Yahoo Board Director Patti Hart Stepping Down Over Thompson Scandal
concertina226 writes "Yahoo has announced that board member Patti Hart, who led the committee that hired CEO Scott Thompson, will be stepping down. Hart has been under fire for overseeing the hiring of Thompson, whose resume wasn't fully vetted. I know some of you on Slashdot think that Scott Thompson didn't do anything wrong by claiming he had a computer science degree on his CV when he doesn't, but don't you think it's kind of weird that the guy who lied gets to keep his job as CEO, yet this director is being made a scapegoat? It just sends out the message that it's cool to pretend to have qualifications that you don't have."
Surely you do not expect that a CEO will be held to account?
...perhaps it sends the message that what you are able to do, and what you continue to do effectively is more important than what on-paper tests you've passed.
the board member did not effectively research the candidate...whether or not the CEO works out in the end is of no consequence.
It's not that their firing a scapegoat, it is that it takes longer to fire the CEO.
And I don’t care if he has a Accounting or CS degree. What matters is his leadership abilities, which means setting the tone for values and ethics, which it looks like he is failing at.
... but shouldn't the person who actually committed the dishonesty be shown the door?
Oh thats right. He is the CEO!
http://saveie6.com/
Denholm: I'm gonna put you in I.T. because you said on your CV you have a lot of experience with computers.
Jen: I did say that on my CV, yes. I have a lot of experience with the whole computer thing you know, emails, sending emails, receiving emails, deleting emails, I could go on.
Denholm: Do.
Jen: The web. Using a mouse, mices, using mice. Clicking, double clicking. The computer screen, of course. The keyboard. The... bit that goes on the floor down there.
Denholm: The hard drive.
Jen: Correct.
Denholm: Well, you certainly seem to know your stuff. That's settled. I've got a good feeling about you Jen and they need a new manager.
Jen: Fantastic, so the people I'll be working with, what are they like?
Denholm: Standard nerds!
the result might well have been that they would still have hired the guy, but would have avoided to publish an incorrect CV and then the "scandal" would not have been:
"thomson lied to get hired by Yahoo", but
"thomson's cv x years ago was not fully correct", but since he did a job that we think is "good enough at the previous position" we still want him...
So Patti Hart is not fired over "getting the wrong guy in" but over "not doing her homework to make sure that the guy they choose would fit in and be able to do his work without generating a scandal just at the begining..."
so it make some kind of sense actually...
Actually, in this case, it would be more like: "...and if you believe that, you're fired!"
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
don't you think it's kind of weird that the guy who lied gets to keep his job as CEO, yet this director is being made a scapegoat?
Speaking as someone with a Masters of Social Science, Juris Doctor, and PhD in Theoretical Particle Physics/Cosomolgy, I see no problem with this whatsoever. After all, if someone who's qualified to issue himself a degree isn't good enough to be CEO, then who is?
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
Wrong. She was responsible and got what she deserved (which is merely a non-renewal of her next contract, not a firing). If a background check can't verify a degree, then what's the point? Thompson won't survive this, it's far too embarrassing and Yahoo has too many problems already to be willing to add this to the pile.
This is the same Patti Hart that ran Excite@Home into the ground.
It could have been worse. Someone like Patti might have inadvertently let an honest person slip into a companies executive suite. And that would be a real tragedy.
Have gnu, will travel.
If I had to guess, the board is checking to see if they can nullify the contract due to fraud before firing the guy. But that's just my guess.
I used to list University of South Vietnam, School of Combat Operations on my resume.
Vietnam Veteran / Former Postal Worker -- Use Caution When Taunting!
FTFA: "Hart, CEO of International Game Technology, a gaming machine manufacturer, told the Yahoo board that the board asked her to step down from her seat." She is CEO of IGT, and the IGT board of directors are the ones that asked her to resign from Yahoo because it is a huge distraction.
//Full disclosure: I work at IGT
It just sends out the message that it's cool to pretend to have qualifications that you don't have.
Suppose some people think it is cool to do this, and you don't. I suppose that they should be able to express their opinion, and you should be able to express your opinion. Some people think those qualifications are worthless or not "cool," and I think they should be able to express that feeling as well.
And I'd like to send the message that Yahoo should be allowed to do whatever it wants internally, and anyone who doesn't like it can just not use Yahoo, or buy a piece of it and try to change it.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
Stories are that Patti Hart also falsified her educational credentials too:
bloomberg.com - Questioning Hart's Background
"Loeb said that Patti Hart, a Yahoo board member who chairs the search committee, inflated her degree too. Hart, who also serves as CEO of International Game Technology (IGT), is listed in filings as holding a “bachelor’s degree in marketing and economics” from Illinois State University, Loeb said. “However, we understand that Ms. Hart’s degree is in business administration. She received a degree in neither marketing nor economics.” "
Independent board members have a pretty short list of duties.
Hiring (and compensating) the CEO is one. Like picking a partner for marriage, it is an infrequent decision that has big impacts. And it’s not like it was a subjective decision that can only be evaluated in hindsight. It was a simple, objective part of the hiring process which she failed at. If you have a single marjor duty to do, make sure you do it well.
Audit committee is the other.
Short does not mean unimportant. If shareholder democracy is going to work, they have to nail these 2.
...perhaps it sends the message that what you are able to do, and what you continue to do effectively is more important than what on-paper tests you've passed. the board member did not effectively research the candidate...whether or not the CEO works out in the end is of no consequence.
If you, I, or the next poster lied about a degree then we would most likely be fired. Our ability to do the job would be irrelevant. If we were very lucky we would be allowed to re-apply for the job with an accurate resume/cv. I agree that degrees are not strictly necessary. Some *very rare* individuals can learn the same lessons on their own, although nearly all who believe that they can do so are mistaken, and for some things on the job experience can be roughly equivalent. The real intended lesson of automatic termination is never falsify your application. Employers rightfully want a very high price to be associated with such falsification.
Has Yahoo followed this very common policy of instantly terminating anyone who falsified their application? Why does the CEO get a pass compared to all other employees [/sarcasm]? That is the real question that this controversy raises.
It's the golden rule: He who has the gold, makes the rules.
don't you think it's kind of weird that the guy who lied gets to keep his job as CEO, yet this director is being made a scapegoat?
Yes. If it's not serious enough to take action against the CEO, then taking action against the person who hired him is nuts.
Try not to link to hate sites run by psychos. If you can't find a better source than Hot Air, it's not true.
Computer Science. Interesting game. The only winning move is not to play.
If ever there was a model for how the 1% differ from the 99%, this is it. This jackass can LIE on his resume to become CEO of a major corporation, and you bet he's getting paid more per month than I make in a year. Furthermore, even when he's "let go", he'll walk away with the GDP of small nations. Enough to live comfortably for the rest of his days. FOR LYING.
The rest of us would be tossed out on the street, with a warning that we're lucky we're not in jail.
Seriously, what a fucked up world we are living in.
The one little hole in this is that you're acting like a CS degree from the 70's was the reason he got the job. Odds are, no one involved in the hiring process thought it was important enough to look into or consider. He has the job because of his experience and work history, now what he went to school for before I (and likely you) were born. You don't become the CEO of a company like Yahoo by replying to a Monster posting and giving a couple references, you do it by being able to show decades of work history and leadership experience. While I agree that there should be consequences for lying on his resume, I think it's important to keep how much of a footnote that actually is in context. It's like someone in their 30's lying about their high school GPA.
"Yahoo! Board of Directors Forms Special Committee to Review CEO Academic Credentials"
http://pressroom.yahoo.net/pr/ycorp/233689.aspx?link_page_rss=233689
Can't add much more to the headline - expect this is generally the first step in firing the CEO..
If you, I, or the next poster lied about a degree then we would most likely be fired. [...] The real intended lesson of automatic termination is never falsify your application. Employers rightfully want a very high price to be associated with such falsification.
Has Yahoo followed this very common policy of instantly terminating anyone who falsified their application? Why does the CEO get a pass compared to all other employees [/sarcasm]? That is the real question that this controversy raises.
I can't wait to see the CEO brought up in the first wrongful dismissal lawsuit. Maybe I will try to get myself hired at Yahoo, and then when I get fired after it comes to light that I do not have the 5 Ph.D. degrees and 206 awarded patents that I had claimed on my resume, I will cry mightily about the unfair and uneven application of these policies.
Next they will find out that I don't actually have that GED in CS that I put on my resume.
Dammit, it worked when I got that job at PayPal while Scott was there...
Now what I am I gonna do? Any ideas?
The "scapegoats" job was to check the damn CV. He screwed up and clearly didn't bother doing his job. That'll get you sacked in most jobs.
Of course the CEO should go to, then again he's demonstrated he can deceive people which is probably a useful skill for getting investors to overvalue the company,
1. Lie about having a CS degree when interviewing for a CEO position
2. ???????
5. profit!!!!
My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
It was someone's job to validate the resume. That person didn't do the job properly. So that person loses their job. That makes perfect sense.
As for the person having been hired with a false resume, that person may still be a good candidate. Could be the right person for the job.
The first person, having done the hiring, didn't make the mistake of hiring the wrong person. Made the mistake of not knowing what was being hired.
Why do I sound as though english isn't my first language? It's been a stressful week.
CEO101 would actually state "do not everget caught with pants on your knees". It seems Yahoo's CEO failed at that.