Finally, Yahoo! Inc. (NASDAQ: YHOO) has ditched its CEO Terry Semel, according to MarketWatch. And the new CEO is Jerry Yang, a co-founder of the company. Former CFO, Susan Decker was named president, positioning her for a chance to take over the top slot.

It is beyond me why Semel held onto his job for so long. He helped stabilize Yahoo after the dot-com crash but has stumbled from one incompetent quarter to the next for years. And he has taken home some truly outrageous pay -- a total of $452 million in salary, bonus and stock-option exercises since April 2001 [subscription] -- during which time Yahoo stock has risen four-fold.

However, in the last year the disconnect between Semel's pay and Yahoo's performance became too much to take. According to the New York Times, his total 2006 pay was $107.5 million during which time Yahoo's stock fell 35%. And directors concluded Yahoo was just not catching up fast enough with Google, Inc. (NASDAQ: GOOG) so Semel had to go.

Susan Decker had been positioned to take over the company as CEO. But Yahoo's board probably decided that she was not yet ready. However, she is considered to have the inside track during the CEO search to replace Semel. So Yang's appointment could be just a temporary move that will help stabilize the company until she is ready.

Or, with the stock up 8% to $29.62 in after-hours trading, he might just sell it. It would make a nice morsel for Microsoft Corporation (NASDAQ: MSFT).

Peter Cohan is president of Peter S. Cohan & Associates, a management consulting and venture capital firm. He also teaches management at Babson College and edits The Cohan Letter. He has no financial interest in the securities mentioned in this post.

[See our live blog of the web cast in which Terry Semel discusses his resignation here.]

Home Depot's (NYSE: HD) shoplifting policy was exposed today in a blog post by Brian White. Brian details a story wherein Home Depot employees have been summarily dismissed from employment for pursuing shoplifters and assisting police in apprehending them. On its face the situation seems stupid and illogical, but there are some things we need to consider.

First off, when a person is employed by any company, it is a condition of employment that the individual abide by the policies of the company. That's pretty straightforward thinking. It's not an issue of public sentiment. If the company that hires you tells you that policy dictates you hand the keys to the store to anyone who asks for them, you are bound by that policy and your job depends on that. Home Depot policy is clear and concise. Employees are not to interfere with shoplifters. Even the in-house security employees are instructed that way. Home Depot has its reasons for putting that policy in place.

So is this a license to steal? Perhaps it is, but there are some things that can be done about it. I have one idea that I'd institute immediately. If Home Depot was mine to secure and protect, each employee would be instructed in the ways to take hi-resolution video recordings of shoplifting occurrences. Video cameras would be accessible and ready in strategic locations so if shoplifting was detected, a video record could be made of the person, item(s), and the means of departure. Employees would be instructed to smile and wave at the perpetrators while getting nice clear records of their faces and the goods they have allegedly stolen. The resulting video recording could then be handed over to the security detail for determination if the police should be called.

When you couple a video recording with a sworn statement by a witness, you then provide the police with reasonable suspicion and they can easily pursue the matter further. To chase the alleged perpetrators yourself is a recipe for disaster. Even if they're guilty beyond any question and they've taken thousands of dollars in merchandise, if they fall on their faces while you're chasing them, it's your butt that's going to be in the wringer.

Sad but true.

The airline industry, oh, it's plagued with problems right now. I'm sure you could help me list them: overcrowding on airplanes, passengers left to suffer overflowed toilets on the tarmac, unappealing food, no food at all. Delays, record financial losses, union woes, price pressures. Yep. The airline industry has issues.

But why focus on the real problems when you can make such a wide public statement that shows your commitment to AIDS prevention? I know, what? Qantas Airways Limited (ASX:QAN) terminated the flight attendant who, reportedly, had sex with actor Ralph Fiennes in an airplane bathroom. Ironically, he was on his way to Mumbai to deliver a speech about AIDS -- bloggers are reporting salaciously that he committed AIDS prevention no-no No. 1 (though I don't know how anyone can be sure about his prophylactic use or lack thereof).

In any case, a high-profile tabloidy encounter between a beautiful flight attendant and a sex symbol of an actor should be the airline industry's least concern.

Bristol-Myers Squibb (NYSE:BMY)'s CEO, Peter R. Dolan and General Counsel, Richard K. Willard, will be fired if the company's board of directors agrees with recommendations from an independent monitor. The Wall Street Journal made the unusual move of posting a "breaking news" notice on its web site in advance of the full story.

While Dolan's self-importance is such that the company's "about us" web page features his name, under "CEO:" as the first (and only managerial) Very Important Detail, he's made such gigantic missteps that a recent article said he had "precious little credibility." His attempts to delay generic competition for Plavix are being investigated by the Justice Department, and he's been responsible for "major financial scandals."

Today's Forbes asks, "Who Could Replace Peter Dolan?" and offers up names such as CFO Andrew Bonfield, Chief Scientific Officer Elliot Sigal (a "dark horse") and Karen Katen, Vice Chairman of Pfizer. We'll provide more details as we see them.

"Effective: immediately." These words (when connected with one's employment) indicate one of two things: (a) a highly-charged resignation, or (b) someone was on the business end of a "you're fired!"

AOL Chief Technology Officer Maureen Govern was, it's being reported, in category (b). I think we all knew something big would happen as a result of 1000s of search results being made available on the internet and, in my opinion, it's too bad it was a firing (I so prefer principled, stiff-upper-lip resignations). A firing is redolent with the mental image of closed doors, red faces, swear words echoing down the halls of AOL. Instead of this being an unfortunate learning experience it looks like a red-faced, expletive-filled, closed-door firing.

Maureen is to be replaced by former CTO John McKinley. According to the Wall Street Journal [subscription required], two other employees were fired along with Maureen, although they didn't say who.

Every time we write a critical post about Time Warner or Microsoft, or expose a negative fact, rumor or analysis, the refrain renews: fire the CEO! Dick Parsons, that lucky guy, gets the brunt of our readers' anger. He's screwing up Time Warner, you've told us time and time again, he should go. So say you of Microsoft's Steve Ballmer, he of the explosive personality, sweaty armpits, and billions in inexplicable operating expenses. Sometimes it's Jeff Immelt of GE, or even well-loved figures like Meg Whitman of eBay.

But usually, it's Dick. Today is no different. With 2nd quarter earnings coming out next Wednesday, and everyone wondering about the company's plans with its AOL unit, Joan Lappin from Gramercy Capital Management demands in the pages of Fortune, "Save Time Warner, Fire Parsons."

It's nothing new, but it's worth evaluating her reasons for the radical battle cry. She argues that Parsons is all about politics (in fact, he's rumored to be angling for a 2009 run for New York City mayor), a skill that helped him avoid perishing in the "shark tank" that has been Time Warner's boardroom for the past decade and earned him credit as being a "Teflon Don," but has failed miserably to maintain Time Warner's legacy as a creative, entrepreneurial culture where good managers were rewarded "generous financial incentives for producing solid earnings growth." Fire Parsons, she says, and maybe that creative culture can be revived.

I honor her passion, and agree that the creative, entrepreneurial company always wins over the political shark tank. But who, Joan, is positioned to take the helm from him? That question must be answered before anyone brings out a block and starts chopping.