As you have likely heard already, Yahoo got themselves in a little bit of hot water lately when it surfaced that their new CEO, Scott Thompson, lied about his university degree on his CV. He claimed to have a computer science degree from a school that didn't offer that degree until four years after he left. So what should Yahoo do?

This is only one of a series of bad decisions that the Yahoo board has made, showing that maybe they are not the right group to steer Yahoo back in the right direction. Sure, the board made a correctable error by not checking into Thompson's credentials, but the bigger issue is what to do with Thompson. He lied on his resume and admitted to it in a letter he sent to all Yahoo employees.

The issue isn't that Thompson lied about a degree, it is that he lied, period. I don't profess to know him, but does this say anything about his character? Does it mean he has lied about other things in his career? Does he lie to his staff? These are not irrelevant or far-fetched questions to ask.

Yahoo is clearly a company struggling to find itself and this takes them in the wrong direction. What would you do if you found out the person running your organization had lied in order to get the job?

Mark Hurd recently resigned as CEO of Hewlett-Packard, but that is not news anymore. Nor is it really news that he resigned due to the submission of expense reports supposedly used to quiet a female contractor who accused Hurd of sexual harassment. The real news is the $40m severance package that Hurd will receive for his resignation. Under Hurd's tenure, he stressed the importance of implementing a stronger business code of ethics and got rid of anyone that did not follow that code. Usually, those people were asked to leave and given no severance. So why does Hurd get a large severance package for breaking those same rules? Because CEOs are playing in a different game than everyone else. We see it with the size of the compensation packages, we see it in the size of the severance packages and we see it in the reckless disregard that some CEOs have for the rules that we are all supposed to follow.

HP under Hurd saw great success over the past five years so it is not surprising that the rules for him are different. I have no problem with CEOs being paid ridiculously high wages because of the pressure they are under and the higher standard we hold them to, but to blatantly treat them differently when they do wrong does not send the right message to the business community or those that look up to these leaders. The message that money can overcome any wrongdoing will send us down another slippery path that leads into the ethical abyss. This is not the best strategy for an organization that is primed for success in a very competitive marketplace.

For the success of any business, engagement and leadership must come from the top down. This does not mean that only top management can lead an organization or its initiatives, but it is very hard to drive change when the CEO is not engaged. Having worked with dozens of companies over the years, I have seen the difference between success and failure. Failure looks like a time-consuming, important initiative that has no sustainability. Failure looks like a lot of money and effort spent with no long-term impact on the organization. Failure looks like a waste of the organization's time and money. Failure looks like a de-motivated workforce and internal battles. But enough about failure, what does success look like?

Success looks like an initiative that is championed by individuals or team from all levels of the company. Success looks like a change that creates long-term benefits for the organization. Success looks like something that outlives the CEO's tenure. Success looks like people being engaged and passionate about their organization.

Many times the difference between success and failure is the level of support and engagement from the CEO. CEOs are there to inspire, to lead, to provide direction, to communicate, to make hard decisions and to engage employees and business partners. Without that, organizations cannot expect to implement initiatives successfully.

Being a solo practitioner, or a lone wolf, it sometimes gets lonely. No one to discuss business ideas with, no one to help make important decisions and no one to give you advice when you are off track. That is why it is so important to surround myself with a good support network. I am fortunate enough to have friends and family who are there to help and offer advice when needed. I am also fortunate to be a part of a global community of consultants who, like me, run their own practices. I have a forum to test out new ideas and strategies. How else can one be successful?

You cannot make business decisions in a vacuum and it is impossible to know all angles of an issue or solution without outside help. Some of the loneliest colleagues I meet are Presidents and CEOs because they have a great deal of responsibility and ultimately the final decision-making power.

Life is better when you have a support system, regardless of your job or your pastimes. We need to spend more time developing personal relationships and spend less time making faceless connections through technology. Those personal relationships are rewarding and beneficial, so why not spend more time cultivating them?