It means the board was out of alignment with their employees and their decision was unusually unpopular.
If the board had communicated better (no 2 or different reasons) or had hard evidence (the claim was deceptive behavior) - it would have been different.
I expect everyone who reads HN accepts that execution is 70% of the battle.
It’s very unsurprising for employees to have made the choices they did, given the handling of the situation.
I don't think it means that the board is useless, but rather that their power has a limit, as all leadership positions do, and the way the fired the CEO has crossed the line too far.
Useless in the sense that they showed themselves to be incompetent with their failed coup and had to pay the price. As the saying goes, “if you take a shot at the king you had better not miss”.
If the board had communicated better (no 2 or different reasons) or had hard evidence (the claim was deceptive behavior) - it would have been different.
I expect everyone who reads HN accepts that execution is 70% of the battle.
It’s very unsurprising for employees to have made the choices they did, given the handling of the situation.