This seems incredibly cynical. She pretends to step down to try and do damage limitation, then when customers, investors and suppliers are surprised they are st

This seems incredibly cynical. She pretends to step down to try and do damage limitation, then when customers, investors and suppliers are surprised they are still dealing with her she decides, actually, the heat is off and she'll just cancel her stepping down. Notice how through all of that she's actually not really dealt with the problem in the first place - only the PR impact. Now having changed literally nothing, and not addressed the issue she's decided she can move on and wants to sue the reporters. Oh and to really put the icing on the cake she gives a statement saying she's been doing some deep soul searching and reframed all of the issues as just >“When I think back on ways I’ve phrased feedback, there have been times where the word choice isn’t as thoughtful as it should have been, or the way it was framed actually wasn’t as constructive as it could have been,” she said. “Those are not, in the eyes of our leadership and the eyes of our board, terminal, unsolvable problems.” Well firstly, the eyes of 'our leadership' appear to be... guess who! And apparently, creating corporate policies to publicly humiliate employees and denying them private spaces to talk is a matter of how she "phrases feedback"? Pressuring workers to work extra outside of work hours and at anti-social hours? Badly phrased feedback. To me this just screams "I didn't do anything wrong but need to handle PR for the IPO".