more likely I think they found that not letting him go isn't and option due to a breakdown of communication (a formulation which normally implies a fundamental break down of trust)

but the trust of the board completely braking down doesn't mean that e.g. MS doesn't trust or want him anymore as in the end the interest the board have to defend and the ones which stake holder like MS have might be in conflict

so even if it has negative consequences if it must be done it might be easier to get it done fast and then resolve the mess instead of giving other a chance to turn it into an even bigger mess