1 affair is a moment of weakness. 3 affairs (after assuring the board there is no more bad news) is a pattern of untrustworthy dishonesty which infects every fiber of his being.

Nothing he said could ever be believed again.

AFAIK an affair is something that goes on for a while.

A one-night stand might qualify better as a "moment of weakness", but that’s not what we’re talking about.

I was describing from the hypothetical position of the board not my own.

The board backed him after the first affair was made public but shit canned him after the 2nd.

This indicates that 1 is okay but more than 1 is bad to answer the GPs question.

Why do you mention weakness? You can't blame anyone for "an affair" when you don't know the nature of the relationship with their spouse and the private agreement they may have.

Some people don't believe in exclusivity or monogamy, some people believe in a clear separation between love and sex, some marriages/partnership are over for years but partners have a tacit agreement to pretend for various reasons instead of divorcing, etc.

Are you privy of their life?

Edited my post for clarity. From the board's point of view.

Affairs could be leverage for blackmail. Affairs with subordinates carry the risk of sexually harassment lawsuits. Affairs with conflicting interests or foreign nationals have more implications.

He apologized to his family, therefore one would assume they weren't aware of it.

I don't think we can know that as these kinds of scandals are always mitigated by public apologies. They are just the mirrors of the hypocrisy of our societies.

So we all agree the board is the problem in this case - or rather the governance structure.

No