The board does not remove a CEO it is happy with for something this trivial, because it is too disruptive to the company. This was probably used as a pretext in a power struggle.
- We love our CEO! We'll do anything to keep this boss happy
- We're stuck with a loser, and we need to make a change
- We're in the middle. This CEO has real strengths, which we appreciate, and real weaknesses, which concern us. We're regularly taking stock of the situation, and we'd probably like an orderly transition down the road. But we're probably okay for now.
The third situation is quite common. And in those cases, you don't really need a "pretext" or a "power struggle." You just need the board to say: "We've tolerated a lot, but maybe we've tolerated too much. This new incident is not what we'd be seeing if we had the right CEO."
The article has a specific quote which would indicate there's some disconnect between the average board and this ceo.
>> He believed that he and the company were too focused on sales and money at the expense of altruistic goals
This is an obvious point of conflict with a board, which would not align itself with a CEO who said that even privately.
I think he could have done with advice from a mentor who wasn't at all involved with the vc side - even on how formal meetings like board should be run.
He is right about different cultures around how meetings are run though.