雅虎公司（Yahoo）或许一直深受标识上巨大叹号的诅咒。这家公司就是消停不了，经常因为种种负面新闻吸引着媒体的眼球。诚然，作为一家大型科技公司，雅虎确实存在各种问题，但对于一家拥有丰富资产、却在创新方面表现拙劣的公司来说，雅虎的转变之路其实一直都在人们的预料之中。公司真正的问题并非战略层面，而是不靠谱的领导层引发的一出出闹剧。

    这部连续剧最近上演了新的戏码。上周日，雅虎公司宣布，涉嫌简历造假的前任CEO斯科特•汤普森同意辞职。据悉，汤普森在简历中声称自己拥有计算机科学学位，而实际上他在说谎。公司找到更合适的人选之前，雅虎负责全球媒体业务的罗斯•B•列文森将担任公司临时CEO。

    此外，雅虎也不得不向对冲基金第三点（Third Point）的维权股东丹尼尔•勒布妥协。丹尼尔•勒布持有雅虎5.8%的股份。二月份，勒布要求雅虎任命其本人以及第三点对冲基金的几位同事为雅虎董事。雅虎拒绝了该要求，结果招致第三点公司一连串的愤怒回应。双方的争执在上周达到高潮，当时，第三点公司宣布，普森简历被发现造假，随后要求汤普森下台。

    这丑陋的一切都发生在众目睽睽之下。不过，对于久经考验的雅虎而言，这不过是小插曲而已。一段时间以来，这家公司一直充满了戏剧性。早在2009年，雅虎任命卡罗尔•巴茨为公司CEO。她在雅虎担任CEO期间虽未增加公司收入，但她确实降低了成本，提高了利润率，这两项都称得上是管理层采取的有力的措施。然而，这些成就在她张扬的个性面前就显得黯然失色了：巴茨经常像水手一样破口大骂，非常难以共事。

    她并不是在雅虎才形成了这样的性格。实际上，巴茨的魅力很大程度上是源自她这种率性的行为举止。如果确实如此的话，当初雅虎的做法必然会引火烧身。当时公司董事长罗伊•博斯托克通过电话炒了巴茨的鱿鱼，之后，巴茨立即通过iPad向员工发了一封满含愤恨的电子邮件，并在媒体面前对自己被炒鱿鱼的事情破口大骂。

    之后，雅虎一直在寻找合适的人选，并最终选定了时任贝宝公司（Paypal）CEO的斯科特•汤普森。今年一月，汤普森接到了雅虎的正式任命。在公布今年第一季度的收入报告之后，汤普森表示自己将在雅虎展开大刀阔斧的改革。他计划裁掉数千个工作岗位，并将公司的重心转移到电子商务领域：在4月10日的公告中，汤普森对员工称，我们将为通过雅虎网站购物的用户带来变得更加简易的网购体验，并使广告商更接近目标客户。

    当时，雅虎已经陷入与维权股东勒布及其对冲基金第三点的纷争。第三点于2011年底购买了雅虎的股份。勒布曾在多家面临困境的公司投资，一向惯于在加入公司董事会之后争夺代理权，以便挖掘公司的价值。因此，雅虎对于勒布应该早有耳闻。

    Perhaps Yahoo! has been cursed by the exclamation point in its name. The company just can't stop yelling, attracting headlines for all the wrong reasons. And sure, the tech giant has had its troubles, but for a company as rich in assets and poor in market-shattering innovation as it is, Yahoo has been following a pretty predictable turnaround pattern. It's the leadership soap opera, not their strategy, that's the problem.

    In the latest in a series of awkward events, Yahoo (YHOO) announced Sunday that former CEO Scott Thompson would resign, amid revelations that his resume included a bachelor's degree in computer science he never actually earned. The company's head of global media, Ross B. Levinsohn, will serve as interim CEO until Yahoo launches yet another talent search.

    Yahoo also capitulated to Daniel Loeb, the activist shareholder at Third Point, which owns a 5.8% stake in the company. Loeb first demanded in February that Yahoo appoint him and some of his other Third Point colleagues to Yahoo's board. Yahoo denied his request, which triggered a chain of angry responses from Third Point. The big crescendo happened last week, when Third Point announced that it had discovered falsities on Thompson's resume, and subsequently called for his head.

    It was all very ugly and public. But this episode is one in a long line of fiascos for Yahoo. The company has been a drama magnet for quite some time. Just look back to 2009, when Yahoo hired Carol Bartz as CEO. During her time at the company, Bartz may not have boosted revenue, but she did cut costs and improve profit margins -- both solid management moves. That was all overshadowed by her loud personality: Bartz apparently cussed like a sailor and was tough to work with.

    These weren't character traits she developed at Yahoo. In fact, Bartz's demeanor may have originally been part of her appeal. If that's the case, the strategy backfired on Yahoo when then-chairman Roy Bostock fired Bartz via phone call, and she immediately beamed an angry email to employees from her iPad, and then dropped some F-bombs to the press about her dismissal.

    Yahoo went on a talent search that eventually led them to then-Paypal CEO Scott Thompson. They gave him the top spot this past January. Thompson was going to make big dramatic changes, he said after the company's first-quarter earnings announcement. He was going to slash thousands of jobs and shift the company's focus towards e-commerce: in a statement on April 10, Thompson suggested to employees that Yahoo was going to make it easier for users to spend via Yahoo's site, bringing advertisers closer to targeted customers.

    By that time, Yahoo had already landed yet another aggressive personality, Loeb and his hedge fund Third Point, which had bought a stake in Yahoo in late 2011. Loeb has a history of joining boards and starting proxy fights to get value out of struggling companies. Yahoo should have known who it was dealing with. 

    公司与维权股东的争执通常都没有恶意，比如美国在线（AOL）。当然，雅虎与美国在线不同，但从上世纪90年代的巅峰时期之后，两家公司都失去了发展的动力，并且一直在努力从很有前景的资产中挖掘价值。2011年，美国在线接受了激进的对冲基金Starboard Value，目前该基金持有美国在线5.3%的流通股。公司与对冲基金曾就公司领导策略问题公开争执，但最后美国在线努力保证这种争论能够做到心平气和，甚至推动了公司的发展：从今年年初以来，美国在线的股价已经上涨了70%，达到了每股26美元。

    当然，美国在线的问题并没有完全解决。蒂姆•阿姆斯特朗仍面临着巨大的压力，他必须想办法实现他所提出的复兴策略，其中包括将公司转变为高质量内容生产商。但与雅虎和第三点公司的激烈交火不同，虽然美国在线与Starboard之间仍存在分歧，但两者之间只是在进行严肃的讨论而已。

    雅虎不得不继续寻找CEO人选，这对于股东而言并非好事。代理CEO列文森在发给雅虎员工的备忘录中提到汤普森辞职的事：“……今天的公告内容可以简单地总结为：此次事件之后，从去年8月开始的董事会的一系列变动到此终于画上了句号。”让我们期待雅虎为稳定董事会做出的努力能够减少雅虎所有决策中的隐患，特别是考虑到目前雅虎的决策并不够彻底。雅虎在上周日发布的公告之外不愿发表任何评论。

    CEO不一定要成为改革者，与对冲基金合作也不应该变成相互谩骂。雅虎，我们相信你能够平息争执，做出正确的选择，也不要再惊吓自己的员工了。我们讨论的是公司的复兴，而不是一场窝里斗。

    译者：阿龙/汪皓

    Companies spar with activist investors all the time without as much spite. Take AOL (AOL). Yahoo and AOL are different, no doubt, but both have lost steam since their 1990s halcyon days and are trying to glean value from their many promising assets. In 2011, AOL took on activist hedge fund Starboard Value, which now owns 5.3% of AOL's outstanding shares. The company and the hedge fund have publicly gone back and forth over the company's leadership strategy, yet AOL has somehow managed to handle the discussion quietly, and has even thrived from it: AOL's share price has increased by 70% to about $26 per-share since the beginning of the year.

    AOL certainly still has its problems. The pressure is on for CEO Tim Armstrong to pull off a tricky turnaround strategy that involves changing the company into a high-quality content generator. But flaws aside, AOL's relationship with Starboard has looked like a stern discussion compared to Yahoo's firefight.

    Unfortunately for shareholders, Yahoo must go on the CEO search yet again. In a memo to Yahoo employees, interim CEO Levinsohn said of Thompson leaving the company, "....today's announcements really boil down to this: following these changes, a transformation and renewal at the Board level that began in August of last year is now complete." Let's hope that stabilizing the board will take some of the sting out of every decision Yahoo makes, especially given that the decisions themselves aren't that radical. Yahoo declined to comment beyond the statement it issued Sunday.

    A CEO doesn't necessarily need to be a crusader, and working with a hedge fund doesn't have to degenerate into name-calling. You might do well, Yahoo, to settle down, make some choices, and stop scaring the crap out of your employees. This is a corporate turnaround, not a cage match.