>>5461518>CEO isn't the boss, the board of directors and shareholders are.That is a "Technically yes, but..." statement. Boards are an indirect influence when it comes to individual, non-executive personnel decisions, and shareholders who are not board members are an even-less indirect influence.
Every board is unique in how deep it gets into the operations of a company. Some boards just want to see a chart going up and to the right once a quarter, and provide a word of advice so as to feel important (these are not good boards, but at least they aren't harmful). Many boards have members want to feel like they're contributing to overall strategy. Most boards don't get involved in operations (and they suck when they do), but exactly where the line is between "strategy" and "operations" is a bit of an in-the-eye-of-the-beholder thing. If a company's board is regularly overruling the CEO, and forcing him or her to make operational decisions, rather than just replacing the CEO, that is both rare and a bad sign for the company.
There is no way of definitively knowing whether the decision went up to Tanigo alone, and the board just heard it reported and accepted it, or whether they threatened to replace him. Maybe they exerted more gradual pressure over many months? Maybe the board accepted the closure of CN as necessary but were upset, and pressed for the ever-further restrictions? Maybe Tanigo encouraged the restrictions himself? Maybe the board pushed for closing CN, and for restrictions, Tanigo was the one who had to relent on both?
We will never know these things.
For whatever reason, many people are REALLY uncomfortable with these kinds of permanent unknowns. So the usual response is to use the ambiguity to say "This obviously proves [what I already believe] must be the truth! No one can deny it now!"
