????沒(méi)有哪個(gè)苦力員工希望考評(píng)的時(shí)候,，老板耳中會(huì)聽(tīng)到關(guān)于他表現(xiàn)不佳的消息。雖然考評(píng)應(yīng)當(dāng)如實(shí)體現(xiàn)一年的努力工作,，但總有些時(shí)候,，老板會(huì)問(wèn)“你最近又給我惹什么禍了”這樣的問(wèn)題,，而這卻可能影響最后的考評(píng)結(jié)果和你的薪水。

????眼下正值許多公司舉辦年度股東大會(huì)的時(shí)候,，許多企業(yè)的董事會(huì)和CEO也有著同樣的擔(dān)憂,。因?yàn)槿ツ陮?duì)不少大型企業(yè)來(lái)說(shuō)并非一個(gè)幸運(yùn)之年。

????今年3月,，美聯(lián)儲(chǔ)因?qū)?a title="" href="../../../../global500/39/2011" target="_blank">花旗集團(tuán)（Citi）的財(cái)務(wù)狀況缺乏信心,，而駁回了花旗提高分紅比例的請(qǐng)求。這個(gè)消息爆出時(shí),，恰逢花旗集團(tuán)即將召開(kāi)股東年度大會(huì),，結(jié)果股東們?cè)跁?huì)上投票否決了花旗的高管薪酬方案。上周摩根大通（J.P. Morgan）又在股東大會(huì)前爆出因交易失誤導(dǎo)致公司巨虧20億美元的消息,，對(duì)此案的調(diào)查短期內(nèi)還沒(méi)有結(jié)束的苗頭,。沃爾瑪（Wal-Mart）也將在6月1日召開(kāi)年度股東大會(huì)，《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》（New York Times）近日卻又爆出了沃爾瑪集團(tuán)因涉嫌行賄正在接受調(diào)查的消息,。

????紐約的養(yǎng)老基金CalSTRS近日代表沃爾瑪及其股東狀告沃爾瑪?shù)母吖芎投?，控訴他們操縱行賄丑聞以及對(duì)此案的調(diào)查。股東把高管告上法庭,，這還是沃爾瑪歷史上開(kāi)天辟地頭一遭,。沃爾瑪?shù)囊晃话l(fā)言人在電子郵件中對(duì)我說(shuō)道：“我們非常嚴(yán)肅地看待對(duì)股東的責(zé)任。我們正在密切關(guān)注這起訴訟,，同時(shí)徹查所發(fā)生的問(wèn)題,。”另外在沃爾瑪?shù)墓蓶|大會(huì)召開(kāi)前,，CalSTRS基金已明確表示將在換屆投票中對(duì)沃爾瑪?shù)奈迕峦斗磳?duì)票,。

沃爾瑪對(duì)警告視而不見(jiàn)

????沃爾瑪行賄大案在爆發(fā)之前并非沒(méi)有一點(diǎn)苗頭。事實(shí)上據(jù)一份最新解密的文件披露,，沃爾瑪董事會(huì)早在7年前就收到了監(jiān)管機(jī)構(gòu)的警告,。2005年5月25日，紐約市審計(jì)官威廉?湯普森在一封信中向時(shí)任沃爾瑪審計(jì)委員會(huì)主席的羅蘭?赫爾南德斯發(fā)出了嚴(yán)厲警告,，信中寫(xiě)道：“強(qiáng)有力的內(nèi)部控制……對(duì)于充分遵守法律法規(guī)來(lái)說(shuō)相當(dāng)重要……我們敦促貴審計(jì)委員會(huì)委派一個(gè)由獨(dú)立董事組成的特別委員會(huì),，對(duì)公司的內(nèi)部控制進(jìn)行徹底評(píng)估?！彪m然這封信的內(nèi)容并非針對(duì)行賄丑聞,，不過(guò)這封信的署名人不僅包括紐約和伊利諾依州的幾家養(yǎng)老基金，還包括教育界養(yǎng)老基金USS以及F&C投資管理公司等,。這表明沃爾瑪?shù)拇_存在著董事會(huì)沒(méi)有注意到的問(wèn)題,，而對(duì)某一領(lǐng)域控制不力，很可能預(yù)示著臺(tái)面下還存在著更大的隱患。

????沃爾瑪董事會(huì)當(dāng)時(shí)并沒(méi)有意識(shí)到問(wèn)題的嚴(yán)重性,，只是給出了一個(gè)不痛不癢的回復(fù)——兩個(gè)月后,，赫爾南德斯回信表示，公司的遵紀(jì)守法體系運(yùn)行良好,，審計(jì)委員會(huì)掌握著局面,。不過(guò)各支基金還是在2005年紐約舉辦的一次會(huì)議上對(duì)這個(gè)問(wèn)題窮追不舍。赫爾南德斯和沃爾瑪審計(jì)委員會(huì)的現(xiàn)任主席克里斯?威廉姆斯都當(dāng)時(shí)都出席了這次會(huì)議,。

????No working stiff wants bad news about his performance to hit the boss' desk right before review time. Although the review is supposed to represent a year's worth of effort, there's always a chance that the "what have you done for me lately?" question will influence the review and pay outcome.

????The same happens with boards and CEOs in the run up to their companies' respective annual shareholder meetings. This hasn't been a fortunate year for the largest of firms on that front.

????At Citi (C), the inability to pay a promised dividend because of a lack of Fed confidence hit the headlines prior to its annual meeting, where shareholders voted down its executive pay plan. J.P. Morgan's (JPM) more than $2 billion trading debacle made headlines right before that bank's annual meeting last week, a story that has led to investigations that will not go away anytime soon. And Wal-Mart (WMT) might have preferred for the New York Times' bribery investigation to hit the presses sometime other than the run up to its annual meeting on June 1.

????For the first time in its history, pension fund CalSTRS has initiated a suit on behalf of Wal-Mart and its shareholders against the retail giant's executives and directors for their handling of the bribery scandal and investigation. "We take our responsibility to our shareholders very seriously. We are reviewing the lawsuit closely and are thoroughly investigating the issues that have been raised," a Wal-Mart spokesperson emailed me. In advance of the company's upcoming board meeting, the New York City Pension fund will be voting no on the re-election of five of Wal-Mart's directors.

Missed warning signs at Wal-Mart

????Wal-Mart's board received warnings on its compliance oversight seven years ago, newly released documents reveal. In a On May 25, 2005 letter to Roland Hernandez, who was then chair of Wal-Mart's audit committee, New York City Comptroller William Thompson gave fair warning: "Strong internal controls are … essential to ensuring full legal and regulatory compliance.… We urge the Audit Committee to appoint a special committee of independent directors to conduct a thorough review of the company's controls," the letter said. Although the impetus for the letter was not the bribery scandal, the signatories to the letter, which included the New York City and Illinois pension funds as well as USS and F&C Investment Management, recognized what the board did not seem to: weak controls in one area can be a symptom of larger problems yet to be unearthed.

????Rather than recognize the seriousness of these issues, the board offered a weak response: two months later, Hernandez wrote that the compliance systems for the company were in good shape and that the audit committee was on top of things. But the funds continued to pursue the issue in a meeting in New York City held in September 2005. Both Hernandez and Wal-Mart's current audit chair, Chris Williams, attended.