限制CEO任期好处多

    比诺教授指出：“变得不那么有同情心是一种适应方式。如果你领导着一个团队，你的领导方式就决对不可能让所有人都感到满意。如果让那些与你意见不合的人影响有利于多数人的政策，你就不是个好领导。”

    “一定程度的不正常心理可以帮助领导者，因为这样他就不必为了取悦所有人而不停地问同样的问题。”

    但问题在于，如果这样的行为出现得过多，心理层面的不正常就会导致狂妄自大，而这正是英名扫地的领导者所具有的特征。就像2008年金融危机爆发前，尽管出现了与之对立的迹象和建议，有些银行的主管仍然继续采用那些思路有误的政策。

    比诺教授说：“长此以往，你就会发现，人们不想继续听你的指挥。”

    那么，一个国家或者一家公司怎样才能避免领导者陷入刚愎自用的危险境地呢？对此，比诺教授觉得很简单——只要把他们掌权的时间确定下来就行了。换句话说，就是固定任期。

    他指出：“正是出于这样的原因，许多宪法都规定（总统）只能连任一次，就算人们不清楚为什么要这样规定。这是限制上述问题的一种途径，这样一个人就不会变得过于自大。”

    德勤（Deloitte）等公司确实限制了首席执行官和董事长的任期（在德勤，CEO和董事长只能连任一次，每届任期为4年）。这种模式对其他公司是否有效尚无定论，但考虑到本轮金融危机期间那些目中无人的领导者所造成的损失，这种做法值得考虑。

    比诺教授认为：“不在一个领导岗位上待那么多年是件好事。任何人都不应该永远手握大权。”（财富中文网）

    译者：Charlie

    "Being less empathetic is a means of adaptation. If you have to lead a group, you never lead in a way that everyone likes," Bueno says. "If you allow those who do not agree with you to affect policies that benefit a majority, you're not good.

    "A certain grade of psychopathy can help a leader in the sense that he's not always asking the same questions to keep the whole world happy."

    The problem is that when such behavior reaches an excessive level, psychopathy leads to the kind of arrogance that defines fallen, once-great leaders, like the heads of banks who kept ill-thought policies in place -- despite contrary evidence and advice -- in the run up to the 2008 financial collapse.

    "Over time, you perceive the desires of the people you are leading less," Buenos says.

    So how does a nation or company avoid the dangers of tone-deaf leaders? For Bueno, it's as simple as making finite the time that leaders spend close to power's flame. In other words: term limits.

    "That's why many constitutions -- even if it was done in an unconscious form -- have a limit of two consecutive terms [for presidents]," he says. "That's one way of limiting those changes, so a person doesn't end up being excessively arrogant."

    Some companies, like Deloitte, do impose time limits on their CEO and chair roles (at Deloitte's, those roles are limited to two consecutive four-year terms). Whether that model would work at other companies is open to debate, but considering the damage wrought by hubristic leaders during the recent financial crisis, it's worth considering.

    "It's good to not be so many years in one leadership post," says Bueno. "No one should be eternal in power."