According to one industry source who wished to remain anonymous the top job required an individual who had a clear understanding of the politics and issues of the wool industry and was able to engage with its constituites.

“It really is a role that requires three people,” the source said.

And at the moment a company that has gone through three CEOs in five years and whose infighting has been well documented in the media over a number of years is not exactly painting itself as welcoming environment to foster job satisfaction.

Just this week Senator McGauran re-entered a call he first made 12 months ago that AWI’s directors displaying conflicts of interest – he alleged Dr Meredith Sheil and Chick Olsson - must stand down.

But according to recruitment specialists a challenging company might be a plus for attracting a driven individual hungry to make change. On the flip side it might also frighten off many highly skilled applicants.

“In my view the concept of organisation change and development and where a company is going and how it is going to take people on that journey would be very attractive to people,” said Anita Ziemer, managing director of the Slade Group, recognised as Australia’s original recruitment service company.

“There is no doubt that they will get plenty of responses to that role – it’s an interesting sector but good candidates are going to do their homework and set clear parameters. Applicants wont just come from agricultural or not for profit sector this job will attract people from many other areas,” she said.

Ms Ziemer cited four ways in which a company thathad a high rotation of top staff might end up.

Firstly, all organisations worked in cycles and if this was AWI’s rock bottom then it could only go up.

As a result, this window to pull a company back onto its feet might attract a gung-ho applicant eager to make some real progress to a company whom it leads.

Secondly, evidence has found that successful chief executives in one company do not necessarily replicate the same outcomes in another company. Company environment dictates performance – not an individual.

So although AWI might be left holding together a battered fort, those issues might prove a glittering light difficult to avoid for some.

Agricultural recruitment specialist Nigel Crawley tentatively agreed.

A director with Rimfire Resources, Mr Crawley noted that while some CEO candidates were attracted to a company that needed “to be fixed up”, others wanted stability and not a lot of challenge.

“What it always comes down to is the direction of the company dictated by the board and what staff and resources are available,” he said.

While not wanting to comment on AWI specifically, Mr Crawley said currently there was a spike in CEO opportunities within the agricultural sector and there had been strong interest from candidates to date.

Of course, as Ms Zeimer noted, constant change at the helm of a company would make most suitable candidates look into what caused a company to have its CEOs constantly marching back out the door.

According to a report by Chris Le Coic of Chandler MacLeod the tenure ship of a CEO is a debated at length. Two years too short, but five is too long. Mr Le Coic opts for three years.

"If you're in a job for more than three years, that's considered a long time these days," Mr Le Coic said.

While AWI never said as much it is well known that Ms McGahan’s predecessor was effectively squeezed out of the role in favour of capturing Ms McGahan, and before that Dr Len Stephens' contract was not renewed due to a shift in company direction from research and development to marketing and promotion.

In simple terms the head office of AWI has always been a position that demanded a snug fit – hard working, able to engage with growers, toe the party line and able to cop a bit of flack.

So this goes back to the question of who will take on the top dog role.

The present suggestions by Ms Ziemer that a challenge will bring those out of the woodworks was certainly true for Ms McGahan in November 2008 when it was widely speculated that director push had successfully brought the former Woolmark executive back out of the woods to “resurrect” its company.

In February last year in Rural Press the “Brenda’s back - wool’s first lady returns” headline barked above an article where Ms McGahan said a 15 months absence away from the wool industry had given her some perspective on it and she had regained the belief that “wool can win.”

The question now was whether the task could attract another suitable candidate out of the woodwork; whether the company was too tarnished to get anyone or if its performance so far would hold it high.

It was not a clear cut answer but for Ms Ziemer at least there was no doubt that people would be taking note – and if the salary was in line with Ms McGahan’s, estimated at close to $400,000, it also provided impetus.

“It’s not in the top 500 company league but there is not a chance that salary would deter people,” she said.

The process has only just started, but AWI’s chairman is confident that the bumps are being smoothed over and the company is looking forward to moving on with business with a new leader.

“After a hands free process with the human resource department the board will vote and the CEO will be given their support,” Wal Merriman said this week, confirming applicants had been received.

“With the logistics of the board I presume we will have someone in place in two months.”