Thorough and interim seem mutually exclusive to me. The whole point of an interim CEO is to have someone in the seat while you then be thorough. Given that, bei

Thorough and interim seem mutually exclusive to me. The whole point of an interim CEO is to have someone in the seat while you then be thorough. Given that, being CEO buddies seems as diligent as you could possibly be. If Sam did something bad enough to warrant being removed as soon as they learned it, chucking someone you know personally and trust in the position while you then be thorough would seem the least bad course of action. If Sam did not do something bad enough to warrant being removed as soon as they learned it, then firing him without any succession plan in place was a bad move and is "firing badly", but the hiring situation seems to me as exactly the same as in the "Sam did something really bad" line. Claiming both bad hiring and bad firing for the one decision seems like double counting to me, and will lead to circular reasoning. They hired badly ergo we can assume they fired badly, therefore they hired badly.