高管的职业生涯到底有没有终结的一天？抑或他们只是又换了新东家，重新披挂上阵？

    但有一点可以确定：如果高管或董事会成员打算退出——不论出于何种理由——他们通常不会被贴上“问题”成员的标签。实际上，他们的职业生涯只会受到极少的负面影响，通常都会再次出现在商界，重操旧业。

    最近，雅虎公司（Yahoo）CEO卡罗尔•巴茨，以及美国银行（Bank of America）部门负责人萨利•克劳切克与乔•普莱斯等多位高管相继离职，这系列变动这由得使人们心生疑问：这种循环是否还会继续延续下去？

    相熟的商业大佬相互提携、相互扶掖向来不是什么新鲜事。无论称他们为高管阶层，或是商界精英，数十年以来，一小撮企业高管们来来回回、跳来跳去，始终占据着报酬丰厚的岗位。

    各公司的董事会哥们义气盛行，只管象征性地制定行政决策——除非出现问题，否则没有人会过多地关注董事会，而外界则始终在揣测董事会内的人际关系。是什么造成了这种现象？

熟人好办事

    达特茅斯塔克商学院（Dartmouth's Tuck School of Business）教授悉尼•芬克斯坦解释道：“这里面牵扯到方便程度的问题。填补董事会的一个空缺，通常会有五位专家级候选人物，而最终被选中的可能是来自同一乡村俱乐部的会员。仅此而已。”

    芬克斯坦表示，高管与董事会成员要花大量时间在一起共事，因此，选择熟悉的人更简单一些。但芬克斯坦认为，风险在于（相对于公司利益），“董事们可能更关心友情和人情。”芬克斯坦著有《成功之母》（Why Smart Executives Fail）一书。

    斯坦福大学（Stanford）最近一项名为“红字：公司经营不善是否会牵连高层？”（Scarlet Letter: Are the CEOs and Directors of Failed Companies 'Tainted'?）的研究称，在公司内部的“抢椅子”游戏中，通常会为其他公司的高管和董事会成员留出机会，即便他们曾经就职的公司已经声名狼藉。

    保险业巨头美国国际集团（American International Group）的前任董事，包括美国自然历史博物馆（American Museum of Natural History）馆长艾伦•富特和莫尔森公司（Molson Co.）前CEO马绍尔•A•科恩等，均全身而退，转而成为其他大型上市公司的董事会成员，其中不乏摩根大通（JP Morgan Chase）与在线经纪商TD Ameritrade等公司。

    而贝尔斯登公司（Bear Stearns）、雷曼兄弟公司（Lehman Brothers）、美联银行（Wachovia Bank）和华盛顿互惠银行（Washington Mutual）等虽已倒闭，但它们的董事却摇身一变，成为威瑞森（Verizon）、陶氏化学（Dow Chemical）、惠普（Hewlett Packard）和耐克（Nike）等大型企业的董事。 

    Do executive careers die? Or do they just get recycled?

    One thing seems certain: When executives or board members head for the exit -- for whatever reason -- they often don't get tagged as tainted. In fact, they regularly pop up again on the corporate landscape in similar jobs with little apparent damage to their careers.

    A string of recent executive departures -- Yahoo (YHOO) CEO Carol Bartz to Bank of America's (BAC) division presidents Sallie Krawcheck and Joe Price, to name a few – raises the question of whether this cycle will continue.

    Rinsing and recycling familiar business leaders is far from new. Whether you call it the executive class or the corporate elite, a narrow band of execs have been hop-scotching to and from well-paid perches for decades.

    Boards replete with buddies rubberstamp executive decisions -- but no one pays attention until something goes wrong, and outsiders delve into board connections. What gives?

Familiar feels comfortable

    "There is a comfort level issue here," explains Sydney Finkelstein, professor at Dartmouth's Tuck School of Business. "You could find five experts for a board opening, and one's from the country club, and that's that."

    Finkelstein says that executives and board members have to spend a fair amount of time together, and it's easier with a known quantity. The risk, however, says Finkelstein, author of Why Smart Executives Fail, is that "directors might be more concerned about friendships and connections."

    In the game of corporate musical chairs, room is often made for even those from disgraced companies, according to a new Stanford study, called "Scarlet Letter: Are the CEOs and Directors of Failed Companies 'Tainted'?"

    Former directors of the insurance giant American International Group (AIG), like Ellen Futter, president of the American Museum of Natural History, and Marshall A. Cohen, former Molson Co. (TAP) CEO, for example, escaped unblemished and have migrated to the boards of other major public companies, including JP Morgan Chase (JPM) and TD Ameritrade (AMTD).

    Directors of defunct companies like Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Wachovia Bank and Washington Mutual have resurfaced on the boards of corporate behemoths like Verizon (VZ), Dow Chemical (DOW), Hewlett Packard (HPQ) and Nike (NKE).  

    但是斯坦福大学的研究显示，这些杰出人物的职业命运取决于公司倒闭或陷入困境的原因是管理问题，还是治理问题。

    斯坦福大学商学院（Stanford Graduate School of Business）教授兼“公司治理研究项目”（Corporate Governance Research Program）总监戴维•拉克尔称：“公司聘用高管的目的非常明确，即承担战略风险，增加股东价值，但许多人最终无法达到预期。而公司监管人员则恰恰相反，公司聘用他们的目的是希望他们能够及时发现渎职行为。”

    但斯坦福大学近期的调查发现，受访的高管与董事中，有三分之二的人相信，倒闭公司的董事依然可以在其他公司的董事会获得成功。

CEO永远不缺少追逐者

    但只有三分之一的受访者认为，倒闭公司前任首席执行官能够在其他公司成为优秀的董事。此外，高管猎头公司海德思哲公司（Heidrick & Struggles）与斯坦福大学洛克公司治理中心（Rock Center for Corporate Governance）合作进行的2011年公司董事会调查（2011 Corporate Board of Directors Survey）显示，业界对CEO的问责标准更高。

    最近，风雨飘摇的科技公司雅虎公司毫不客气地辞退了卡罗尔•巴茨，她也辞去了在雅虎公司董事会的职务。但即便如此，她依然是思科（Cisco）董事会成员。而且，鉴于经验丰富的CEO人才如此稀缺，她要想另找一份肥缺也不无可能。

    加州大学洛杉矶分校法学院（UCLA School of Law）公司与证券法教授林恩•斯陶特称：“随着公司与员工彼此之间忠诚度的下降，高管跳槽的频率越来越高。因此，董事会很难从公司内部挑选一位知根知底的、才干优长的CEO候选人，迫使他们只能从外部寻找候选人。”

    而且，她说，如果董事会从外部寻找候选人，“很自然地就会偏向于聘用在其他公司担任过CEO的人选，而不是冒险从外部聘用一位从未担任过这一职务的新手。”

公司董事会“一家亲”

    公司经营不善，为何董事不会受到牵连？密歇根大学罗斯商学院（University of Michigan's Ross School of Business）教授尼尔•迪驰认为，原因之一是由于公司在选择董事人选时，主要还是依靠高管社交网络，因为“当出现职位空缺时，翻来覆去地不过就那么几个人选。”

    “有时，公司管理层会想‘既然我哥们对这个职务轻车熟路，谁还会愿意去培训一个菜鸟？’”

    实际上，许多高管同时在多家公司董事会任职，这只会让商业领袖的人才库日益枯竭。例如，新闻集团（News Corp.）近期公布的董事候选人詹姆斯•布莱尔，他不仅是风险投资公司Accel Partners的合伙人，同时还在戴尔（Dell）、沃尔玛（Wal-Mart）和Facebook，以及网络购物平台Etsy等公司担任董事。

    迪驰对此提出质疑：“这些人已经身兼数职，不堪重负，再给他们一个董事会成员的职位意义何在？毕竟这一职务涉及大量的工作，并且还要参加董事会议。”迪驰曾出版多本关于领导力的作品，包括《判断力：成功领袖怎样做出伟大的决断》（Judgment: How Winning Leaders Make Great Calls）。他还说：“身兼多职还会造成利益冲突，而CEO已然从日常工作获得了报酬。” 

    But the Stanford study shows that the professional fates of such luminaries can pivot on whether a company's failure or failings were due to management or governance problems.

    "Executives are hired with the express purpose of taking strategic risk to increase shareholder value, some of which might not work out as hoped," says David Larcker, a professor of corporate governance at Stanford Graduate School of Business and director of its Corporate Governance Research Program. "Corporate monitors, by contrast," says Larcker, "are hired with the express purpose of detecting malfeasance."

    Yet a recent Stanford survey found that two-thirds of executives and directors questioned believe that directors who served on the board of a failed company can succeed as board members elsewhere.

CEOs get less of a break

    Only one-third agreed that a former chief executive of a failed company could be a good director at another company. And CEOs were held to a higher standard of accountability in the 2011 Corporate Board of Directors Survey conducted by executive recruiter Heidrick and Struggles and the Rock Center for Corporate Governance at Stanford.

    Even so, Carol Bartz, who was unceremoniously ousted from struggling Yahoo recently and resigned from the tech company's board, remains on Cisco's (CSCO) board of directors. And she may yet land another plum position given the small pool of experienced CEOs.

    "As firm loyalty toward employees and employee loyalty towards firms declines, executives change jobs more frequently," says Lynn Stout, a professor of corporate and securities law at the UCLA School of Law. "This makes it harder for boards to find strong 'home grown' CEO candidates from within the firm and whom they know well, and forces them to look for outside candidates."

    Also, boards looking at outside candidates, she says, "will naturally be biased toward hiring someone who has already been a CEO elsewhere, rather than taking a chance on an outside candidate who has not held that position."

All in the corporate board family

    Why do directors so often escape without a scarlet letter? One reason is that the executive social network "still reigns" in selecting directors, says Noel Tichy, professor at University of Michigan's Ross School of Business, because "the same names are passed around when there are openings.

    "In some cases, the executive thinks 'Who wants to train a neophyte when I've got a buddy who already understands what the job is?'"

    The fact that many executives serve on multiple boards only reinforces the narrowness of the business leader pool. For example, News Corp.'s (NWSA) latest director nominee, James Breyer, is a partner at venture capital firm Accel Partners and a director at Dell (DELL), Wal-Mart (WMT), and Facebook as well as others like Etsy, Inc.

    "These are people who are already overloaded so what is the point of board membership, which involves a lot of work and attending meetings?" asks Tichy, who has written several books on leadership, including Judgment: How Winning Leaders Make Great Calls. Also, he says, "it can create conflicts of interest, and the CEOs are already being paid for their day jobs."

    公司治理研究公司GMI宣传总监与助理研究员保罗•霍奇森称，在公司调查报告中，倒闭公司的董事被打上了“危险人物”的标签。但他表示，CEO却依然将这些人列入公司董事会成员的候选名单。

    他说：“CEO人才库小之又小。甚至形成了一个不正常的小圈子。”GMI正在开发一个数据库，用于帮助公司客户扩大遴选董事的范围。这个数据库将在下周公布，届时，“将在这个小圈子上打开一个缺口。”

    但霍奇森称：“现在，董事的任务更加艰巨，所需要的技能也更加专业化。不可能随便拉一个毫无经验的人担任董事。”

‘我也可能有这一天’

    芬克斯坦表示，移情因素也能够解释，为何倒闭公司的董事会成员通常能够重新获得类似的职位。“董事会成员通常会换位思考……想象同样的事情也会发生在自己身上。”

    拉克尔认为，通过审查公司在美国证券交易委员会（SEC）的备案文件发现，安然（Enron）以及其他一些已倒闭公司的董事，不仅保住了自己在上市公司的董事会席位，而且还成为新董事会的成员。斯坦福大学的研究显示，美国投资银行贝尔斯登倒闭时在公司任职的12位董事中，有5位目前成为其他上市公司的董事。其中包括弗雷德里克•萨莱诺，他目前在5家公司董事会任职，其中包括哥伦比亚广播公司（CBS）与维亚康姆公司（Viacom）。

    雷曼兄弟公司的两位董事目前也在多家著名公司的董事会中任职，包括美高梅集团（MGM Resorts International）、索尼（Sony）与西班牙语电视台 Telemundo。为避免倒闭，政府出面迫使美联银行出售，但公司的10位董事却依然在多家大型公司董事会任职，包括富国银行（Wells Fargo）、奥驰亚公司（Altria）、劳氏公司（Lowe's）、卡夫公司（Kraft）和陶氏化学公司等。

    斯坦福大学研究项目负责人拉克尔称：“这个圈子里存在一个微妙的精英群体。一旦出现问题，这个圈子还能容得下他们吗？问这个问题就好比问江山易改，本性能能不能移。”

    译者：刘进龙/乔树静

    Directors from failed companies are red-flagged in company research reports, says Paul Hodgson, communications director and research associate at corporate governance research firm GMI. But CEOs still pass along these names as potential directors on their company boards, he says.

    "It's a very small pool. It has to be kind of an incestuous feeling," he notes. GMI is developing a database to help company clients expand the kinds of directors they recruit to their boards. The database, which will be unveiled in upcoming weeks, "will crack that circle a little wider," he says.

    However, Hodgson notes, "the job of being a director is more onerous now, and the skills needed are much more exclusive. It's unlikely you would add anyone to the list who does not already have experience."

The 'it could be me' dilemma

    The empathy factor, says Finkelstein, also explains why board members of collapsed companies often sail into similar professional posts. "Board members typically put themselves in the shoes of the other person…. And they could see something like that happening to themselves."

    The result, according to Larcker, is that directors of Enron and other extinct corporations not only remain on the boards of public companies but also have joined new boards, according to its examination of company filings with the SEC. The Stanford study shows that five of the 12 Bear Stearns directors serving when the investment bank imploded are directors of public companies today. That includes Frederic Salerno, who serves on five boards, including CBS (CBS) and Viacom (VIA).

    Two directors of Lehman Brothers now hold board seats at prominent companies like MGM Resorts International (MGM), Sony (SNE) and Telemundo. Ten directors of Wachovia, which was forced to sell itself by the government to avoid failure, went on to serve on the boards of major corporations like Wells Fargo (WFC), Altria (MO), Lowe's (LOW), Kraft (KFT) and Dow Chemical.

    "There's an amorphous, elite group that's in the pool," says Larcker, who directed the Stanford study. "When something goes bad, are those people still acceptable? Do leopards change their spots?"