Boardroom damage control: Five times executives screwed up

Boardroom damage control: the inevitable moments when directors have faced nightmare corporate governance challenges after disastrous executive errors. 

The recent gossip-laden controversy over Astronomer CEO Andy Bryon’s resignation caused more than a few giggles online… maybe even from the Astronomer board directors themselves, too, 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 happened in time to make an informed decision. 

The story shows just how suddenly boards can be thrown into risky scenarios. One action by a crucial executive throws the company directly into the 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 blunder by a CEO, let’s look at similar past events, and whether the board handled it or made it worse.

May as well start with this one, just to give a brief assessment of the board’s actions. 

To recap: Astronomer CEO Andy Bryon and Chief People Officer Kristin Cabot were caught embracing on a kiss-cam at a Coldplay concert. The video went viral, as did speculation around their personal circumstances since both are married. 

Astronomer’s board of directors placed Bryon on administrative leave, and shortly after, Bryon resigned, which the board accepted. 

What was the board’s response?

Quick and simple. They rapidly and publicly distanced themselves from Bryon as the clip went viral, and didn’t waste time in accepting Bryon’s resignation. The episode is by no means a closed book but, for the moment, this looks like the cleanest response. 

However, we also need to wait and see how Bryon’s replacement fares, as well as how easy it is for the board to find that person. This will give an indication of the board’s succession planning work, which is crucial no matter what situation the company is in.

Australia’s largest listed tech company suffered a leadership meltdown, culminating in February 2025, and it all surrounded CEO and Co-Founder Richard White. 

He had been on the receiving end of several misconduct allegations, forcing the board into a tricky dilemma. White had – and continues to have – a sizeable reputation in Australian corporate life, so WiseTech Global directors were naturally thrust into unknown territory once accusations began to surface. 

What was the board’s response?

Very messy. 

White resigned when allegations first surfaced, but the board decided to keep him on in an advisory role. Over the next few months, it became clear that the board suffered from internal divisions over White’s ultimate future. 

Eventually, most of the board, including all its independent directors and chair, resigned over these differences. White, who had always maintained influence with investors and financial stake in the company, was made the new executive chair in a spectacular comeback story. 

From a governance perspective, the board proved ineffective at decisive-action: essential for a modern governance crisis.

After only five months in the job, American grocery chain Kohl’s CEO Ashley Buchanan was found to have “violated company policies by directing the company to engage in vendor transactions that involved undisclosed conflicts of interest,” after an external investigation. 

What was the board’s response?

Quick and united. The board fired Buchanan at the same time as announcing the results of the external investigation. Like many grocery chains, the company had been struggling with its business model since the pandemic, and multiple news sources speculated if 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 only five months, and for such serious wrongdoings, raises questions about the process used to hire him. The board is responsible for that too, so would likely face investor questions over how it happened, and what the company is doing to ensure it doesn’t happen again.

In 2016, the board of the major British bank was handed a fresh crisis surrounding then-CEO Jes Staley. 

Two letters were penned by a whistleblower, claiming that a colleague of Staley’s who was hired at the bank was not fit for the job. Staley’s response was to try and find out the identity of the whistleblower, meaning any of the standard protections that should have been afforded to this person were largely absent. 

The case ultimately went to both UK and US regulators. The UK regulator fined Staley close to GBP650,000, while the US regulator fined Barclays USD15 million. 

What was the board’s 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 the seriousness of his actions was enough for him to leave his post. 

While the bank issued statements during the regulator probes, promising to beef up its whistleblower protection procedures, it’s understandable that allowing him to remain as CEO would send mixed signals.

In the late 2000s, the board of global tech giant dealt with a sexual harassment claim from a contractor hired for corporate events. The claim was against then-CEO Mark Hurd. 

After an independent investigation, HP found that its sexual harassment codes of conduct had not been violated, but they did uncover a string of expense reports which 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, actress Jodie Fisher. Hurd was a married man with two children at the time of the scandal. 

What was the board’s response?

The board went public with the results of the internal investigation, primarily for transparency and to 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%, and multiple governance experts, writing for media outlets like CBS and the New York Times, laid harsh criticism on the board. 

They claimed that Hurd’s exit wasn’t justified. HP share prices had doubled under his five-year leadership; commentators considered him a strong person to have at the helm. The board was a different story. Experts criticised it as “blundering” and incapable of making smart business calls. This narrative won out 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 to take action after discovering such an extensive string of falsified reports from a CEO.

When a CEO or other executive gets 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 some wrongdoings. 

It can be a tricky situation, which demands fast decisions from directors who are not always ready to make them. Unfortunately, the true assessment of such decisions won’t be made until afterwards, when critics have a full view of the fallout. Such is the nature of the high-stakes environment that corporate governance has become.