From my observation around and into AMD’s Engineering, there are doing great. They made a strategic direction from a management group, and start a new development by merging and re-writing an old code to work with a new Fusion and behind.
In an other side, a public won’t notice this story as AMD won’t broadcast their initiation. Public want to have someone in charge, sort of symbol, who can be blamed or cheered. From my view, AMD might do well for sometime without having C.E.O. in its place. They might do not needed at all, I hope, as engineering does engineering.
It's a great question. There was a report a while back that AMD had offered the job to three or four people, including Pal Gelsinger, Tim Cook and Mark Hurd. According to the report--which I believe was done by Bloomberg--all turned AMD down. At the time, AMD declined to comment on what it termed a rumor. AMD refuses to put a timeline on it, and obviously they are holding their own without a permanent CEO, but one of the analysts on the conference call after the report pointed out that AMD's stock is down and said it was probably because of the CEO search still going on.
Still, as their general counsel said, it's obviously way more important for AMD to find the right person than it is to rush it.
CEOs are greatly over rated. He should set the strategic direction, but the day to day tactical decisions are made without him. Most of them just take money and give back little to nothing. There are exceptions, like Jobs.
I wonder what the real reason for the CEO search taking so long? If they have seen good candidates why haven't they hired them? It seems that either they really have not found the right person or are waiting for someone to either become available or for negotiations to complete. Just wondering...