There are moments in a company's development where massive overhaul of key executive leadership would be extremely jarring to the likelihood of short-term success, and when the prospects for the next fiscal year otherwise seem promising.
It is only smart to make such decisions if it is determined that there are clear signs that the organization has went as far as it can go under that leadership, and also, not to be overlooked, whether there is any readily available proven leadership that not only is capable to replace the current, but that clearly has the capacity to take the organization beyond what the current can.
It's one of those differences between a wise and discerning board of directors and a reactionary, unstable one.
(So, guess which way I voted?
...hint, I voted the opposite where it concerned the head coach... same standard applied/applies. )