So, you're a disgraced CEO. What now?

Times

3 days ago

Suppose you are a tech executive who has just become known, to a global audience, via a viral video in which it appears that you are having an extra-marital affair with your head of human resources.
You now have a Wikipedia page, based entirely around this incident at a Coldplay concert in which you appeared for a moment with your apparent paramour on a giant screen, before desperately attempting to duck out of sight.
Suppose, in fact, that your name is Andy Byron, the former chief executive of the tech company Astronomer.
Can a tech executive recover and get back to doing what he loves, leading a team all laser-focused on AI-powered data-management tools? There is a phalanx of executive coaches and 'reputation repair' specialists who are ready with some advice.
First, the bad news. 'Andy Byron has made every PR error possible,' says Matt Yanofsky, head of a brand and strategy group called The Moment Lab in Montreal. 'His obvious way forward was to claim that he is a private citizen and this has nothing to do with his successful business,' Yanofsky says. 'There was an alternative world where he had people like Bari Weiss [the provocative, heterodox writer and founder of The Free Press] defending him for an invasion of privacy.'
Instead, Byron tendered his resignation and the board of Astronomer accepted it over the weekend, saying his behaviour had not lived up to their standards.
'The reality is he's made the situation worse for himself because he used a 20th-century corporate solution for a 21st-century problem,' Yanofsky says. 'In corporate settings apologies are used against you. He must now own this … Now he must [think about working] to clean up his reputation.'
To do this, 'he needs to borrow the Bill Clinton playbook', says Jonathan Bernstein, founder of Bernstein Crisis Management. 'I have used this many times as an example in training. After his disaster with Monica Lewinsky he basically flew below the radar as much as a former president can, for quite some time, and just got involved in doing good things … being of service to humanity.'
It does not sound terribly easy.
'You've got to go do work,' says Lacey Leone McLaughlin, an executive coach known for reading the riot act to Hollywood bosses who need to be shown the error of their ways. 'People aren't going to forget that there was this thing … That doesn't mean that this person is not skilled at their role,' she says. 'What it means is this person is struggling with the other side of the business, which is the leadership, which is the people side.'
The other problem is the instant recall of search engines, months after the story is forgotten. Steven Giovinco, founder of Recover Reputation, whose clients come to him for help in restoring their good name online, devotes part of his efforts to trying 'to push [the controversy] down off the first page [of search results]. It's really hard to do but it's possible. It usually takes, on average, six months. In this case it might take longer.'
In the case of Byron, 50, there is now a Wikipedia profile built on the coverage he received after he appeared on the big screen at the Coldplay concert in Massachusetts last week.
'But an editor has nominated it for deletion,' says Giovinco.
A debate is under way even as we speak, about whether Byron's page should be there at all. 'All of the sourcing in this article stems from a rather viral news story about him being caught on camera, apparently with a colleague and affair partner, rather than coverage indicating more lasting notability,' writes an editor named Molly White. Wikipedia's rules governing biographies of living people advise against entries on those who appear in the news in relation to a single event.
White, 32, a writer and long-time Wikipedia editor, says she also flagged for deletion an article about Astronomer. 'Normally there's a seven-day period where people are able to weigh in,' she tells me over the phone. 'After that period has elapsed, an outside, uninvolved administrator will come in,' she says. This person judges which side of the argument accords with Wikipedia's policies.
Byron, if he is following the debate, may find it at once reassuring and disheartening. Some of those who want to keep his entry compare it to another about a woman from Tennessee who became an internet celebrity after giving a very frank and graphic interview about fellatio on a YouTube channel.
'Andy Byron is not a historical figure, nor has he had any significant impact on society/history/humanity,' writes someone in the 'delete' camp. 'No one had ever heard of Mr Byron until this caught-on-camera incident … This is Wikipedia, folks, not Jerry Springer.'
These debates now matter, to reputation specialists, due to the rise of AI-powered search engines, says Bennett Kleinberg, founder of Jupiter Strategies. 'The robots have to pay to read The Times of London,' he says. 'But everything on Wikipedia is in the public domain … The content on Wikipedia is driving so much of the content that is ultimately displayed, in AI.'
This, he says, 'is one of the reasons Wikipedia has become so important for people who work in corporate reputation'. He thinks the entry on Byron should be deleted.
What about Byron's comeback, in this land of second chances? David Duffy, co-founder of the Corporate Governance Institute which trains board directors, says that while Byron's personal reputation 'has been shredded, his business reputation might be damaged a little bit, but I don't think it's going to be severely damaged'.
Should he write a book? Life After the Jumbotron? The Guy Who Came In from the Coldplay?
Duffy thinks he might, setting out the lessons. 'That's one idea. It's not going to be the Bible. But it could be 150-200 pages. Get someone to ghost-write it,' he says. 'Coldplay: What I've Learnt, you know, something like that.'
• At least the Coldplay kiss cam couple weren't caught singing the wrong lyrics
Though it might not help matters with his family. McLaughlin, the executive coach, says there is also a danger that it might strike the wrong note. 'Whatever they do, it has to be authentic,' she says. 'This is about being human and recognising that they made a mistake, but also managing it and moving forward with grace. I think it can't feel inauthentic, and in some ways, I think a book or an article or all those things won't necessarily feel like that, to some.'
Another possible approach is laid out by Yanofsky, the marketing and PR expert. 'From a personal point of view, I disagree with private citizens [becoming] famous for an unintentional viral moment,' he says. 'From a PR point of view, we are so past the point of this debate … private citizens need to be aware of what they do in public. You never know who is recording you. Perhaps Andy can move forward by doing [public service announcements] about the dangers of doing this, or be a spokesman for an Ashley Madison-type company. Shamelessness may be his best path forward.'