正如戴蒙最初听闻衍生品交易巨亏事件之后所言,我个人认为此类担忧是“茶壶里的风暴”。花旗集团(Citigroup)分别有一个董事长和CEO。摩根大通自身及其竞争对手摩根士丹利(Morgan Stanley)过去曾迈出一小步,将这两个职位分离以便向任命新CEO实现平稳过渡。纽约梅隆银行(BNY Mellon)提出CEO身兼两职的理由之一是“绝大多数银行”都这么做,现在看来这个理由有些牵强。
A split may not fit every company, so it shouldn’t be compulsory. A non-executive chairman couldn’t save Royal Bank of Scotland from near-collapse or keep Barclays out of the ethical abyss. New research also suggests that “demoting” chairmen of companies that are performing well undermines the share price.
分开不一定适用于每个公司,因此它不应是强制性的。一个非执行董事长不可能让苏格兰皇家银行(RBS)免于接近破产的境地,也不会把巴克莱(Barclays)救出道德深渊。新的研究还发现,“降职使用”表现优秀的董事长会让该公司股价下跌。
But independent chairmanship should be the model for companies coming to market or planning a leadership succession. The role is not hard to grasp – the non-executive chairman runs the board and the chief executive runs the business – but it must be regularly explained. Too often, US chairmen see their appointment as an excuse to exercise their underused executive muscles.
【权势之争:董事长与CEO之间的种种】相关文章:
最新
2020-09-15
2020-09-15
2020-09-15
2020-09-15
2020-09-15
2020-09-15