It’s also just factually incorrect.

Her problems were created by the detailed investigative reporting of an establishment media outlet.

The issue raised by the reporting spoke directly to her abilities as a manager. It wasn’t a scandal about her dating life or standup comedy routines she did in college.

That kind of thing is precisely what the business press is supposed to do, and there’s absolutely nothing at all new about this dynamic.

It's very hard to define good leadership, or to scientifically measure how effective it is (one of the reasons C-suite pay doesn't seem to follow regular market forces). But - taking the board at its word - this is a perfect definition of bad leadership. Making your decision based on what you see as a "mob" - and then retracting and blaming the mob! Either you think the complaints on social media are accurate, or you don't. But this back-and-forth is the worst possible course.

> volumes about the efficacy of board governance

Not sure it does.

The Board could have gotten caught up in a mob, regained its senses, and started pulling on the reins again. Or blaming Twitter could be the messaging around what was really a compensation (or some other) negotiation.