A few days ago, Andy Byron, CEO of Astronomer, and the company’s Chief Human Resources Officer, Krinstin Cabot, were caught on the Kiss Cam at a Coldplay concert engaging in infidelity, each with someone other than their respective partners. This incident not only turned them into a global meme, but also triggered an unprecedented corporate crisis for Astronomer.

Although this might initially seem a private matter, the high profile of those involved (the CEO and the CHRO), the very public nature of the act (a large-scale concert), and the type of transgression (infidelity, particularly in the context of company “values”) make it a corporate issue. In companies that prize a strong and deeply rooted culture, leaders serve as symbols of that culture—even outside working hours.

“A leader is expected to set the standard of conduct.”

Initially, Astronomer decided to temporarily remove the CEO from his position, as announced on social platform X:
“Co-founder and Chief Product Officer Pete DeJoy is currently serving as interim CEO, as Andy Byron has been temporarily relieved of his duties.”
Subsequently, the company announced the launch of an internal investigation. Finally, Byron himself resigned from his post.

Astronomer issued a further statement, accepting the resignation and reiterating its commitment to the values and culture that have guided the company since its inception:
“Our leaders are expected to set the tone in both conduct and accountability, and recently, that standard has not been upheld,” the statement read.

The firmness of Astronomer’s communication in protecting its reputation

The astronomer’s statement serves as a solid example of how a company can address a leadership crisis in a way that aims to minimize damage to its brand and business reputation.

Some of the strengths of the company’s response include:

• Speed and decisiveness: The company acted promptly (temporary suspension, internal investigation, and acceptance of the resignation) and communicated these actions without delay. This is crucial in crisis management to prevent speculation and to show control.

• Focus on values: In any crisis, people and values should always remain at the core. Astronomer does this by opening and closing its statement with a reaffirmation of its commitment to the company values and culture. This is essential when the crisis stems from a violation of those values. The company emphasises that leadership behaviour expectations were not met.

• Transparency: The company acknowledges that the expected behavioural standard was not met and that awareness of the company “changed overnight”, implicitly recognizing the seriousness of the situation without resorting to lurid detail.

• Decisive action: The statement communicates the CEO’s resignation and its acceptance by the Board. This indicates that a crisis management team was convened and took swift, decisive action.

• Interim leadership and succession: The statement announces the appointment of an interim CEO (the Co-founder and Chief Product Officer) and the search to recruit a permanent CEO. This offers a sense of stability and continuity of operations.

• Re-focusing on core business: Swiftly, by the third paragraph and beyond, the message shifts focus from the personal incident to the product’s strength, the company’s DataOps expertise, and its commitment to customers. This is a clear attempt to separate the former CEO’s conduct from the firm’s operational soundness and business performance.

• Professional tone: The language used is formal, direct, and objective, avoiding emotionalism or excessive judgment and completely steering clear of gossip or innuendo. This tone is the most appropriate for a corporate statement during a crisis.

• Brevity and conciseness: Precision and brevity are strengths in any reputational crisis. Avoiding circumlocution and overly long texts ensures the core message is immediately understood, without distractions. Unnecessary detail or complex language may dilute the core message and lead to misinterpretation. Often, the details of a crisis are sensitive, complicated, or irrelevant to the wider public. A concise statement allows a company to provide essential information without disclosing details that could be harmful, trigger further controversy, or complicate future legal proceedings. The aim is to communicate what must be said, not everything that is known.

The “fine print” of the Statement: what about her?

While the statement is effective in its primary purpose, one cannot help but notice the absence of any mention of the CHRO involved in the incident. This is striking, given that her role is key in promoting and maintaining the company’s values and culture. Although the omission may be strategic, aimed at focusing the message on the CEO and the company’s future, it does raise questions about uneven treatment.

In a crisis communication of this nature, every word is weighed—and every omission becomes, in itself, a statement. The decision not to mention the CHRO may be due to several strategic considerations:

• Minimising the scale of the scandal: By focusing solely on the CEO, the company may have sought to frame the issue as an individual lapse in leadership, rather than a systemic problem involving two senior figures. Mentioning both could have amplified the negative attention or reinforced the perception of a broader “values crisis”.

• Different internal management: The CHRO’s situation may be under separate review or being handled in a more private domain. She may have already resigned, may be undergoing a different internal process, or her role may not be as publicly visible as that of the CEO. Given her HR position, additional discretion may be required due to employee confidentiality and internal procedural concerns.

• Focus on top leadership: The CEO is the most prominent figure and the ultimate representation of the company. In a statement like this, the priority is to reassure investors, clients, and employees that the primary leadership is being held accountable and that the company’s direction remains stable. Excluding other figures might be considered a lesser evil to achieve that goal.

Nevertheless, this omission is not risky free. It invites speculation among employees and the general public, potentially raising questions about fairness in how the individuals involved are treated or whether the company is being fully transparent.

No Boundary Between the Personal and the Professional

The Astronomer case serves as a reminder that, in the information age, corporate reputation is a fragile ecosystem where the personal actions of key figures can have seismic repercussions. There is no longer a clear boundary between public and private life for those who personify a brand. Companies do not merely sell products or services—they project culture and values. When those values appear compromised by the actions of their leaders, even outside of work hours, trust among employees, customers, and investors can erode swiftly.

This incident underlines the critical importance of robust crisis management and a corporate culture that is lived—not merely stated. Corporate values must go beyond slogans: when a company invokes its values, and those values are not reflected in leadership conduct, the credibility of the culture itself is at stake.

For any organisation, the ability to respond swiftly, transparently, and decisively—reaffirming its principles and redirecting attention to its core mission—is crucial for navigating reputational storms. Ultimately, a company’s strength lies not only in its innovation or profitability, but in the integrity of those who lead it and the trust it inspires in all its stakeholders.

If your company finds itself facing a similar incident—or any other event that triggers a reputational crisis—Señor Lobo & Friends is here to help you manage it with speed and professionalism. Call us, and we’ll get to work.