Yahoo: Nothing ever changes when it comes to brand name executive search

Yahoo's recent CEO appointment, picked nicely from PayPal, and the subsequent decision to revamp the company's board underscores how little things change when it comes to how big companies recruit and select talent.

First, the CEO appointment. This decision was obviously needed following the blow-up of the former CEO, Carol Bartz, who basically told her board to f*&% off. So naturally the board goes and gets what's perceived as a softer spoken yet tough operator with a 'Boston accent' as the WSJ headline read last week. The new office holder pledges very little beyond the basics so not to create undue expectations, which are already through the roof anyway. In his defense, that's exactly how to handle the situation.

Then directly following the appointment it's learned that someone has hired a search firm to help revamp the board since it's reportedly learned that Chairman Cliff Bostock would like to move on. Of course no one talks on the record so this is learned through "people close to the matter" or however it's termed now. This dovetails nicely with the CEO appointment.

Everything looks and appears to be picture perfect, right? Much like HP, a big brand name company has taken what it believes to be the appropriate action to impact change. There's only one slight problem. These moves are precisely the same ones that have always been made in these situations with possibly the exception of remaking a board after a CEO hire (although admittedly that's pretty common too.) Yahoo remains standing without a clear strategic direction and soon there will be a new cast of pending characters to sort out vision and strategy. Whether it's former CEO, Carol Bartz, or one of the four other CEOs over the past five years, putting in similar leaders in the same way will always yield the same thing, which may ultimately resemble the definition of insanity. The succession experts can be heard groaning from a mile away.

Then again if everyone is convinced and compensated to do the same thing over and over then why should anything change?

As a side note of disclosure, I used to work for the search firm named to handle the board revamping. No internal sources even know who is doing the work or aren't willing to confirm the obvious, which further compounds the mystery. When everyone wants to be on the inside and very few are, it's nearly impossible to know precisely what's going on. Hence the palace intrique in major brand name situations, another unchanging paradigm.

Anyone up for doing the same thing over and over in 2012 and getting handsomely rewarded?

# # #