The art of the sweetly timed exit
I think that at a given moment you must say ‘stop',” said Zinédine Zidane, the French soccer star, as he prepared to retire from the international stage at the age of 32. Zidane's decision to hang up his boots, announced last week, came just a few days after Paul Scholes, one of England's top footballing talents, announced that he was stepping down from the national side at the even more youthful age of 29.
As with a sweetly struck free-kick, so with graceful exits timing is everything. And these young men however old in the context of competitive sport have achieved what many business and political leaders find impossible: getting out at the top and at a time of their choosing.
Finding the right moment to move on remains one of the toughest leadership challenges of all. “There is always this difficulty in balancing what is right for you and your family, and what is right for the business,” says Steve Newhall, UK managing director of DDI, a US-based talent management consultancy. “Sometimes strong leaders stay on beyond their peak because there is no obvious successor in place. You could argue that leaders should be focusing on that legacy as much as on anything else,” he adds.
At General Electric, Jack Welch ensured that there were a number of possible successors in place before he retired. Jeff Immelt, Financial Times “man of the year” in 2003, eventually emerged from the pack to succeed him. Next month, Matt Barrett, chief executive of Barclays, the UK banking group, will become chairman, to be replaced by John Varley, the current deputy chief executive. The succession management at both GE and Barclays has been striking for being relatively smooth and public. For leaders of many quoted companies the handover often proves less orderly. Although Douglas Daft announced he was leaving Coca-Cola in February this year, it was several months before the company finally settled on a “new” chief executive Neville Isdell, who retired from the company in 2001 and by then the company had been publicly rebuffed by several high-profile candidates.
With the average tenure of a CEO down to under three years, it is not surprising if they are choosing to focus on achieving short-term results before the inevitable push comes. “Many CEOs now look on their job as a project,” says Roger Shipton, from the international director centre at DBM, the human resources consultancy. “You might be asked to complete certain specific tasks after which you could make a dignified exit or carry on if that's what the board and shareholders wanted.”
The difficulty lies in recognising that your work is done, and that someone else may be better placed to take the business forward. Who do you turn to for advice? It is rarely appropriate to talk to other executive directors about this: that would create tensions and could be destabilising. It might be possible to discuss your departure plans with certain non-executives, Mr Shipton believes, but even this is not without risk. “That is why it is lonely at the top,” he says. Luke Meynell, head of the board practice at Russell Reynolds, a London-based executive search consultancy, says that managing the transition between old and new CEOs is perhaps the most difficult task that chairmen and boards face. “There are significant risks involved if you get this wrong,” he says, “and getting the timing right is a particularly fine judgment.”
In his book Good to Great, Jim Collins, the US management guru, points to several companies where the leaders, focusing on their legacy, were concerned about leaving a better company behind them. These companies include Philip Morris, the tobacco giant, and the consumer product groups Gillette and Kimberly-Clark. It takes a strong personality to resist the temptation to leave after a spectacular set of figures, hoping to avoid the blame for problems that will emerge only later on. Again, the personal has to be balanced with the organisation's wider interests.
Whether through bad luck or plain insensitivity, the boss may sometimes be the last person to find out that it is time to go. Margaret Thatcher declared, from the doorstep of 10 Downing Street, the official residence of the British prime minister: “I fight on, I fight to win,” only hours before finally losing the confidence of her cabinet and giving up the fight altogether.
Perhaps it is an old-fashioned notion of the onwards-and-upwards career path that sets us up for disappointment. The Employers Forum on Age, a UK campaigning body, has argued that a more flexible retirement would be made easier if more senior executives could imagine working at less exalted levels in theirlater years. Earlier this month, David Hope, the Archbishop of York and, as such, the second most powerful cleric in the Anglican church, announced that he would step down from his high office in the church and go back to being aparish priest.
This is not the sort of career move that many in the private sector would be inclined to follow. Yet “downshifting”, where senior people choose to have more leisure and family time in return for a reduced income and less responsibility, is a growing trend. Gordon Brown, the UK's chancellor of the exchequer, has said there are only two types of finance minister: those who fail, and those who get out in time. Zidane and Scholes have chosen to leave the international stage before the cat-calls start from the fans and critics.
Another striking example of getting out at the top in the world of sport is that of England's former rugby union captain: Martin Johnson. On the cover of his autobiography is a picture of a bruised but jubilant Johnson, holding the rugby World Cup aloft after the November 2003 final in Sydney. That triumphant image captures his final moments as an England player: a good time to head for the exit.
But, for others, it is not, in their view, time to hang up their boots: Alex Ferguson, manager of Manchester United, the English soccer team, who announced plans for his retirement in 2001, and then reversed his decision the following year; Michael Eisner, Disney's chief executive, who has defied a high-profile campaign for his resignation among dissident shareholders led by former Disney directors Roy Disney and Stanley Gold; and Tony Blair, who, after reportedly considering resignation during the summer, has let it be known that he intends to lead the British Labour party in a third national election.
Only time will tell if they should have done a Zidane, and stopped while the going was good.
见好就收的艺术
我想，在某个特定的时刻，你必须说，‘停下’。”准备退出国际赛场的法国球星奇内丁?齐达内（Zinédine Zidane）说。就在32岁的奇达内上周宣布挂靴的决定前几天，英国最优秀的足球天才之一保罗?斯科尔斯（Paul Scholes）也宣布他将退出国家队，尽管他正值29岁盛年。
正如一脚漂亮的任意球，选择恰到好处的退出时机非常重要。不管年轻人在赛场上的运动年龄有多大，他们做到了许多商界、政界领袖不可能做到的事情：在事业的巅峰，选择时机急流勇退。
选择恰当的时机退出，一直是领导者所面临的最艰难的挑战之一。“要想在为自身、家庭的利益和为事业的利益之间取得平衡，永远是个难题。”DDI公司英国分公司总经理斯蒂夫?纽霍尔（Steve Newhall）说。DDI是一家总部设在美国的人力管理咨询公司。“有时候，能干的领导者在达到事业巅峰之后仍在继续干，是因为没有明显合适的继任者。你可以认为，领导者也应该像对待其他任何事情一样，重视自己的继任问题。”他补充道。
在通用电器公司（GE），杰克?韦尔奇（Jack Welch）确保了在他退休之前，有不少合适的继任者可以选择。最终，被《金融时报》评选为2003年年度人物的杰夫?伊梅尔特（Jeff Immelt）从这批人选中脱颖而出，成为韦尔奇的接班人。下个月，英国巴克莱银行集团（Barclays）首席执行官马特?巴雷特（Matt Barrett）将出任集团董事会主席，首席执行官一职将由现任副总经理约翰?瓦里（John Varley）接任。通用电器和巴克莱的权力交接都因为相对平稳和公开而令人关注。对许多上市公司的领导者来说，权力交接常被证明是不那么顺利的。尽管道格拉斯?达夫特（Douglas Daft）今年2月宣布他将离开可口可乐公司，但可口可乐还是花了好几个月，才最终敲定“新”的首席执行官：2001年从可口可乐退休的内维尔?艾斯戴尔（Neville Isdell）。期间，已经有多位继任者人选公开拒绝了可口可乐。
随着首席执行官的平均任期下降到不足三年，他们在不可避免的压力来临之前，选择将工作重心放在取得短期成果上，也就不奇怪了。“现在，许多首席执行官把他们的工作看成一个项目。”人力资源咨询公司DBM的国际主管中心的罗杰?什普顿（Roger Shipton）说，“你也许被要求完成某些特殊的任务，之后你可以选择有尊严地离开，或者继续干下去，如果董事会和股东们希望如此的话。”
困难在于，如何看清你的工作是否已经完成，别人接着干是否更合适。你找谁商量？跟其他经理谈这种事，是不太合适的。那会使人际关系紧张，使领导层不稳定。不过什普顿先生相信，和某些管理层之外的人讨论讨论你告退的计划，倒是可行的，但即便如此，也不无风险。“那就是为何人在高处感到孤独的原因。”他说。伦敦的罗素-雷诺兹猎头公司（Russell Reynold）负责董事业务的卢克?梅内尔（Luke Meynell）说，让新老首席执行官顺利过渡是董事会主席和整个董事会所面临最棘手的任务。“如果你处理失误，就会牵出巨大的风险。”他说，“选择恰当的时机，需要非常准确的判断力。”
美国管理学大师吉姆?柯林斯（Jim Collins）在《从优秀到卓越》中介绍了多家公司，它们的领导者很重视自己能留给公司什么，他们很在乎自己离开以后，公司发展能够更好。这些公司包括烟草业巨头菲利普-莫里斯（Philip Morris），消费品集团吉列（Gillette）和金佰利（Kimberly-Clark）。在一连串惊人出色的业绩数据之后，能够抵拒诱惑，不离开公司，以避免今后出现的问题而受到谴责，这需要很强的个性。个人的利益又得和更大的组织利益取得平衡。
不管是运气差，还是纯粹的不够敏感，有时候，老板可能是最后一个才察觉到自己该离开的人。玛格丽特?撒切尔站在唐宁街10号――英国首相的官邸门口宣称：“我要继续斗争，直至胜利。”可几个小时以后，她最终还是失去了内阁的信任，偃旗息鼓。
也许，认为一条向上、向前的事业道路总会让我们失望的想法已经过时了。
一个名叫“雇员年龄论坛”的活动团体曾主张，如果更多高级管理者能想象一下，在晚年做些不像以前那么高级别的工作，更灵活的退休制度就可以比较容易地实行。本月早些时候，约克郡大主教、英国新教的二号人物戴维?霍普（David Hope）宣布，他将辞去教职，重新做一名教区牧师。
对这种职业变动的方式，许多私营领域中的人不大会遵循。但是，许多高级管理者选择“调低速档”，也就是说，为了降低收入，减少责任，以换来更多休闲以及和家人在一起的时间，是一种趋势。英国财政大臣高登?布朗（Gordon Brown）曾说，财政部长只有两种：一种是失败的，一种是及时抽身而退的。齐达内和斯科尔斯都选择了在球迷和足球评论员发出不满的嘘声之前，退出国际赛场。
体育世界另一个达到巅峰却急流勇退的典型例子是英格兰橄榄球队前队长马丁?约翰逊（Martin Johnson）。他自传的封面上是约翰逊一张带着伤但神情高兴的照片，2003年11月在悉尼夺得橄榄球世界杯后，他正高高举起奖杯。他这张兴高采烈的照片纪录了他作为英格兰国脚的最后时刻：退役的好时机到了。
但是，在另一些人看来，挂靴的时候还没到呢：英国足球俱乐部曼彻斯特联队的主教练阿历克斯?福格森（Alex Ferguson）早在2001年就宣布了他的退休计划，在接下来的一年里他又推翻了自己的决定。迪斯尼董事罗伊?迪斯尼（Roy Disney）和斯坦利-戈尔德（Stanley Gold）曾领导对迪斯尼首席执行官迈克尔?埃斯纳（Michael Eisner）不满的股东，逼埃斯纳下台。埃斯纳对此坚决抵制；还有托尼?布莱尔，有报道称他正考虑今年夏天辞职，对此，他公开表示，他有意领导英国工党第三次赢得全国大选。
只有时间才能证明，他们是不是应该像齐达内一样，见好就收。
