为什么说今天的CEO比前辈更优秀

    不久前与汉克•鲍尔森交谈时，他的一句话让我沉思：“从上世纪70年代起我就开始和CEO们打交道，当今的CEO们比过去强太多了。

    当然，他有底气这么说。他服务高盛（Goldman Sachs）多年后升任这家银行的CEO，之后又当过美国财政部长，对于很多大公司CEO们都有着近距离的观察。那么，他说的对吗？

    我认为，他说的没错。很多人都抱怨，现在不再有CEO英雄了，但有力的论据证明，我们实际上正处在杰出CEO人才辈出的黄金时代。假如亚马逊（Amazon）的杰夫•贝佐斯今天退休，必将入围五十年CEO名人堂，而他现在才49岁。史蒂夫•乔布斯把一家濒于倒闭的公司变成了一家全球最有价值的公司，他也将因为对苹果（Apple）产品的管理性创新而被载入史册。我不确定是否能有CEO比美国运通（American Express)的肯•钱纳特做得出色很多。没人关注海尔集团（Haier Group）的张瑞敏，但我要告诉你，他将被人们作为中国的杰克•韦尔奇而被广为传诵。一谈起好市多（Costco）的詹姆斯•辛尼格或IBM的彭明盛 (这两人都已于去年离职)，我就有太多话要说。我还可以继续讲下去。

    如今的CEO们变得更出色了，不只是我们印象如此。现在的CEO比上世纪70年代的CEO更出色是有原因的。试想一下：

    ——那时，很少有美国公司直接面对一流的海外巨头竞争。当年，欧洲仍在努力走出二战的阴影；中国和俄罗斯是共产主义国家；印度因社会运动而一团糟。随着业务的国际化，CEO实际上已被从高中运动场推着走进了奥运会，而且已经显著提高了竞技水平。

    ——当前对CEO们的审查要多很多。虽说现在很流行对于明星CEO的出现不屑一顾，但在上世纪70年代，没有几个美国人能叫出一家《财富》美国500强公司CEO的名字。一旦世人都知道你的名字，风险可就大了。

    ——如今股东拥有的权力要大很多。理论上，股东总是可以解聘CEO，但这几乎从未发生过。如今，由于很多原因——股份集中在机构手中、美国证券交易委员会（SEC）的规则调整、科技促进和便利了股东之间的沟通——权力平衡已经发生了改变。不让对冲投资巨头比尔•阿卡曼插手的最佳方式就是确保他没有任何理由染指。

    Talking with Hank Paulson not long ago, I was stopped short by an observation he made: "I've been working with CEOs since the 1970s, and CEOs today are so much better than they used to be."

    He's certainly in a strong position to judge. In a long career at Goldman Sachs (GS), where he rose to CEO, and then as Treasury Secretary, he got a close-up look at a wide range of major corporate chiefs. So is he right?

    I think he is. Many people lament that there aren't any CEO heroes anymore, but a powerful case can be made that we're actually in a golden age of outstanding CEOs. If Amazon's (AMZN) Jeff Bezos retired today he'd be in the CEO pantheon of the past 50 years, and he's still only 49. Steve Jobs, who turned a failing company into the world's most valuable, will be remembered as much for his managerial innovations as for Apple's (AAPL) products. I'm not sure CEOs get much better than American Express' (AXP) Ken Chenault. No one pays attention to Haier Group's Zhang Ruimin (HRELF), but I'm telling you now that he'll be remembered as the Chinese Jack Welch. Don't get me started on Costco's (COST) Jim Sinegal or IBM's Sam Palmisano (IBM), both of whom stepped down last year. I could keep going.

    The notion that CEOs have improved is more than just an impression. It stands to reason that they'd be better now than they were in the '70s. Consider:

    -Back then most U.S. businesses were barely exposed to giant, top-caliber foreign competitors. Europe was still recovering from the destruction of World War II; China and Russia were communist; India was a socialist basket case. As business has globalized, CEOs have in effect been pushed from high school sports to the Olympics and have had to raise their game dramatically.

    -CEOs are under far more scrutiny today. It's fashionable to deride the advent of the celebrity CEO, but in the '70s, few Americans could name the CEO of any Fortune 500 company. When the world knows your name, the stakes get higher.

    -Shareholders have far more power today. In theory, shareholders could always fire the CEO, but it almost never happened. Today, for many reasons -- shares more concentrated in the hands of institutions, SEC rule changes, technology that lets shareholders find one another and communicate far more easily -- the balance of power has shifted. The best way not to hear fromBill Ackman is to make sure he has no reason to call.