拷问微软接班人遴选进程

    微软公司（Microsoft）首席执行官史蒂夫•鲍尔默快要离职了，不过董事会却迄今还没找到接班人。对于一个棒球队来说，任何时候都必须有替补投手，但是在商业世界里，微软有着不少难兄难弟。大批公司的董事会都没有选定非紧急情况下的首席执行官接班人。

    11月19日，在华盛顿贝尔维尤举办的微软年度大会上，股东将有机会向董事会了解其首席执行官的继任安排。他们应该问的问题如下。

    在挑选董事会接班人的问题上，你们花了多长时间？

    惠普公司（HP）董事会成员因为在会议室里老是争执不休而精疲力竭，结果他们在聘用首席执行官李艾科之前居然都从来没跟他碰过头。所有董事会都需要新鲜血液，需要那些有时间精力，也有专业能力挑出最佳首席执行官的成员。而对科技公司来说，由于它们身处商业模式瞬息万变的科技业，董事会换血重组尤其需要精心策划。

    微软的董事会确实需要重组了。大卫•马夸特已经在任超过30年，公司创始人、前首席执行官以及现任主席比尔•盖茨也是如此。鲍尔默、赫尔穆特•庞克和查尔斯•诺斯基也已在任10年有余。鉴于现有的五位董事都应该准备好自己的退路了，股东们应该问问约翰•汤普森这位2012年的新加入董事和提名委员会主席，除了一位已宣布将于明年加入的新董事之外，他要让董事会实现现代化的时间表在哪里。

    等到新首席执行官上任再启动董事会重组并不合适。伟大的网球选手都想和旗鼓相当的对手竞赛——而卓越的首席执行官（能力很强却又十分低调）想要的也是一个出色的董事会。再说本来就应该是董事会选拔首席执行官，而不是反过来。

    尽管这两年有新董事加入，但微软董事会需要的是更健康的人员周转率。在替换现有的五位长期董事的过程中，他们应该考虑采用世通公司（WorldCom）在危机后实行的原则：每年替换一名董事。

    你们反思过自己的首席执行官继任流程吗？

    微软的管理方针是“董事会与首席执行官协作，共同规划首席执行官的继任事宜”，这实在是夸夸其谈，简直就像是说民主党和茶党通力合作提高联邦所得税并重启重大社会项目一样。理论上听起来很不错，但有多大可能付诸实践呢？确实，一旦新首席执行官上任，董事会是可以寻求与其合作，但这就像是毫无道理地让一个急性子来承担一桩需要长期深思熟虑的重大任务一样不靠谱。

    我和首席执行官顾问兼作者兰姆•查兰的想法不一样，不认为董事会非要等到新任首席执行官上任六个月后才开启这一进程。首席执行官的任期和精心设计的继任流程毫无关系。选拔首席执行官这一任务真正要紧的是，找到那位能在任何时候都游刃有余、化解企业所面临的各种挑战的杰出人才，并三顾茅庐。哪怕首席执行官到任一天后就开始这一进程也不嫌为时过早。股东应该就当前所用及正在执行的继任流程深入询问董事会。

    你们已决定由谁出任独立主席了吗？

    作为首席执行官继任流程的一部分，董事会应该制定一名独立董事出任主席职位并领导聘用首席执行官后的董事会。微软董事会可以在这个位置上启用一位新面孔，而首席执行官需要知道谁将出任这一角色，因为这两个人今后必须建立良好的工作关系。

    这也同时为聘用过程定了基调，并可避免摩根大通公司（J.P. Morgan）由于股东人数不断增加带来的问题。他们很想给杰米•戴蒙的老板打电话抱怨他的表现——只不过作为董事会主席，戴蒙就是他自己的老板。股东们需要问问汤普森谁会出任独立主席，还有董事会会如何选择人选。

    Microsoft (MSFT) CEO Steve Ballmer will be stepping down, and the board does not have a replacement. Although a baseball team would never think of operating without relief pitchers, Microsoft has plenty of company in the business world. Many boards have not selected non-emergency CEO replacements.

    On Nov. 19, at the tech giant's annual meeting in Bellevue, Wash., shareholders will have a chance to ask the board about its CEO succession process. Here's what they should ask.

    How far along are you in sorting out who should be on the board?

    HP (HPQ) board members were so worn out from boardroom squabbling that they never even met CEO Leo Apotheker before they hired him. All boards need to keep their membership refreshed with people who have the time, energy, and expertise to pick the best top manager. Companies in industries like technology, which goes through rapidly changing business models, require especially intentional board updates.

    Microsoft's board could use a reboot. David Marquardt has been on the board for over 30 years, as has Bill Gates, the company's founder, former CEO, and current chair. Ballmer, Helmut Panke, and Charles Noski have been on the board 10 years or more. With five members that ought to have their eyes on the exits, shareholders should ask John Thompson, a 2012 board hire and the nominating committee chair, what his timetable for modernizing the board is, beyond the one new hire that has been announced for next year.

    It's not okay to kick the board renovation down the road until after a new CEO is hired. Great tennis players want to play with great competitors -- and strong CEOs (high ability, low ego) want strong boards. Plus the board should select the CEO, not the other way around.

    Despite a few recent additions, the Microsoft board needs a healthier level of ongoing turnover. As they replace the five with long tenures, they should consider the guideline WorldCom had to adopt after its crisis: One person leaves per year.

    Have you been rethinking your CEO succession process?

    Microsoft's governance guideline that "The board works with the CEO to plan for CEO succession" is about as aspirational as saying the Democrats work with the Tea Party to raise federal income taxes and restore vital social programs. Sounds great in theory, but how likely is it? Sure, once the CEO is on the way out, a board may gain her cooperation, but that's putting a short fuse for no good reason on what deserves a longer-term, more thoughtful approach.

    Unlike CEO advisor and author Ram Charan, I don't think boards need to wait to begin the process until six months after the new CEO is in place. A CEO's tenure is completely irrelevant to a well-designed succession process. What matters in CEO succession is identifying and revisiting who can best address the challenges of the business at any point in time. A day after the CEO is in place is not a moment too soon. Shareholders should ask the board about its current and ongoing approach.

    Have you decided who will be independent chair?

    As part of the CEO succession process, the board should designate which independent director will be chair and lead the board post-hire. Microsoft's board could use a fresh face in that spot, and CEO candidates need to know who that will be, as the two individuals will need to have a good working relationship.

    It also sets the tone in the hiring process and avoids the problem cited by growing numbers of shareholders at J.P. Morgan (JPM). They'd like to call Jamie Dimon's boss to complain about his performance – except, as board chair, Dimon is his own boss. Shareholders need to ask Thompson who will be the independent chair and how the board will choose her.