沙场老兵是天生的CEO吗？

    几十年来，部队的将军或军官在退伍后，往往会进入公司的高管办公室，雄心勃勃地开始自己的崭新生涯，而他们的领导能力几乎都会受到众人的交口称赞。

    联邦快递（FedEx）的弗雷德•史密斯、电子数据系统公司（EDS）的罗斯•佩罗特这些退伍老兵在二战、越南战争和朝鲜战争后都为各自公司的发展立下了汗马功劳。

    而在几十年后的今天，随着美国的最后一场战争落下帷幕，越来越多的士兵退伍，许多人产生了疑问：运转良好、层级分明的军队领导体系在企业界的价值是否依然如故？

    随着曝光的现役人员性骚扰和士兵自杀案件日益增长，美国核战略指挥部的成员也传出欺诈和酗酒丑闻，自上而下的军队管理风格受到了几十年来最为密切的关注。

    尽管像通用汽车（General Motors）、威瑞森（Verizon）和强生（Johnson & Johnson）这样的公司目前仍由退伍军人掌权，然而比起二三十年前，如今跨入企业界的高阶士兵数量有所减少。不过，沙场老兵们却是急于储备中层管理和领导者的公司眼中的香饽饽。

    从沙场到管理团队的转变引发了人们的疑问：倾向于压制疑问和异议的军事管理会让公司付出代价，还是正好相反，会让公司受益呢？

    后一种观点得到了公众的广泛认可，军队的领导力评分始终高居其他领域之上。哈佛大学肯尼迪学院（Harvard Kennedy School）公共领导中心（Center for Public Leadership）发布的最新版年度《国家领导力指数》（National Leadership Index）指出，美国人只对军事和医疗部门的领导力有着“平均水平之上的信心”。2012年的领导力指数显示，军队连续第18年超越其他13个领域，获得最高评分。排在军队和医疗类别之后的，分别是非盈利和慈善团体、地方政府和宗教机构。

    退伍的陆军上校、圣迭戈大学（University of San Diego）公共领导专业的教授乔治•E•里德说：“军队一直保持着最高评分，也是唯一一个自信满满的领域。”

    不过，里德也提倡人们用公正的眼光看待军队的领导。十年前，他在美国陆军战争学院（Army War College）讲课时，有士兵警告称：出口伤人、夸夸其谈的“毒瘤领导”正在指挥系统中步步高升。根据对这些士兵的采访，他撰写了一篇报告，开创了一个全新领域。

    里德表示，随着伊拉克和阿富汗战争打响，军队当时没有做好准备来深入探讨领导问题。他说：“我只是那飘散在风中的声音。”但他认为在当今时期，军队可以更广泛地审视自身的领导措施。

    里德说：“不仅仅是回顾一下成功的往昔。我们犹豫着是否要把军队领导失灵的情况记录下来。这也是我们领导力的传奇的一部分。”

    由马萨诸塞州坎布里奇（Cambridge, Mass.）的独立机构美国国家经济调查局（National Bureau of Economic Research）主持研究的一份报告显示，士兵出身的首席执行官倾向于作出较为保守的投资决定，也不太认可公司的欺诈行为。

    For decades, former generals or officers frequently found high-flying new careers in corporate executive suites, and their leadership was almost universally lauded.

    Ex-servicemen like Fred Smith at FedEx (FDX) and Ross Perot at EDS helped remake the corporate landscape in the years after World War II and the Vietnam and Korean wars.

    Now, decades later, as the country's latest wars wind down and more soldiers exit the military, many are questioning whether the hierarchical military leadership that traditionally worked so well is still as valuable in the corporate world.

    The top-down military leadership style is coming under scrutiny more intensely than in recent decades as reports surface of rising numbers of in-service sexual assaults and soldier suicides as well as cheating and drinking by members of the nation's nuclear command.

    While the number of high-ranking soldiers migrating to the executive suite has dwindled compared to two or three decades ago -- although companies like General Motors (GM), Verizon (VZ), and Johnson & Johnson (JNJ) are currently led by ex-servicemen -- veterans are being sought by companies anxious to stock their middle management ranks with tested leaders.

    The shift from the fighting fields to the executive ranks has triggered examination of whether military leadership, which tends to squelch questioning and dissent, winds up costing companies or, by contrast, benefiting them.

    The latter view is widely embraced by the public, which consistently rates military leadership atop other occupational fields. The most recent National Leadership Index, prepared annually by the Harvard Kennedy School's Center for Public Leadership, found Americans surveyed nationwide had "above-average confidence" only in the military and medical sectors. The 2012 index was the eighth year in a row in which the military won the top spot over 13 other fields. Nonprofits and charities, local government, and religious institutions followed behind the military and medical categories.

    "The military consistently receives top ratings and is the only segment where there is a great deal of confidence," says George E. Reed, a retired military colonel who is a professor of public leadership at the University of San Diego.

    But Reed also advocates a balanced look at military leadership. While teaching at the Army War College, he broke new ground a decade ago when he wrote a report based on interviews with soldiers warning of abusive, self-aggrandizing "toxic leaders" promoted up the chain of command.

    But with wars raging in Iraq and Afghanistan, the military was not prepared for an in-depth examination of leadership issues at the time, says Reed. "I was a voice in the wind," he notes. But he thinks that the military is entering a period where it can undertake a broader review of its leadership policies.

    "It isn't just looking at success stories," he cautions. "We have a hesitancy to chronicle experiences where military leadership doesn't work," says Reed. "It's part of our romance with leadership."

    Soldier-CEOs tend to make more conservative investment decisions and are less likely to sanction corporate fraud, according to a report prepared under the auspices of the National Bureau of Economic Research, an independent Cambridge, Mass.-based organization.