You can blame her for the last 10 years because she's CEO _now_. That's what you do. You blame the head of the organization for the organization's problems.
Because it’s their job to fix it. If they don’t, the axe falls again.
Humans often think in terms of deontological ethics. Corporations operate in terms of consequentialist ethics, and the only consequence that matters is that the numbers go up.
I still think "blame" works here since we're assigning responsibility to her. The fault or wrong was caused by someone else, perhaps, but she is now responsible for that fault.
> Blame: assign responsibility for a fault or wrong.
No, I’m not. I’m explicitly differentiating between those two perspectives and which corporations care about. “Blame” doesn’t exist in most corporate vocabularies.
Because they decided to be the figurehead and take on that responsibility. It's like a king who takes on their predecessor's war when they assume power. No one looks to the previous king when the current one has all the agency.