisive action needed to effectively handle any modern-day governance crisis.
3. Kohl’s (2025)
After just five months in the job, Ashley Buchanan, the CEO of American big box store Kohl’s, was subject to an external investigation.
The investigation found that Buchanan had “violated company policies by directing the company to engage in vendor transactions that involved undisclosed conflicts of interest”.
Board response
Quick and united. The board fired Buchanan at the same time as announcing the results of the external investigation.
Like many big stores, Kohl’s had been struggling with its business model since the pandemic, and multiple news sources speculated that Buchanan’s inability to turn things around may have factored into the decision. However, a company press release specifically denied this.
In all, the board was able to make a decisive call and didn’t hold back in assigning blame to Buchanan, which is clear and direct. The sudden increase in share price following the dismissal shows it was a smart business move.
The flipside is that firing a CEO after just five months, and for such serious wrongdoings, raises questions about the process used to hire him.
The board is responsible for this too, so it would likely face investor questions about how it had happened, and what the company is doing to ensure it won’t happen again.
4. Barclays (2017)
In 2016, the board of the major British bank suffered a crisis centred on its then CEO Jes Staley.
Two letters were penned by a whistleblower, claiming that a former colleague of Staley’s hired by the bank was not fit for the job.
Staley’s response was to try to find out the identity of the whistleblower, meaning any of the standard protections this person should have enjoyed were largely absent.
The case ultimately went to both UK and US regulators. The UK regulator fined Staley close to £650,000, while the US regulator fined Barclays $15 million.
Board response
The board approved a reduction in Staley’s bonus but did not get rid of him. This generated controversy, including comments from a British MP who claimed that the seriousness of his actions warranted his resignation.
While the bank issued statements during the regulator probes, promising to beef up its whistleblower protection procedures, it is understandable that allowing Staley to remain in the role of CEO would send mixed signals.
5. Hewlett-Packard (2010)
In the late 2000s, the board of the global tech giant dealt with a sexual harassment claim from a contractor hired for corporate events. The claim was made against then CEO Mark Hurd.
After an independent investigation, Hewlett-Packard (HP) found that its sexual harassment codes of conduct had not been violated, but it did uncover a string of expense reports Hurd had purposefully falsified.
The report suggested his reasoning for doing this was to cover up the true nature of his relationship with the contractor. Hurd was a married man with two children at the time of the scandal.
Board response
The board made the results of the internal investigation public, primarily to ensure transparency and avoid media scrutiny. However, Hurd considered his position untenable as details came to light and he resigned.
The reaction was largely negative. Share prices dropped 10 percent, and multiple governance experts, writing for American media outlets such as CBS and The New York Times, laid harsh criticism on the board.
They claimed that Hurd’s exit wasn’t justified. HP’s share prices had doubled under his five-year leadership; commentators considered him a strong leader.
Reaction to the board response was a different story. Experts criticised it as “blundering” and incapable of making smart business calls. This narrative prevailed among several critics who claimed that, in letting Hurd go, the board had forgotten that it was supposed to act in the shareholders’ best financial interests.
The board stood by its decision, maintaining it had no choice but to take action having discovered such an extensive string of falsified reports from a CEO.
Best assessments are made in hindsight
When a CEO or other senior executives get in trouble, the board has a job to do.
Sometimes the trouble begins with a very public blunder; sometimes it starts because the board itself discovers wrongdoing.
It can be a tricky situation demanding swift decisions from directors who are not always ready to make them.
Unfortunately, the true assessment of such decisions can is only really possible in hindsight, when critics have a full view of the fallout—such is the nature of the high-stakes environment corporate governance has become.
Dan Byrne is a journalist with the Corporate Governance Institute