惠普如何避免再次失手

    随后，在2月13日《圣何塞信使报》（San Jose Mercury News）的一篇报道中，莱恩又重回他先前所讲的要点，“董事会的首要职责将是支持李艾科……为惠普制定全球竞争的战略。”

    惠普的公司治理方针里规定，董事会“督责惠普的战略及业务规划流程”，包括“由董事会审查惠普更新的公司战略规划”。

    其实，很多公司的董事会都对自身在公司战略制定中的职责感到困惑。近期由麦肯锡公司（McKinsey）所做的一项调研表明，很多董事会的职责都是被动的。但是，基于这一调研，以及我对众多董事会成员的访谈，美国的独立董事们实际上很希望改变自己的被动角色，对公司战略的形成作出贡献。

    麦肯锡的这项调研表明，当前北美的董事会与欧洲和亚洲的董事会相比，在战略制定上显得更为被动。受访的北美各大公司董事中有60%的人表示，他们在董事会中的职责是“审查并批准管理层提交的战略。”相比之下，只有不到40%的欧洲公司以及略多于30%的亚洲公司中才存在这种相对较低的战略制定参与水平。

    不幸的是，对众多董事会而言，审查、批准并支持公司的战略是最为司空见惯的处理方式：很多董事会只是个摆设，往往没有核查潜在假设，也没有审查备选方案，就批准了公司的战略。

    惠普的董事会是否确实做到了如莱恩一开始描述的那样“支持李艾科”？他们对战略制定的假设和备选方案进行过充分的核查和审核吗？他们有没有注意过潜在的沟通问题，以确保投资者、客户和员工能够准确地理解公司所制定的战略？

    从上个月决定公布后的结果来看，即使董事会确实发出过质疑的声音，他们所问的问题也缺乏足够的深度。当然，所有这些剧变从莱恩1月发表的有关董事会职能的含混表态中就已能看出端倪了。

    眼下，其他公司的董事会正把惠普作为案例，分析并从其面临的考验中汲取教训，也许这也是惠普重新检视其董事会介入公司战略程度的好时机，当然，前提是他们还没有把想法公诸于众。如果惠普无法让顶尖人才发挥作用，聘用新的董事会成员对公司来说毫无意义。

    埃莉诺•布罗斯罕是价值联盟和公司治理联盟公司（The Value Alliance and Corporate Governance Alliance，http://thevaluealliance.com）的首席执行官，该公司是一家董事会顾问公司。

    译者：清远

    Then, in a February 13 report in the San Jose Mercury News, Lane flipped back to his previous set of talking points. "The board's top priority will be supporting Apotheker … in developing a strategy for HP to compete around the world."

    HP's corporate governance guidelines say the board "oversees HP's strategic and business planning process," which includes "a Board review of HP's updated Corporate Strategic Plan."

    Many boards are confused about their role in determining a company's strategy. A recent survey by McKinsey shows that many boards take a passive role. Based on the survey, however, and my own conversations with a wide spectrum of board members, U.S. independent directors are eager to change their passive roles and contribute to the formation of corporate strategy.

    The McKinsey survey shows that North American boards currently take a more passive approach to strategy than their European and Asian counterparts. Almost 60% of directors surveyed at North American companies say the role of their board is to "review and approve management's proposed strategy." By comparison, this relatively low level of involvement in strategy can be found in fewer than 40% of European companies and slightly more than 30% of Asia-Pacific companies.

    Reviewing, approving, and supporting a company's strategy unfortunately represent an all too common approach among many boards: rubber-stamping strategy by boards without testing underlying assumptions and reviewing alternatives.

    Did HP's board "support Leo" as Lane initially outlined? Or did they adequately test the assumptions of the strategy and review alternatives to it? Did they identify potential communications issues to make sure the strategy would be clearly understood by investors, customers and employees?

    Based on the aftermath of the announcements last month, if the board did ask questions, they were not of sufficient depth. Of course, all of this upheaval could have been predicted from Lane's mixed statements concerning the board's role in January.

    As other boards use HP as a case study and learn from its trials, perhaps it's time for HP to also re-examine the board's level of involvement with the company's strategy -- before the company presents their ideas to the public. Hiring new board members will do a company little service if they do not put their best talents to work.

    Eleanor Bloxham is CEO of The Value Alliance and Corporate Governance Alliance (http://thevaluealliance.com), a board advisory firm.