Business Opinion: The enthusiasm with which senior figures at the BBC tendered their resignations in the wake of Lord Hutton's report last week was in marked contrast to the way things are done on this side of the Irish Sea.

In the same week that Gavyn Davies and Greg Dyke were considering their positions as chairman and chief executive respectively of the BBC, Michael O'Leary of Ryanair was also under pressure. The Ryanair chief executive spent something like two hours on a conference call with analysts reassuring them that the 25 per cent collapse in the company's share price following an unexpected profit warning did not constitute Armageddon.

During the course of the call, Mr O'Leary was asked by one participant if he would consider resigning given that, among other things, his combative approach to the European Commission was counter-productive. According to those who listened to the call, it was clear that Mr O'Leary was not even anticipating the question, never mind seriously thinking about whether he should make some public act of contrition as a sop to his investors, who were nursing losses of over €1.3 billion at that stage.

The incident is resonant of Michael Buckley's attitude at AIB in the wake of the Rusnak affair. Although the bank's chief executive did offer his resignation at one stage, it is fair to say that he did not think he should go. (Otherwise why would he have stayed on when it was not accepted?)

In hindsight Mr Buckley was right. He can justifiably claim he did what was in the bank's best interest by not giving into the clamour for his resignation - which once again came mostly from the British media and investment community.

Although, as chief executive, Mr Buckley was ultimately responsible for the losses of $691 million incurred as result of Rusnak's trades, he was also the person whose responsibility it was to fix the problem, and arguably the person best placed to do so. This he duly did and, although his reputation may be a little tarnished, he ultimately did the right thing by his shareholders, customers and employees.

Supporters of Mr O'Leary and Mr Buckley would argue that cutting loose the chief executive under such circumstances is often the easy way out for a company in trouble. Once it has claimed a high-profile scalp, the media usually moves on quickly to the next story while the new man (or woman) has something of a honeymoon period in which to try and effect a rescue. Often, if things work out, there is a good chance that the person who resigns can be rehabilitated after a decent interval.

Elan is an interesting and unusual case in the Irish context. Both Donal Geaney, the chairman and chief executive, and Tom Lynch, the vice-chairman and chief finance officer, stepped down in June 2002 following a collapse in the company's share price triggered by doubts about some of its accounting practices and poor results from Alzheimer's drugs trials. This, together with the appointment of the avuncular Garo Armen as chairman, soothed investors - mostly US institutions - and bought the company some very important breathing space.

Elan's successful restructuring raises the question as to whether they should have resigned at all. After all it was considered necessary to keep both Mr Geaney and Mr Lynch on board at Elan as well as remunerated consultants because, as the creators of Elan's elaborate financial structure, they were the best people to help dismantle it as part of the restructuring. Perhaps they should have toughed it out in traditional Irish style like Mr Buckley and Mr O'Leary? It might even have been better for Elan.

There is, of course, a downside to the Irish way of hanging on until power is prised from your lifeless hand. This was highlighted by the fall-out - or lack of it - from the Ansbacher inquiry. Despite the report into Des Traynor's offshore bank by High Court inspectors linking numerous members of the great and the good in Irish business life to systematic tax evasion going back years, the number of people who resigned from positions of trust and responsibility after being exposed could probably be counted on one finger, never mind a single hand. Equally, the pressure on them from their peers to step aside was negligible.

Ultimately a number of people may have been quietly edged out, but precious few felt the need to offer their resignations because they had been exposed as tax cheats and, in some cases, liars.

These are things that say a lot more about your fitness to hold office than the BBC defending employees who reported mistakenly - but in good faith - that the government may have misled the public over an issue of national importance. That cannot be a good thing.