That's one of the curious roles of CEO. If things go wrong, you resign. Helps the company draw a line under the incident and show that they are "moving on", even when it's complete nonsense.
A big part of the CEO's role is to manage investor confidence. Confidence in a company's vision, execution, and communication underwrites its equity value. Replacing a CEO who has lost the market's confidence is more than ceremonial.
Not, it's not ceremonial. But, I don't think anyone used that term, except you. The parent said it was nonsense, which is true.
Sure, it's part of the CEO's job to inspire confidence, but what's nonsense is that virtually any CEO would be responsible for any single tech-vulnerability down the line.
So, it may well be that investors expect that, which would mean that the nonsense is on their part. And, perhaps Target is simply responding to that nonsense, but it's still nonsense.
Said another way, it's not ceremonial if it matters. But, it is nonsense that it would matter.
I had assumed it was similar to the role of a plant manager: they are public responsible for the company. There are circumstances where, if a plant is found to be in breach of the law, the plant manager can be sent to jail as part of the punishment (I think often in relation to environmental regs and safety breaches - never seen it in person, though).
I don't think this fact is discussed much when people talk about excessive executive compensation. It's sort of like TV actors who negotiate tens of thousands of dollars per episode or sports stars who may not have more than a five year career.
