Dude, go read the article. His first public statement was a tweet. 160 characters. His statements in the article make it sound like he talked to his buddies before tweeting, had a nuanced position much like the one you are describing (ie working at Yahoo is okay if you have a really really good reason), and then tweeted something a bit sensational to get the idea some news coverage.
Sure, he could have phrased the tweet better. But that's arguably not the point of Twitter :p
On an unrelated note, I can't make heads or tails of your third paragraph. First you argue that the "ethical way for a business to behave is to maximize shareholder value", then you claim that "we are looking at ethics here, not whether this is a good business move". Those two sentences come back to back and appear self-contradictory -- maximizing shareholder value is done by good business moves.
Did you mean that if the Yahoo board believed the action was ethical, then the employees shouldn't care if they think it's ethical? (Or that Yammer's CEO shouldn't care if those employees thought it was ethical?) (Or perhaps that Yahoo employees who stay are better hires, since they won't get in the way of business ethics?)
As you can see I am a bit befuddled by your paragraph three.
As to the question of (good arguers) <> (people with similar ethics) you bring up at the end, I can not say. Personally, the most productive teams I have been on have had relatively heterogeneous beliefs and ethics. Perhaps your experience differs.
Sure, he could have phrased the tweet better. But that's arguably not the point of Twitter :p
On an unrelated note, I can't make heads or tails of your third paragraph. First you argue that the "ethical way for a business to behave is to maximize shareholder value", then you claim that "we are looking at ethics here, not whether this is a good business move". Those two sentences come back to back and appear self-contradictory -- maximizing shareholder value is done by good business moves.
Did you mean that if the Yahoo board believed the action was ethical, then the employees shouldn't care if they think it's ethical? (Or that Yammer's CEO shouldn't care if those employees thought it was ethical?) (Or perhaps that Yahoo employees who stay are better hires, since they won't get in the way of business ethics?)
As you can see I am a bit befuddled by your paragraph three.
As to the question of (good arguers) <> (people with similar ethics) you bring up at the end, I can not say. Personally, the most productive teams I have been on have had relatively heterogeneous beliefs and ethics. Perhaps your experience differs.