– Eric Auchard is a Reuters columnist. The opinions expressed are his own –

The revolving doors are spinning ever faster in the executive suites of corporations.

CEO turnover has reached an all-time high, according to figures kept by recruiting firm Challenger & Gray. Last year, 1,484 U.S. CEOs resigned, stepped down or were fired — six casualties every business day.

Resignation has outpaced retirement as the leading reason for departure, as the credit crunch has dealt a savage blow to prospects for growth and investors grow restive over share dilution, dividend cuts and shrinking outlooks.

High profile departures stretch from the bosses of the global retailer, Carrefour, to computer maker Lenovo to a succession of financial leaders including those at AIG, Merrill and UBS.

Turnover among top executives may even be accelerating as we descend into 2009. Similar defections appear to be occurring around the world, although no one keeps track of exact totals.

Given the public’s newfound lust for revenge against the CEO class, this exodus may provoke little more than a wry smile among anyone struggling to fend off the effects of the credit crunch in their own lives.

But it presents a practical problem for those boards of directors left to pick up the pieces after a CEO departs with his reputation and strategy in ruins: Where to find the talent and experience to step in and shore things up as well as start to build towards the recovery?

Executive recruiter Heidrick & Struggles has come up with one idea to solve the brain drain. It has lined up hundreds of executives across industries and functions for what amounts to an executive temporary service.

Think Manpower or Kelly Girl, only for former captains of industry — CEOs, CFOs, chief marketing, human resources and information officers. The idea is to place these individuals with companies needing short-term leaders — either to solve a crisis or seize a new business opportunity.

Many of the executives taking part in the Heidrick & Struggles’ Chief Advisor Network have left high-powered positions and are no longer interested in full-time work. But, like many in their baby boomer demographic facing the prospect of retirement, they are unwilling to completely disengage from work.

Executive temping is a natural extension of Heidrick & Struggle’s established executive search and leadership advisory businesses. Tapping the experience and talents of executives with a solid track record of corporate leadership makes sense to fill obvious leadership voids. The idea of bringing back a wise old head, perhaps one that can even remember the last recession, after a disastrous few years under a whiz-kid CEO probably appeals to many shaken boards.

But while the approach may offer a quick fix to companies in deep crisis — and there are plenty of those around right now — it’s not clear that it is the way forward in other situations. And there are even questions about how effective that fix might prove. Bringing in an outsider with no deep knowledge of a company can be a recipe for chaos — especially when things are in flux.

There’s also the risk of bringing in someone who is motivated principally by financial incentives and won’t stay around to see how their decisions pan out over the long term. Wasn’t short-term decision making by managers and directors often what tripped up these companies in the first place?

Lastly, the ability to rely on a temping service may even encourage boards not to take hard decisions on management succession, figuring they can plug the gap if they need to.

Leadership is vital in the wake of an important executive’s departure. But dialing up a CEO is symptomatic of the wider breakdown in corporate governance that has occurred over the past decade. If the practice becomes widespread, such short-term solutions are likely to breed further disillusionment with corporate management.

– At the time of publication Eric Auchard did not own any direct investments in securities mentioned in this article. He may be an owner indirectly as an investor in a fund. –

– Dana Radcliffe is a Day Family senior lecturer of business ethics at the Johnson School at Cornell University. The views expressed are his own. —

Are a CEO’s health problems a private matter? Or does he or she have an obligation to disclose them to investors and other stakeholders?

These are questions Apple and its iconic co-founder and chief executive Steve Jobs have had to face ever since he was diagnosed with a rare form of pancreatic cancer in 2003.  Happily, the disease proved to be treatable with surgery, which Jobs underwent in 2004.  But shareholders didn’t learn that Apple’s chief had been ill until he sent out an email to employees, announcing that he had had cancer but was now “cured.”

The issue of what, if anything, the company should disclose about its CEO’s health concerns resurfaced last summer, when Jobs spoke at Apple’s annual developers conference.  There he appeared, as the New York Times put it, “unusually thin and haggard.”  Reacting to the inevitable rumors that Jobs was ill again, the firm’s public relations department reported that he was suffering from “a common bug.”

A PRIVATE MATTER

However, according to the Times’ John Markoff, Jobs told some associates that he was experiencing “nutritional problems.”  Moreover, people close to Jobs told Markoff that in early 2008 he had a surgical procedure to treat a problem related to his weight loss.  Yet, in July, in a conference call after the release of Apple’s quarterly earnings statement, a senior officer deflected an analyst’s question about Jobs’s health, calling it “a private matter.”

Not surprisingly, investor uncertainty about whether Jobs would be able to continue as CEO was reflected in sharp fluctuations in the price of Apple’s stock.  In December, the worries intensified when the company said that Jobs would not give his much-anticipated annual keynote address at Apple’s Macworld conference.  At first, the reason offered by a spokesman was that the firm would not take part in the event after 2009.  That “explanation” only fueled the rumors.

So, last week, Jobs responded by issuing a statement.  About his weight loss, he said doctors had finally determined that it was due to a “hormone imbalance”—a “nutritional problem” whose remedy “is relatively simple and straightforward.”  This announcement seemed to calm investors, with Apple’s stock price rising by 4 percent.

Then, this week, Jobs emailed Apple employees that he had just learned that “my health-related issues are more complex than I originally thought.”  Consequently, he said, he is taking a six-month medical leave of absence, although he will “remain involved in strategic decisions while I am out.”  The news alarmed investors, as shares dropped 7 percent in late trading.

Clearly, Apple and its chief executive have not been diligent in keeping investors, employees, and other stakeholders informed about the state of Jobs’s health.  Should they have been?

LEGAL VS ETHICAL POINT OF VIEW

From a legal point of view, the company has a duty to disclose information that is “material”—i.e., facts a reasonable investor would need to know in order to make an informed decision about whether to buy or sell the company’s stock.  Materiality can be difficult to establish, and if litigation ensues, lawyers will argue at length over exactly what Apple should have revealed and when.

But, from an ethical point of view, the answer seems less arguable.  To be sure, Steve Jobs, like anyone else, has a right to keep details about his health problems private.  But an individual’s right to privacy is not absolute.  In this case, it has to be balanced against obligations Jobs and his board of directors have to Apple’s stakeholders, especially its shareholders, employees, and customers.

Since Steve Jobs returned to Apple in 1997, its breath-taking success has been due in no small part to his visionary and aggressive leadership.  Many investors worry (rightly or wrongly) that Apple would not be as innovative and market-savvy without Jobs’s famously tight control over its direction and operations.  Apple well knows all this—indeed, the company has shrewdly leveraged the immense admiration and popularity Jobs enjoys, encouraging the identification of Jobs with the Apple brand.  So, by design, investor confidence in Apple has been based to a considerable degree on confidence in Jobs’ leadership.

In general, the company has an ethical obligation to alert investors—and other stakeholders—to serious risks to the company’s health.  Because Apple and its CEO have actively encouraged “the Apple community” to associate the company’s success with his leadership, they have an obligation as well to keep stakeholders apprised of serious risks to Jobs’s health.