Why is Pearson paying Rona Fairhead to go?

Rona Fairhead's decision to quit Pearson is understandable. She's been on the board for 12 years and was passed over for the chief executive's job.

Having been finance director and then chief of the FT Group, she deserves a decent party as she leaves.

But that's not what Pearson has in mind. Nothing like. It thinks a year's salary and 50% of an annual incentive payment should do the trick, meaning the thick end of £1m.

Hold on a minute, though, Pearson doesn't want Fairhead to depart in search of new career challenges.

Outgoing chief executive Dame Marjorie Scardino is clear on that point. "We regret her decision to go," said Scardino, paying tribute to the talents Pearson would rather retain. So why pay Fairhead to go?

Ah, says Pearson, that's because "under the circumstances" the remuneration committee agreed with Fairhead's assessment that her exit next April would also be in the company's interests.

The "circumstances," one assumes, means the choice of John Fallon to succeed Scardino. But, come on, it's a nonsense to give departing directors a year's dosh just because they didn't get the promotion they sought. Parallels with George Entwistle at the BBC should be resisted: the Pearson case is more brazen.