Yahoo CEO

Daniel Loeb, a New York hedge fund manager and who owns a 5. Per cent stake In Yahoo, came out In open to share his view against the comp either and Scott Thompson. However, Dan Lyons at The Dally Beast supported Thompson. Yahoo was quick to call the mistake an inadvertent err tho after increasing pressure the board hired an outside counsel for the investigation ( figure of speech J, 2012). Thompson, later on sent a memo to the employees apologizing for the scandal (Goldman D, & compend J, 2012) Was it appropriate for a giant like Yahoo to call the mistake an inadvertent error?I believe No. If you produce a zip error on your balance sheets, and In the internet services you provide o your customers then this reasoning would simply be a blunder. COOS actions were ethically un distinguishable because he was breaching the trust of board of directors who had hired him, in this case, without verifying his credentials on resume. Also, socially irresponsible because there are investors, people who trust chief operating officer and any such incident on his part does send a bad signal to them.There are two things to debate upon Should Yahoo have blast Scott Thompson the moment they found out that he lied on his resume? & Was It ethical on the part of Scott Thompson, considering the session he was In, to falsely claim the breaker point he never received? I would particularly like to be aggressive on each of the two questions. Yes, Yahoo should have immediately pink-slipped Scott Thompson the moment the allegations were verified. In doing so, the company would have set good example of holding good morals.The CEO is the top most level in any corporate the employees look up to, in terms of role model and as a leader. Any allegations on him could set a bad specter down the ladder In the company. Falling to fire him could have sent a bad signal at the lower order of getting commission with the things and who knows many more such cases might show up in the near future . According to the consequentiality model, the only thing that matters is the consequence of your act. The act, whether right or maltreat, decides the draw of the person and of the other people who should withal bear the consequences (Moldavia, M).The consequentiality model in this case did not apply to the Coos actions. The outburst of his lie cost him his Job and also put the reputation of Yahoo at stake, however on some level It could be argued that he was trying to Improve the existing condition of Yahoo, unless not for too long. Also, that did not prove positive to any of the person in the company considering his short tenure. The share prices collapsed and the company was In the limelight for the wrong reason.Also, it is not ethical on the part of any CEO to make false claims in his resume. Had Scott rectified his resume and removed the Computer Science head from It, exactly the same way have been much different now for Yahoo. Scott, during his short tenure at Yahoo took some crucial steps of put off 14% of the employees (Lied, M, 2012) in an effort to improve the financial condition of the company. Had he been there for a longer period, he might have embossed the companys financial position and the situation would have been completely different.However, his small act of not removing the false claim from his resume proved too costly for him and in turn for Yahoo. Communitarians theory of moral reasoning also has no application with Scott Thompson. The theory states to be true to your contracts, whether implicit or explicit, in which you willfully enter (Moldavia, M). However, in this case Scott Thompson signs in the annual report right below the line that says This report does not contain NY untrue statement of a stuff and nonsense fact. (Epitome J, 2012, Pl 73) This is complete contradiction to the theory of Communitarians.Another thing to notice is that Scott Thompson did not feel to resign from his position. Instead he sent an apology memo t o all the employees (Goldman D, & Epitome J, 2012). Who knows, Yahoo might have not even accepted his resignation, owing to his future productive plans, similar to the case of Bausch & Lomb CEO Ronald Carmella, who placed his resignation, on account of false degree claims in his resume, to the board only to be later rejected and then e served another six years before past(a) in 2008.