????揭露無傷大雅的謊言、牛皮和言行失檢，這些通常用于政治攻擊的小伎倆現(xiàn)在也開始出現(xiàn)在企業(yè)界，憤懣不平的維權(quán)股東開始使用這些手段來達(dá)到改變公司管理層的目的。

????雅虎（YHOO）首席執(zhí)行官斯科特?湯普森在個人簡歷上的虛假信息被披露導(dǎo)致了他的下臺。在用來推動公司人事改組的戰(zhàn)術(shù)中，又出現(xiàn)了新式的、針對個人的武器。相當(dāng)數(shù)量的公司高管由于和下屬關(guān)系不和被曝光而下臺，也有人因職業(yè)行為不當(dāng)而遭到驅(qū)逐。

????而揭露湯普森在教育背景上的前后矛盾，為維權(quán)股東和對沖基金提供了新方向，他們可以在過去的職業(yè)、學(xué)術(shù)甚至是個人事件或者疏忽中搜尋不一致的地方。

????保羅?霍奇森是研究公司治理的GMIRatings公司的高級研究員，他說：“它是一種新的戰(zhàn)術(shù)，因為通常是董事會而不是股東發(fā)現(xiàn)了這種捏造事實的行為。”

????公司治理專家稱，探究高管個人或其它方面的背景合情合理。

????“任何關(guān)系到個人品行正直與否的事項都可以去調(diào)查，不管是無心之過還是故意欺瞞，”羅伯特?麥考密克說，他是總部設(shè)在舊金山的委托顧問公司格拉斯?劉易斯（Glass Lewis）的首席策略官。“更何況學(xué)位代表了工作能力的一部分。”

????克里斯托弗?拜爾是股東維權(quán)網(wǎng)站TheShareholderActivist.com的創(chuàng)始人和博客作者，他認(rèn)為湯普森對事實的掩蓋“完全辜負(fù)了股東的信任，是徹底的背叛。信任無價，容不得半點差錯。這種行為得不到公眾諒解。”

????拜爾的本職工作是精神科醫(yī)師，專門面向華爾街人士及其家庭成員提供診療服務(wù)，他強調(diào)，查驗資歷“是必須的，特別是在充斥著捏造、掩蓋和操縱的商業(yè)世界里。肯定有那么些簡歷是不完全真實的。”

????加州大學(xué)洛杉磯分校（UCLA）的法律教授斯蒂芬?班布里奇則說，湯普森事件“鼓勵了投資者，也許值得去做更徹底的背景調(diào)查，而董事會則應(yīng)該更認(rèn)真地審查候選人。”

????湯普森在簡歷中宣稱在波士頓郊外的石山學(xué)院（Stonehill College）獲得計算機(jī)科學(xué)學(xué)位，但其老東家（eBay的Paypa部門）之前公布的簡歷只顯示了他從該學(xué)院得到的會計學(xué)學(xué)位。

????總的來說，股東在2008年的金融危機(jī)之后更加警惕公司治理事務(wù)，最近摩根大通（J.P. Morgan Chase）的巨額對沖損失在這個問題又起到了火上澆油的效果。一貫消極的投資者也開始尋找新的方式來加強公司問責(zé)制度，其中包括披露公司在政治捐款和游說上的花費。

????特別是考慮到在美國最高法院2010年的“聯(lián)合公民”判決之后，公司可以向政治行動委員會捐款，更多的投資人集團(tuán)開始要求提高在此類費用上的透明度。

????Exposing fibs, exaggerations and indiscretions -- routinely used to undercut or derail political careers -- is migrating to the corporate world as a new tactic for unhappy shareholder activists to win changes they seek in the executive suite.

????Disclosure of a falsehood in Yahoo (YHOO) chief executive Scott Thompson's resume resulted in his departure from the company, and put a new, more personal, face on tactics to effect corporate shake-ups. A noticeable number of top-level executives have been booted when skewed relationships with subordinates came to light, and others have been felled by professional failings.

????But exposing discrepancies in Thompson's academic record provides a new avenue for activist investors and hedge funds to root around in past professional, academic, and perhaps even personal, events or omissions to ferret out discrepancies.

????"It's a new tactic because typically it's been boards that uncovered fabrications rather than shareholders," says Paul Hodgson, senior researcher for GMIRatings, a corporate governance research firm.

????Corporate governance experts say that delving into executive backgrounds -- personal and otherwise -- is fair game.

????"Anything that goes to the integrity of the individual is appropriate to examine, whether it was a mistake or an intention to deceive," says Robert McCormick, chief policy officer of Glass Lewis, a San Francisco-based proxy advisor. "His degree is part of a skill set that he brought to the job."

????Christopher Bayer, co-founder and blogger at TheShareholderActivist.com, says Thompson's dissembling was "a complete violation of confidence and a betrayal. Trust is priceless, and today there is no room for error. The public is not forgiving."

????Examining credentials "is much needed, especially because so much is fudged, shaded, and manipulated in the corporate world. There is also a certain amount of resumes that are less than totally accurate," says Bayer, a psychiatrist who specializes in treating Wall Street professionals and their families.

????The Thompson episode "encourages investors that it may be worth doing better background checks, and boards need to do a better job vetting candidates," says Stephen Bainbridge, a law professor at UCLA.

????Thompson listed that he had earned a degree in computer science from Stonehill College, outside Boston, but his earlier resume at former employer eBay's PayPal unit had only included a degree in accounting from that college.

????In general, shareholders are more alert to governance issues after the 2008 financial meltdown, a concern inflamed by J.P. Morgan Chase's recent huge hedging losses. Once-passive shareholders are exploring new ways to unlock corporate accountability, including disclosure of how much companies spend on political spending and lobbying.

????With corporate dollars now able to fuel political action committees, following the 2010 Citizens United ruling by U.S. Supreme Court, more investor groups are starting to ask for transparency on such spending.