??? 美國(guó)一部分頂級(jí)公司未能進(jìn)行嚴(yán)格的背景調(diào)查,，確保CEO候選人是帶領(lǐng)公司迎接未來(lái)挑戰(zhàn)的最佳人選，結(jié)果在眾目睽睽之下遭遇滑鐵盧,。上周,，雅虎（Yahoo）就嘗到了這樣的苦果，這家公司的CEO斯科特?湯普森被曝簡(jiǎn)歷造假,。
????當(dāng)初主導(dǎo)此次CEO篩選并最終選定湯普森的雅虎董事帕蒂?哈特已計(jì)劃退出董事會(huì),。對(duì)于目前服務(wù)于財(cái)富500強(qiáng)公司董事會(huì)的4,000多名高管或考慮加入這些董事會(huì)的人，雅虎事件無(wú)疑敲響了警鐘,。
????如果這些問(wèn)題在CEO任命前沒(méi)有浮出水面,，結(jié)果可能導(dǎo)致這家公司以及來(lái)自其他公司、但是服務(wù)與這家公司董事會(huì)的高管在眾目睽睽之下陷入窘境,，同時(shí)會(huì)動(dòng)搖股東和員工對(duì)管理層的信心,。學(xué)歷核查并不難。難的是要從市場(chǎng)領(lǐng)域獲得實(shí)實(shí)在在的數(shù)據(jù),，確保入選的CEO能勝任這份工作,。惠普（Hewlett-Packard）就是一個(gè)例子,，去年在李艾科的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)下這家公司的市值縮水了40%,。最近，惠普一位董事告訴我們,，李艾科是被“推銷給董事會(huì)的”,，“這種情況不會(huì)再發(fā)生了”,。
????類似的失誤不光出現(xiàn)在雅虎，也出現(xiàn)在摩托羅拉（Motorola）,、可口可樂(lè)（Coke）和寶潔（Procter & Gamble）等公司中,。一旦發(fā)現(xiàn)選錯(cuò)人，指責(zé)之聲便會(huì)四起,，人們首先就會(huì)質(zhì)問(wèn)：“為什么我們以前不知道這些情況,？”優(yōu)秀的公司會(huì)建立體系，確保能夠做到這一點(diǎn),。比如,，寶潔第二次就取得了極大的成功，它在組織內(nèi)部深入挖掘,，根據(jù)更充分的信息進(jìn)行篩選,，最終選定了雷富禮（A.G. Lafley）。
????很多公司CEO招聘看走眼,，最后只能一拍兩散,，皆因信息不足和過(guò)于放權(quán)，過(guò)于依賴第三方的工作,。幸運(yùn)的是,，要改善這個(gè)流程有很多工作可以做。
????要弄清候選人能為公司帶來(lái)什么以及他/她與未來(lái)的職責(zé)和公司文化是否相符,，企業(yè)不能停留于粗淺的背景調(diào)查,。不同于其他高管職位，CEO候選人的背景調(diào)查比較特殊,，因?yàn)楹芏鄷r(shí)候候選人都沒(méi)有做過(guò)CEO,。
????下面三種措施可以幫助企業(yè)避免雅虎式的困境：
確保董事會(huì)的參與
????帕蒂?哈特退出雅虎董事會(huì)，凸顯了很重要的一點(diǎn)：招聘CEO是董事會(huì)的重要職責(zé),，因此背景調(diào)查應(yīng)該始于董事,、終于董事。即使是與第三方,、如獵頭公司合作時(shí),，董事會(huì)也不能完全放手不管。董事們應(yīng)該核查背景調(diào)查,，如果他們與證明人有私人關(guān)系的話就更是如此,。如果董事會(huì)打算像很多公司那樣，完全依賴第三方進(jìn)行背景調(diào)查,，董事們需要確保第三方能獲得候選人管理經(jīng)歷的“內(nèi)部一手資料”,。我們看到過(guò)太多董事會(huì)完全放手的結(jié)果。結(jié)果并不美妙,。 |
|
|
????Some of the best companies in the U.S. have failed, very publicly, to rigorously check references on CEO candidates to ensure that they are the right fit for the company's challenges ahead. Yahoo learned this lesson the hard way last week when it was revealed that their CEO, Scott Thompson, padded his resume.
????Now Yahoo (YHOO) board member Patti Hart, who led the executive search that resulted in Thompson's hiring, plans to step down from the board. For the more than 4,000 executives currently serving on Fortune 500 boards, or considering joining one, these events concerning Yahoo should be a wake-up call.
????When these issues are not surfaced before the CEO is hired, the result can be both public embarrassment – for the company and the executives from other companies that serve on its board – and a jolt to shareholder and employee confidence in leadership. And checking academic pedigrees is the easy part. The more difficult challenge is getting the hard data from the market to ensure that your CEO pick is right for the job. Just look at Hewlett-Packard (HPQ), where shareholders were stripped of 40% of their stock value under Leo Apotheker last year. One HP director recently told us that Apotheker had been "sold to the board" and "that won't happen again."
????Similar misfires have happened not only at Yahoo but also at companies like Motorola (MSI), Coke (KO), and Procter & Gamble (PG). When the wrong person is picked, recriminations and questions immediately begin with, "Why didn't we know this before?" The best companies put in place systems to ensure that they do. P&G, for example, was highly successful the next time around because it dug deeper into the organization and based CEO selection on better information, which led to the selection of CEO A.G. Lafley.
????Many companies make a final hiring decision with too little information and too much delegation, and rely too heavily on third parties to get the job done. Fortunately, there is a great deal that can be done to improve the process.
????Companies must go beyond superficial referencing to determine what a candidate can contribute and how he or she aligns with the future imperatives and culture of the company. But unlike referencing for other senior executive positions, referencing for CEO contenders is tricky because in many cases the person up for the job has never been a CEO before.
????Here are three ways in which companies can avoid a Yahoo-like debacle:
Make sure the board is involved
????Patti Hart's departure from Yahoo's board underscores a crucial point: Hiring the CEO goes to the heart of a board's fiduciary duties, so it makes sense that referencing begins and ends with the directors. Even when working with a third party, such as a search firm, boards should never completely hand off the referencing process. Directors should be a check on referencing, especially if they have a personal relationship with a reference. If a board is going to rely on a third party to take care of the referencing process, as many companies do, the directors need to make sure that that group can get the "inside scoop" on how a candidate leads. We've seen the consequences of boards that relinquish control of the referencing process. It's not pretty. |
