????真正的問題是,，客戶的成功究竟有多重要？它比公司短期利潤還要重要嗎,？

????弄清到底什么才能最大限度地創(chuàng)造客戶成功意味著高盛不僅要促成金融交易,，也要給客戶最合適的建議，并以客戶的最大利益為落腳點行事,。如果高盛打算公開聲稱這就是其客戶關(guān)系的實質(zhì),，它一定要非常確定自己做到了言行一致,。從高盛的監(jiān)管歷史看，很難想見該公司達到了這個標準,。而且,，不幸的是，在此屆董事會任期內(nèi),，業(yè)務(wù)實踐評估并沒有表現(xiàn)出深刻的反思,，也使得這一愿望更難獲得推進。

????上周三,，董事會又錯過了另一個機會,。它不該對史密斯的批評充耳不聞，而應(yīng)該敦促首席執(zhí)行官認真嚴肅地對待這些指責(zé),。它應(yīng)該利用這一機會與員工和其他人溝通,，表明董事會將行動起來，了解應(yīng)該采取什么樣的措施,，讓所有的員工和利益相關(guān)者相信高盛確實做到了言行一致,。

????相反，董事會卻放任布萊克費恩和科恩采取了這樣一種做法：將史密斯的批評視為失控的言論而置之不理,。它很有可能會在未來堵住檢舉者的嘴,。如果他們甚至敢于公然采取這樣的做法，私下里還會做出些什么呢,？

????董事會應(yīng)該親自采取行動,。如果一家公司的首席執(zhí)行官在兩周時間內(nèi)接連被一位法官和一位前雇員公開指責(zé)，表明情況已經(jīng)相當嚴重,。

????如果所有的當事人都嘲笑史密斯太幼稚,，所有人都應(yīng)該知道高盛本來就像史密斯描述的那樣惡劣不堪，這難道不值得警醒嗎,？

????上個月,，我和一些董事們聊了聊，他們效力的公司在50家左右,。他們相信,，監(jiān)督企業(yè)文化是董事會最重要的職責(zé)之一，還說,，這項職責(zé)包括糾正高管們在對待員工,、聲譽和道德方面的短視行為。當然,，調(diào)整晉升和薪酬等用人體系也是糾正錯誤文化的重要途徑,。

????這些董事稱，好的董事會需要知道中低層員工的想法，了解那些敢于直言的員工,，傾聽他們的意見,，不能因為呆得太久而看不到公司及其文化存在的問題。許多董事會都會創(chuàng)造機會在不同場合會見中低層員工,。一位董事談到他的董事會的做法,。當時,，董事會在會議前夜邀請了中層經(jīng)理出席董事會晚宴,，而且首席執(zhí)行官及其他高管都不在場。結(jié)果,，董事會發(fā)現(xiàn),，這是了解真實情況的一個絕佳途徑。

????布萊克費恩已在高盛董事會服務(wù)九年,，有些高盛董事的服務(wù)期也已經(jīng)長達7-13年,。這些人是不是待的時間太久了？麻木到犯困了,？嗨,，高盛董事會，你們還醒著嗎,？

????本文作者埃莉諾?布洛斯罕是董事會咨詢機構(gòu)價值聯(lián)盟及公司治理連門（The Value Alliance and Corporate Governance Alliance,，http://thevaluealliance.com/）的首席執(zhí)行官。

????How much, exactly, does client success matter is the real question. Does it matter more than short-term profits?

????Figuring out what would best create client success would mean that Goldman would not just be facilitating financial transactions, they would advise clients in what best suited them and act in their interest. If Goldman wants to say publicly that is the nature of its client relationships, it needs to be darn sure it plans to live up to the advertising. It is hard to see how the firm has been living up to that standard based on its regulatory history. And, unfortunately, on this board's watch, the business practice review was not sufficiently well thought-out to move that aspiration forward.

????The board missed another opportunity yesterday. Instead of brushing off Smith's comments, the board should have ensured that the CEO took the allegations seriously. It should have used this opportunity to communicate to employees and others that it would move to understand what actions would make all employees and stakeholders comfortable that Goldman's deeds match their words.

????Instead, the board allowed Blankfein and Cohn to take the tact most likely to shut down future whistleblowers: reject Smith's comments as out of hand. If they are willing to do this in public, what goes on behind closed doors?

????The board itself should be taking action. It's serious when your CEO has been publicly called out by both a judge and an employee in a two-week timeframe.

????And shouldn't it be a wake-up call when stakeholders mock the employee whistleblower for being na?ve, implying that everyone should know that Goldman is as bad as Smith made it sound?

????Last month, I spoke with directors who sit on the boards of approximately 50 different companies and who believe the board's role in overseeing the corporate culture is one of its most important jobs. That role includes responsibility for redirecting any senior management myopia toward its people, reputation, and ethics, directors say. Of course, righting HR systems of promotions and compensation are primary ways to correct cultural miscues.

????Good boards need to know what individuals think, down inside the hierarchy, and get the views of those who will speak up and aren't already so embedded they can't see the problems in the organization and its culture, these directors say. While many boards create opportunities to meet with lower level staff in a variety of settings, one director spoke about how his board invites middle managers to the board dinner, the night before the board meeting, without the senior executive team or CEO present. That board has found it a great way to get the real lay of the land.

????Blankfein has been on the Goldman board for nine years and some Goldman directors have served terms ranging from seven to 13 years. Are some too embedded? Where have their hearts and minds been? Hello, Goldman board. Are you awake?

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