如何选择合适的首席执行官

    有些首席执行官从第一天起就注定要失败，因为他或她本身就是错误的选择。现在这居然成了一个普遍现象。雅虎（Yahoo）刚刚迎来五年内的第五任首席执行官，而李艾科在惠普（Hewlett-Packard ）的领头人位置上只呆了11个月。

    首席执行官迅速失败的时候，投资者会责怪他们，但真正的罪魁祸首是董事会。他们没能履行其最重要的职责：确保公司一直拥有称职的首席执行官。

    为避免如此严重的错误，董事们必须取得对选择首席执行官的完全控制，而对大多数公司来说，他们必须以全新的方式来完成这个任务。我分析了过去20年来82位遭遇滑铁卢的首席执行官，我也亲眼目睹了多次交接班，效果有好有坏。我观察到什么可行，什么不可行。成功之路其实很清楚，我们需要更多的董事会积极进取，依计行事。下面这些步骤至关重要：

对常规流程反其道而行之。

    大多数董事会在一开始就犯下大错，注定失败：他们还不清楚所要找寻的目标，特别是公司所急需的专门技能和关系网，就开始考虑候选人。董事必须采用反向的思路，首先应该严格而明确地界定在当前的环境中，对公司和成功的首席执行官的独特要求是什么。哪些是候选人必须达到的不容讨价还价的标准？

    IBM的董事会1993年的时候就是这么做的。为了物色约翰•艾克斯的继承人，董事会指派了一个专门委员会，其中包括美国广播公司（ABC Cap Cities）首席执行官汤姆•墨菲和声名卓著的强生公司（Johnson & Johnson）前任首席执行官吉姆•伯克。猎头、专家、股票分析师和媒体的共识就是IBM的新老板必须要有信息技术行业的经历，有的人还相信IBM特别需要能够带领他们赢得个人计算机之战的人。苹果公司（Apple）前任老总约翰•斯卡利和摩托罗拉（Motorola）的乔治•费希尔都曾经是热门人选。

    墨菲和伯克的看法却截然不同。他们确定了一些非常明确的标准，同时认为那是核心要求。除了那些常见的“特质”，比如个性、诚信、价值观，以及实施大规模改变的良好记录，两人还确定了下面这些不容置疑的标准：以客户为导向；商业智慧，就是能够诊断出IBM的病因并发现根治之道的能力；执行必要变革、带领公司前行的能力。

    请注意他们并没有使用一般性的词汇比如“愿景”或“战略”，而且他们明确提出信息技术行业的经历并不是必须。董事会的选择当然就是郭士纳，烟草公司雷诺兹/纳贝斯克（RJR/Nabisco）的首席执行官，他也是美国运通（American Express）的前任总裁。虽然没有技术背景，但按照以上三个评判标准他都是出类拔萃的人选。他的名言就是IBM不需要愿景，然后在分拆的边缘挽救了IBM。8年后他离开时，IBM已经是全世界最受尊敬、最有价值的公司之一。

将选择标准分成5个类别。

    不要用陈词滥调或者专门术语。要从这些标准能得出明确、直接的结论。

    第1类：一般“特质”：智力、个性、完成任务的记录、实现执行力的方法以及充沛的精力。另外两个特别重要的素质：决断，是就是是，不是就是不是，不要模棱两可的“也许”，当然，还要有勇气。如果候选人严重缺乏上述的任一品质都必须淘汰。

    第2类：技能。就像墨菲和伯克对IBM的首席执行官所要求的专门能力。这些技能要求与时俱进，同时各公司也需要因人而异。

    第3类：关系网。在大多数公司，很多事务都是通过外部和内部关系形成的稳固网络来完成的。关系的建立并非一时一日之功。外部关系的建立特别需要花费漫长的时间，但也能成为双向信息交流的桥梁。需要考察候选人在不同层次上建立持久关系，并将其转化为战略优势的过往记录如何？

    第4类：判断力。几乎所有首席执行官的决定都需要权衡折衷，而很多因素都是定性乃至主观的。候选人在关键问题上的判断力如何，比如听取哪一个信息来源？此外，他们在人员、战略抉择和资源配置方面的判断明智与否？

    第5类：理解和认知。候选人是否比其他人先察觉到在转折之后将要面临的情况？理解力和将多种外界力量联系起来进行分析的能力非常重要。何种经历表明候选人拥有这种能力？面对临突如其来的冲击，候选人的恢复能力如何？

    It's becoming an epidemic: the dead-on-arrival CEO who is doomed from day one because he or she was the wrong choice. Look at Yahoo (YHOO), which just got its fifth CEO in five years, or think of Leo Apotheker, who lasted only 11 months at the top of Hewlett-Packard (HPQ).

    Investors blame the CEO when he or she flames out, but the real culprit is the board. The directors blew their most important job: making sure the company always has the right CEO.

    To avoid such damaging failures, directors must seize control of CEO selection and pursue the task in a way that's fundamentally new at most companies. I've analyzed 82 CEO failures from the past 20 years and have been on the scene of many successions, good and bad. I've observed what works and what doesn't. The winning approach is clear, and more boards should go firmly on offense and follow it. The following steps are critical:

Reverse the usual process.

    Most boards doom their efforts at the start by committing the blunder of considering CEO candidates without knowing what they're looking for – especially the specific skills and relationship the company will need most. Directors need to think in the opposite direction. They should first define rigorously and specifically the unique requirements for the company and a successful CEO in today's environment. What are the non-negotiable criteria the candidate must meet?

    That's what IBM's (IBM) board did in 1993. To find a successor to CEO John Akers, it appointed a committee that included Tom Murphy, CEO of ABC Cap Cities, and Jim Burke, the highly acclaimed former CEO of Johnson & Johnson (JNJ). The consensus of headhunters, pundits, security analysts, and media was that IBM's new boss needed infotech experience, and some believed IBM especially needed someone who could win the PC war. Former Apple (AAPL) chief John Scully and Motorola's George Fischer were highly touted candidates.

    Murphy and Burke took a radically different view. They identified a few extremely specific criteria that they deemed central. In addition to the normal "givens," such as character, integrity, values, and a strong record of making large-scale change, the duo decided on the following non-negotiable criteria: Customer orientation; business acumen – the ability to diagnose what ailed IBM and see how to fix it; and the ability to execute needed change and take the company forward.

    Note that they didn't use generic terms like "vision" or "strategy," and they explicitly didn't require infotech experience. The board's choice was of course Lou Gerstner, CEO of RJR/Nabisco and previously president of American Express (AXP) -- no techie, but outstanding on each of the three criteria. He famously made clear that IBM didn't need a vision and then rescued the company from the verge of breakup, leaving it eight years later as one of the world's most admired and valuable corporations.

Place the selection criteria into five buckets.

    No platitudes or jargon allowed. The directors need criteria that lead to a specific, pointed conclusion.

    Bucket 1: The "givens": intelligence, character, a record of getting things done, a methodology for excellent execution, high energy. Two more are especially important: decisiveness, a bias toward saying "yes" or "no" rather than "maybe," and courage. A dire lack of even one of these takes the candidate out of the running.

    Bucket 2: Skills. Specific abilities like the ones Murphy and Burke identified for IBM's CEO. They will vary widely from company to company and era to era.

    Bucket 3: Relationships. In most companies, much is achieved through a sustained network of external and internal relationships. It doesn't happen fast. External relationships in particular are built over long periods and become valuable two-way bridges of information. What is the candidate's record of building enduring relationships at several levels and converting them into strategic advantages?

    Bucket 4: Judgment. Almost all decisions at the CEO level require tradeoffs, and many factors are qualitative and subjective. How effective is the candidate's judgment on key questions, such as which information sources to listen to? In addition, how sage have the candidate's judgments been on people, strategic bets, and resource allocation?

    Bucket 5: Perception and cognition. Does a candidate see what waits around the bend before others do? Powers of perception and the ability to connect diverse external forces are worth a lot of points. What experiences signal that the candidate has this ability? What is his or her resilience in the face of shocks?