Microsoft (NASDAQ: MSFT) announced this week that it sacked its chief information officer, Stuart Scott, over violations of the company's policies. Although it's unclear to the media exactly what policies were violated, Scott's abrupt departure suggests an infringement of pretty large proportions.

Although a Microsoft representative referenced a "violation of company policies" along with an internal investigation, the world's largest software maker announced that Scott had been terminated as as last Friday. Now, this is no middle manager -- Scott was responsible for the entire global information technology infrastructure for the world's largest software maker. Call it a high-profile executive departure, even though Scott was not a large name in executive circles.

After 17 years at General Electric (NYSE: GE), Scott came to Microsoft in 2005, so he had really not been there that long. The question now is to find out if Scott really did something that warranted his dismissal, or if the direction he wanted to take the company's global infrastructure was at odds with company policy, whatever that may be.

After almost two decades at General Electric, it's hard to think that such a seasoned executive would violate any policy in such a short time with Microsoft. Is there a piece of the story that is not being told here? We're sure to find out if dirt starts flying soon in the blogosphere.

Today's New York Times takes an interesting look at some recent cases of corporate executives losing their jobs over perceived moral and ethical failings. HBO CEO Chris Albrecht was asked to resign after he was accused of assaulting his girlfriend, and the head of Citigroup's global wealth management group left after questions were raised about his relationship with CNBC anchor Maria Bartiromo. And the most interesting and scandalous case by far was that of Julie Roehm, the Wal-Mart ad executive fired for incidents surrounding her affair with a colleague.

According to some, the swift firings are motivated by fear of lawsuits and political correctness. While that may be part of it, I think there may be a better reason for dumping executives involved in questionable behavior: A person who behaves unethically is one area of his life is more likely to be unethical in other areas. How likely is it that a man who assaults his girlfriend treats his colleagues with respect? While some people are able to compartmentalize their lives exceptionally well, I just don't think a company needs to keep employees who have displayed huge moral and ethical shortcomings.

Over the past few years, RadioShack's (RSH) stock has seen a steady decline. Then again, the company looks like it is still stuck in the 1970s. Why go to RadioShack when you can get much more selection at places like Best Buy or Circuit City or even Wal-Mart?

True, the company has tried to do some innovative things, such as cutting a VOIP deal with Skype (which is a division of eBay). But, the fact remains that the value proposition for customers is amorphous.

The company has also had a lot of drama in the boardroom. That is, the company's former CEO resigned because of errors on his resume. Also, he did not appear for court on a DWI (driving while intoxicated) charge.

So, within the past few months, RadioShack has finally realized the world has changed and it has, as a result, initiated a restructuring. It means closing stores and firing people.

Yesterday, RadioShack sent a cold email to roughly 400 employees. The gist: "The work force reduction notification is currently in progress. Unfortunately your position is one that has been eliminated."

I saw the headline and yawned. OK, I'm overstating. But was it a surprise to me -- or anyone -- that AOL is planning big staff cuts in conjunction with the company's much-ballyhoed free AOL email offerings? Hardly. Staff cuts in May were seen as only a small piece of an ongoing puzzle as AOL changes from a dial-up, ISP, customer service-based business to a content-rich advertising-based model.

Sure, 5,000 employees, a quarter of AOL's worldwide workforce, is a lot of people. And no one likes job losses. Except maybe investors, who should be pleased -- customer service isn't cheap and the focus is on cash flow or, as Time Warner likes to call it, OIBDA. Should be, but weren't. Although the stock sank only a few pennies today, to $16.65, TWX was down another 17 cents in after-hours trading on the news.