微软在选帅问题上犯的错

    上周，微软（Microsoft）任命萨提亚•纳德拉为首席执行官。这让我想起了不久前在西雅图对一批高管说过的一番话，内容是企业应当如何从内部选拔负责人，而不是在外部搜寻。

    当时，继任是个重大话题——微软董事长比尔•盖茨和即将离职的CEO史蒂夫•鲍尔默正忙着从日常事务中脱身。听众中间有位女士举手发言，她说许多员工都很关心谁将成为新一任CEO，以及这个人可能给他们的公司文化带来怎样的改变。她还说，员工们都希望这个人能让微软实现文化转型，以便和竞争对手，比如谷歌（Google）、苹果公司（Apple）以及移动领域的企业，争夺人才。原因是，微软对收购诺基亚（Nokia）的资本化已经开始。

    我讲这番话的时间是2013年11月14日。当时微软员工还不知道情况如何，因为负责遴选新CEO的董事约翰•汤普森一直保持着沉默。那时，汤普森透露的信息只是他在博客里列出的约100名候选人。当时，这样的一团迷雾让我接触到的员工受到了不利影响。他们当中，大多数人都承认自己感到焦虑，而且都在静观事态发展的同时准备好了自己的简历。

    我对他们说，如今太多的公司董事会都犯了和微软一样的错误，那就是他们认为继任就是寻找候选人。但实际上，考虑继任问题需要从公司的角度出发，而不仅仅是着眼于具体的某一个人。

    简单地聘请一家研究咨询公司来寻找和发现他们认为合适的人选，或者由董事会挑选几名候选人已经不够了。首先要借助公司的集体智慧和社区股东来找到公司今后发展的最佳思路，同时确定能带领公司前进的人要有哪些特质。搜寻仍很重要，但要把它放在公司确定了策略指标和未来的方向之后。

    我在新书《管理阶层的崩塌：联络、合作、影响和领导的新途径》（Fall of the Alphas: The New Beta Way to Connect, Collaborate, Influence -- and Lead）谈到了这些话题。和董事会掌控一切的传统方式不同，这种新途径牵涉到一批职位高、有影响力的员工和社区成员，我把他们称为“部落议会”。这个机构帮助董事会选择适合公司目标和文化传统的领导者。它不仅可以帮助董事会弄清楚需要做哪些工作，还能发挥领导作用，帮助新的领导者融入公司文化，同时确保这项任务的圆满成功。

    微软本可以用另一种方法来任命新CEO，包括几点：首先，挑选候选人的工作不应只由董事会承担。只有传统方式才会这样做；此外，微软董事会等待的时间过长，他们本该在CEO职位空出来之前早早地和内外部候选人进行更好的沟通。长期等待造成他们不得不在全世界目光的注视之下开始寻找新任CEO。

    Last week's hire of Microsoft's new CEO, Satya Nadella, reminded me of a talk I recently gave to a group of senior executives in Seattle about how companies should do more to groom leaders from within, as opposed to looking outside for their next star.

    At the time, succession was a big topic; Microsoft chairman Bill Gates and outgoing CEO Steve Ballmer were actively planning exits from their everyday roles. In the audience, a woman raised her hand and said that many employees were concerned about who will be brought in and what kind of cultural changes they could expect. Employees, she added, wanted someone capable of transforming the culture of the company so it could compete for talent against competitors, such as Google (GOOG), Apple (AAPL), as well as others in the mobile world as it begins to capitalize on its acquisition of Nokia.

    Back in Nov. 14, 2013 when I gave my talk, Microsoft's (MSFT) employees weren't sure what was going on since they had heard little from John W. Thompson, the board member heading up the search. The most information he had shared to date was a list of some 100 candidates that he included in a blog post. All that mystery was having a negative impact on the current employees I spoke with, most of whom admitted to feeling anxious and of spending time dusting off their résumé as they waited to see what would happen.

    As I explained to the audience, the mistake so many boards make these days, as in the case of Microsoft, is that they think succession is all about identifying candidates. But it's really about organizational thinking, not just about one person.

    It's no longer enough to simply hire a search consultant who goes and finds candidates they think will fit or a board of directors coming up with a short list. It's about first tapping the collective wisdom of the organization, the shareholders of the community, to mine for the best ideas for the future evolution of the company and the characteristics of someone who could lead it forward. Search is still important but only after the organization has done its pre-thinking on the parameters of strategy and the future.

    These themes are covered in my new book, Fall of the Alphas: The New Beta Way to Connect, Collaborate, Influence -- and Lead. Unlike the Alpha way, where the board owns the entire process, the Beta approach involves a group of highly-placed, influential employees and community members -- what I call, a "tribal council." The council helps the board select the right leader who fits with the organization's goals and cultural traditions. It would not only help the board gain clarity on what needs to be done, but it would also take a leadership role in helping integrate and guarantee the success of the new executive into the company culture.

    In many ways, Microsoft could have selected its new CEO differently: First, it should not have just been the sole job of the board of directors to identify candidates. That's such an Alpha way to go about it. They also waited too long; the board should have better communicated with internal and external candidates long before the CEO job was open. That forced them to conduct a search under duress with the world watching.