龙裔黑帮之老虎泰剧:米奇式管理

米奇式管理

The meaning of Walt Disney’s latest boardroom changes

迪士尼最近的董事会变化意味着什么

Oct 15th 2011 | from the print edition

AMONG the many voids left by the death of Steve Jobs on October 5th was an empty seat in the boardroom of Walt Disney, where he was the largest shareholder. Soon afterwards, Disney announced that Robert Iger, the media and theme-park giant’s chief executive since 2005, had signed a new five-year contract, at the end of which he will leave the firm. Next March Mr Iger will also become chairman of Disney’s board.

十月五日乔布斯去世遗留下来了众多空缺，其中之一是他在沃尔特·迪士尼公司董事会的席位——他是迪士尼最大的股东。之后不久，迪士尼宣布已经与Robert Iger 签订了新的为期五年的合约，合约期满之后他将离任。自2005年起担任传媒和主题公园巨头迪士尼总裁的Robert Iger 将于明年三月接任董事会主席职务。

The timing may be linked to the death of Mr Jobs. With his shares likely to go on the market, and Disney’s performance having stalled again lately, there are rumours that a rival might try to buy the firm. Announcing Mr Iger’s new deal and departure date sent investors a reassuring message: there will be continuity at the top. And the board has ample time to plan for life after the esteemed Mr Iger, who is said to fancy a new career in politics.

这一时间安排可能与乔布斯去世有关。由于乔布斯的股份可能被出售，而迪士尼最近的市场表现不佳，竞争对手可能试图收购迪士尼的谣言四起。宣布与Robert Iger的新协议以及他的离任日期，给投资者服下了定心丸：高级管理层将延续。而董事也会有足够的时间计划的Robert Iger 离任之后领导层的变动。Robert Iger是个受人尊敬的人，据说离任后他将谋求政治上的发展。

Still, Disney’s decision to combine the posts of chairman and chief executive infuriates corporate-governance activists. They see this merging of the two roles as a step backwards, allowing the possibility of a return to the lousy governance for which Disney was notorious under Michael Eisner, Mr Iger’s over-mighty predecessor. Back then, Disney’s board might easily have been mistaken for a pair of Snow White’s dwarf pals (specifically, Sleepy and Dopey). At one point, its directors included an architect friend of Mr Eisner and a local schoolteacher. This made it a target of shareholder activists who, after a series of corporate scandals at other firms with insufficiently accountable bosses, campaigned for big changes in how all American firms were governed. The separation of the chairman and chief executive roles at Disney marked an important victory for that campaign, which is why its reversal is disappointing.

然而迪士尼把董事会主席和总裁的职务合二为一的决定还是激怒了公司治理的激进分子。他们认为两个角色的合二为一是一种倒退，可能会回到Robert Iger 权倾一时的前任Michael Eisner 的领导下公司混乱名声败坏的情形。那时候，董事会被当做白雪公主身边的两个小矮人（尤其是那个爱睡觉的和那个迟钝的）。董事中一度包括Michael Eisner 的一个建筑师朋友和一名教师。在一系列其他公司由于不负责任的总裁引起的丑闻后，上述行为成为股东中激进分子的攻击目标，他们发起运动以变革美国公司的管理方式。迪士尼公司总裁和董事会主席的两权分离标志着该运动取得了重大的胜利，而这也是为什么事情的逆转如此令人失望。

Less than a decade ago, it was highly unusual for more than a handful of shareholders of American public companies to cast their votes against the re-election of board members, especially the chairman. Indeed, such was the feebleness of shareholder democracy at most firms that “no” votes were not even counted; only “yes” votes were. But in March 2004, following some high profile opposition and disappointing profits at Disney, 43% of shareholder votes were cast against the election of Mr Eisner to another term on the board. Instead of ignoring this vote, as it was free to do, the board stripped Mr Eisner of his chairmanship. In his place it appointed George Mitchell, a politician with a spotless name and a reputation for independence. Having brokered the Northern Ireland peace process, he was unlikely to be intimidated by a mere media mogul. Mr Eisner stayed on for a while as chief executive, but stepped down earlier than expected in September 2005.

不到十年以前，很少能看到美国上市公司的大量股东投票反对被重新选出的董事会成员，尤其是主席。事实上，这就是大部分企业里股东民主的脆弱性：否决票不算数，只有赞成票算数。但是2004年3月，在迪士尼中出现了一些高调反对的声音和让人失望的公司业绩后，43%的股东投票反对Michael Eisner 连任董事会主席。董事会不像以前那样忽略这些反对票，而是将Michael Eisner从主席的位子上赶了下来。接替他职位的是George Mitchell，一个名声清白、以独立著名的政治家。曾经成功推进北爱尔兰和平进程的他不太可能被区区一个传媒界要人吓到。Michael Eisner继续担任总裁职务，但是不久后就离任，早于预期的2005年9月。

Looking back, this vote at Disney, and the board’s reaction to it, was a turning point for the movement for better corporate governance. Today, far fewer board members appear to have been picked by the boss largely on the basis of their probable support for whatever he does. It is now the norm for “no” votes to be counted, and less unusual for shareholders to exercise their right to cast them. Shareholders of American firms have also been given a “say on pay” vote (albeit only an advisory one) on the remuneration of top executives. And this year they have said “nay on pay” on a record number of occasions. The number of American firms with a separate chairman and chief executive has also risen sharply, bringing America more into line with corporate practice on the other side of the Atlantic. Of the companies in the S&P 500, 210 now split the two roles. There is, to be fair, an ongoing debate over whether there is any tangible evidence that having a separate chairman improves a company’s performance. Yet it is mostly bosses who argue that it does not, while shareholders generally think it does.

回顾过去，迪士尼股东的投票和董事会对它做出的反应是公司转向更好的管理方式的转折点。今天，由总裁挑选的董事会成员比以前少了许多，总裁挑选那些人很大程度上基于他们可能支持自己任何的决策和行为。现在的常规是否决票也算数，而股东行使权力投票选出董事会成员也不是那么鲜见了。美国企业的股东还有权对高层管理人员的奖金进行投票（尽管投票仅具有参考价值）。而今年他们又在少数几个场合中要求“不发奖金”的投票权。总裁与董事会主席两权分离的美国企业的数量也迅速增加，美国的公司惯例和大西洋对岸的欧洲更加一致了。标准普尔指数前五百名的企业中，有210家企业都是两权分离的。公平地说，关于两权分离有利于提高公司业绩是否有确凿证据的争论仍然在持续。对于大多数总裁来说答案是否定的，而股东们总体上认为答案是肯定的。

That said, there are still plenty of reasons to worry about the quality of corporate governance in America, as the recent mishandling of the firing of bosses at both Yahoo! and HP highlighted. There have also been some setbacks to efforts to strengthen shareholder rights, such as a recent court ruling against a measure in the Dodd-Frank financial-reform law that was intended to make it easier for shareholders to nominate candidates for the board. And now Disney’s board, which had grown to be admired both for its accountability and diversity, has taken a step in the wrong direction. While hardly catastrophic, this has certainly sent a disappointing message.

那就是说，我们仍然有大量理由担心美国公司管理的质量，最近雅虎和惠普公司错误地解雇了各自的老板就突出了这一点。加强股东权利的努力也面临着很多的挫折。最近，法庭否决了Dodd-Frank经济改革法中的一项措施，该法规的意图是使股东更顺利地提名董事会候选人。现在又轮到迪士尼董事会。它曾经成长壮大并因其责任感和多样化被称赞，而现在却向错误的方向迈进了一步。虽然此举远不具有毁灭性，但是这确实传达了一则令人失望的信息。

With luck, this reversal will only be temporary, as Disney has promised. It has also pledged to appoint a “lead director”, who will carry out some of the board duties that might otherwise have fallen to a stand-alone chairman—though it is unclear precisely what the responsibilities of this officer will be.

迪士尼承诺，如果运气好的话这一逆转仅仅是暂时的。它亦承诺任命一个“董事领袖”，负责执行独立的主席不会执行的董事会职责——尽管他的具体职责是什么还并不清晰。

The award for best supporting actor goes to: no one

最佳男配角：空缺

Why Disney’s board gave both roles to Mr Iger is also not clear. But it is consistent, albeit in a small way, with a lamentable pattern: the tendency of media firms to opt for a leadership structure based on a dominant mogul, weak boards and open scorn for what shareholders regard as the best practice in corporate governance. There are other recent examples of this. IAC, a firm run by Barry Diller, recently appointed Chelsea Clinton to its board. Schumpeter has nothing against Ms Clinton, but it is hard to imagine what virtuous instructions to a headhunter could have resulted in a 31-year-old with little relevant experience making its shortlist. However, the firm that puts the Mickey into Mickey Mouse corporate governance is surely Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. Thirteen members of its board are currently up for re-election. Institutional Shareholder Services, a firm that advises shareholders on how to vote, is recommending “no” votes for the whole miserable lot.

迪士尼将两项大权都交给Robert Iger 的原因并不明确。但是它却和一种可悲的模式保持一致（尽管是在很小的程度上），该模式下，媒体企业倾向于选择的一种领导结构是建基于集权的要人、软弱的董事会和对股东眼中最好的公司管理模式的公开的不屑。还有其他真实的例子。Barry Diller管理的IAC最近任命Chelsea Clinton为董事会成员。笔者（Schumpeter）并不反对Clinton先生，但是很难想像怎样卓越的指示会使得猎头将一个31岁几乎没有相关经验的人列入他最终的考虑名单。然而，将米奇列入米老鼠家族公司的管理中的企业必然是默多克（Rupert Murdoch）的新公司。其董事会的13名成员都将在最近参与董事改选。为股东提供投票建议的公司Institutional Shareholder Services，建议所有不满的股东都投否决票。