????隨后,，在2月13日《圣何塞信使報》（San Jose Mercury News）的一篇報道中,，萊恩又重回他先前所講的要點,，“董事會的首要職責(zé)將是支持李艾科……為惠普制定全球競爭的戰(zhàn)略,?！?/p>

????惠普的公司治理方針里規(guī)定,，董事會“督責(zé)惠普的戰(zhàn)略及業(yè)務(wù)規(guī)劃流程”，包括“由董事會審查惠普更新的公司戰(zhàn)略規(guī)劃”,。

????其實,，很多公司的董事會都對自身在公司戰(zhàn)略制定中的職責(zé)感到困惑。近期由麥肯錫公司（McKinsey）所做的一項調(diào)研表明,，很多董事會的職責(zé)都是被動的,。但是，基于這一調(diào)研,，以及我對眾多董事會成員的訪談,，美國的獨立董事們實際上很希望改變自己的被動角色，對公司戰(zhàn)略的形成作出貢獻(xiàn),。

????麥肯錫的這項調(diào)研表明,，當(dāng)前北美的董事會與歐洲和亞洲的董事會相比，在戰(zhàn)略制定上顯得更為被動,。受訪的北美各大公司董事中有60%的人表示,，他們在董事會中的職責(zé)是“審查并批準(zhǔn)管理層提交的戰(zhàn)略?！毕啾戎?，只有不到40%的歐洲公司以及略多于30%的亞洲公司中才存在這種相對較低的戰(zhàn)略制定參與水平。

????不幸的是,，對眾多董事會而言,，審查、批準(zhǔn)并支持公司的戰(zhàn)略是最為司空見慣的處理方式：很多董事會只是個擺設(shè),，往往沒有核查潛在假設(shè),，也沒有審查備選方案,，就批準(zhǔn)了公司的戰(zhàn)略。

????惠普的董事會是否確實做到了如萊恩一開始描述的那樣“支持李艾科”,？他們對戰(zhàn)略制定的假設(shè)和備選方案進(jìn)行過充分的核查和審核嗎,？他們有沒有注意過潛在的溝通問題，以確保投資者,、客戶和員工能夠準(zhǔn)確地理解公司所制定的戰(zhàn)略,？

????從上個月決定公布后的結(jié)果來看，即使董事會確實發(fā)出過質(zhì)疑的聲音,，他們所問的問題也缺乏足夠的深度,。當(dāng)然，所有這些劇變從萊恩1月發(fā)表的有關(guān)董事會職能的含混表態(tài)中就已能看出端倪了,。

????眼下,，其他公司的董事會正把惠普作為案例，分析并從其面臨的考驗中汲取教訓(xùn),，也許這也是惠普重新檢視其董事會介入公司戰(zhàn)略程度的好時機(jī),，當(dāng)然，前提是他們還沒有把想法公諸于眾,。如果惠普無法讓頂尖人才發(fā)揮作用,，聘用新的董事會成員對公司來說毫無意義。

????埃莉諾?布羅斯罕是價值聯(lián)盟和公司治理聯(lián)盟公司（The Value Alliance and Corporate Governance Alliance,，http://thevaluealliance.com）的首席執(zhí)行官,，該公司是一家董事會顧問公司。

????譯者：清遠(yuǎn)

????Then, in a February 13 report in the San Jose Mercury News, Lane flipped back to his previous set of talking points. "The board's top priority will be supporting Apotheker … in developing a strategy for HP to compete around the world."

????HP's corporate governance guidelines say the board "oversees HP's strategic and business planning process," which includes "a Board review of HP's updated Corporate Strategic Plan."

????Many boards are confused about their role in determining a company's strategy. A recent survey by McKinsey shows that many boards take a passive role. Based on the survey, however, and my own conversations with a wide spectrum of board members, U.S. independent directors are eager to change their passive roles and contribute to the formation of corporate strategy.

????The McKinsey survey shows that North American boards currently take a more passive approach to strategy than their European and Asian counterparts. Almost 60% of directors surveyed at North American companies say the role of their board is to "review and approve management's proposed strategy." By comparison, this relatively low level of involvement in strategy can be found in fewer than 40% of European companies and slightly more than 30% of Asia-Pacific companies.

????Reviewing, approving, and supporting a company's strategy unfortunately represent an all too common approach among many boards: rubber-stamping strategy by boards without testing underlying assumptions and reviewing alternatives.

????Did HP's board "support Leo" as Lane initially outlined? Or did they adequately test the assumptions of the strategy and review alternatives to it? Did they identify potential communications issues to make sure the strategy would be clearly understood by investors, customers and employees?

????Based on the aftermath of the announcements last month, if the board did ask questions, they were not of sufficient depth. Of course, all of this upheaval could have been predicted from Lane's mixed statements concerning the board's role in January.

????As other boards use HP as a case study and learn from its trials, perhaps it's time for HP to also re-examine the board's level of involvement with the company's strategy -- before the company presents their ideas to the public. Hiring new board members will do a company little service if they do not put their best talents to work.

????Eleanor Bloxham is CEO of The Value Alliance and Corporate Governance Alliance (http://thevaluealliance.com), a board advisory firm.