Here the objective truth does not matter
An institution like the one run by AM Slaughter needs money and just because of this surely the leader needs to be be more subtle in their handling of matters like these; be much more aware of what the institution's position looks like from the outside.
Whatever are the objective facts of the case, they don't matter because it has been made too easy to position the institution and Google as an interfering bully. It didn't need to be this way. Google did not need to be so thin-skinned. Slaughter did not need to react in such a pejorative way. For example, the institution could have commissioned another article presenting a different side (assuming there is one). Mr Lynn might have objected and chosen to leave anyway.
It's hard for me to imagine that AM Slaughter will be in position in, say, 12 months from now because it seems to me her actions have put the institution in the position that it's integrity can be brought into doubt. Not that it's integrity *is* in doubt only that it can be construed that way.
One of the challenges of leadership is being willing to sacrifice, or at least refashion, past friendships when those friendships could compromise the leaders ability to represent the best interest of the organization they lead. Unless there is something the constitution of the institution that requires all it's output to be reviewed and is a transparent principle which funders can reasonably expect to be able to rely, it seems to me AM Slaughter has failed in a core responsibility of the role of CEO.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
