>The thing is they _didn’t_ hire a good CEO. This happened on his watch.

I guess nearly every US President and global leader, along with 80% of global CEOs aren't "good" either, because bad things happened on their watch. Some much, much worse than a data breach.

I'm not saying this guy was good, but that your standard is impossible to reach.

I disagree. The "this" that happened on his watch was not, in my opinion, that there was a breach, but rather the shitstorm about how it was handled - this happened on his watch and he did not handle it well and that is what makes him a bad CEO in my opinion.

Things happening isn't necessarily an indicator that the person is bad, but how they deal with it (in this case, he didn't for many months!) is an indicator. That's not an impossible standard to reach.

Well if CEOs aren’t responsible for the negatives they shouldn’t claim responsibility for positives.

Something tells me this guy had no problem collecting performance related bonuses.