I haven't read Sway, but from what Stu Phillips says, it sounds like I should.  Follow the link and you'll see him talking about the difficulty of coming to grips with a person's suitability for a job though an interview.  He suggests getting candidates to do some of the actual work the job entails as way to get some insight on that, the real question we're all trying to answer.  This is fantastic advice.  Obviously, you may not do this every time, but it will give you a real feel for what the person's approach is, and get everybody out of interview mode and closer to what life with this person will be like six months in. 

I do have one caution though.  You have to be prepared for what the cadidates tell you in this free consulting session, and not be looking for a magic bullet.  You may not want to hire Eeyore, but if in their working sessions15 CEO candidates all tell you that you need to close up shop or inject $10million (and yes I do mean you, because we won't be able to sell this to a new lead) and one comes along to give you a work sample that lays out the silk purse you've secretly got on your hands, don't hire the one!

I see from the invaluable PE Week Wire that Quantum Energy Partners has a new COO, from KBR.  Perhaps they'll be able to save some money on their payroll tax bill.  Or they might find some useful billing documentation tips.  You know of the a-billion-here-a-billion-there variety.  On the other hand, good for them for giving this poor fellow, who jumped from the Enron frying pan into the Halliburton/KBR fire, a chance.

I see from my daily Venturewire email that local (to me in Palo Alto that is) Biotech company, Cell Biosciences has announced a new CEO, new head of Sales, and new head of Marketing.  Sounds like they're gearing up to sell some stuff. 

Interestingly, for a company at the verge of a big commercialization push, they've traded one CEO with a finance background in Linda Cahill for another even more financy one, in Tim Harkness.  Evidently his work at Molecular Devices is known to the board, or at least the Lead Director.  Of course, bringing on somebody the board trusts already is a big advantage and often trumps other factors one might expect such a spec to include, as well as questions about very brief stays at other companies.  And naturally they must beleive that they've just brought on strong players in the both the sales and marketing roles.  (Incidentally newly seperated and previously jointly held by another Molecular Devices alum.)  At any rate, I'm a big proponent of the CFO to CEO path, at least for some CFOs, so I'm happy to see another one join those ranks.

This post over at GigaOm notes several changes in execs, including at Yahoo and tweaks the valley a bit for making more news that way than with innovative products. To which I, as a recruiter, can only say hurray.  Musical chairs is the best game ever!

Anyway, I also can only concur with his suggestion that Yahoo needs to look to outside the valley sources for new talent.  Back to my thoughts on Yahoo from last post, if the talent your hemorrhaging is what led Yahoo to where it is today, let it bleed.  Now if they can just find a way to balance the other three humours, they'll be all set.  With Icahn they may be facing an excess of choleric, yellow bile, if my amateur quackery, and pushing of metaphors far beyond their bounds, is right. 

I followed a pointer from this post in GMSV today to this piece on the travails of Yahoo and CEO Jerry Yang.  A number of people are unhappy with him, of course, but I sense some tensions in the varying criticims mentioned.  For example he hasn't moved fast enough to "cut about half his VPs" and prune the deadwood left to him by Semel, but he's also in trouble because "executives have been steadily leaving".  Sure, it could be that only the good ones are going and the deadwood is staying, but no evidence of that is suggested.  Only that whether too many execs are still there or too many are leaving, either is a sign of problems for the company.  Also the idea that fixing Yahoo is a two to three year project for a new CEO makes suggesting that Yang should make way for that new CEO after just one year a bit nonsensical. 

As an interested observer with nothing at stake, I have to wonder why Microsoft is willing to pay a 72% premium for Yahoo.  Obviously it is part of their anti-Google plan but do they see that much value being created by their plans for Yahoo?  And if that much value is there to be discovered how much more or less likely is a team from Microsoft to develop it than is Jerry Yang?  My answer is, a lot less, but as is the nature of speculation, yours may vary.