For CEOs, Policy Forcing Retirement At 65 Is Outdated
At age 79, Hank Greenberg was one of the oldest chief executives in the world. And at age 74, Warren Buffett isn't far behind.
But what does age have to do with it? Not much.
I had lunch with Mr. Greenberg just a few days before he was forced out as American International Group Inc.'s chief executive officer. My impression matched that of others who know him well: He's more mentally and physically fit than most men half his age. He wasn't asked to leave because he was off his game. In part, he was asked to leave because he was still too much on it.
TALKING BUSINESS
Should CEOs be forced to step down at 65? Write to Alan Murray at
business@wsj.com. If you want to share your thoughts, but don't want your letter published, please make that clear.
Check here Monday to read selected letters and responses.
As for Mr. Buffett, who has been called by regulators for questioning about transactions between a unit of his company, Berkshire Hathaway Inc., and AIG, his shareholders think he's ageless. They seem to share the view that Sen. John McCain once expressed about Alan Greenspan, the 79-year-old chairman of the Federal Reserve: If he dies, "prop him up and put sunglasses on him as they did in the movie 'Weekend at Bernie's.' "
But Mr. Greenberg and Mr. Buffett are exceptions in the world of CEOs, who belong to one of the few groups in the U.S. -- along with law-enforcement officials, air-traffic controllers and airline pilots -- who still face mandatory retirement. Hard data on CEO retirement rules are hard to find. But many, if not most, big companies -- including the one that publishes this newspaper -- have policies requiring top executives to step down by age 65.
Why? The practice is rooted more in tradition than logic. It's related to the fact that 65 is the age of full retirement benefits under Social Security -- even though, for today's well-compensated CEOs, Social Security checks might only cover the cost of a Kozlowski-style shower curtain. Like the Social Security retirement age, mandatory CEO retirement at 65 is an outdated tradition that ignores medical science.
Consider this: In 1940, the average American could expect to live no longer than 63 years. Today, he or she can expect to live to 77. Much of the improvement has come in health care for infants, but not all of it. A man who reached age 65 in 1940 could expect to live, on average, a further 12 years. A man who reaches 65 today can expect to live, on average, an additional 16 years. If improvements in health care enable us to live longer, surely they should also enable us to be productive for longer.
In some cases, companies have acknowledged this reality and abandoned mandatory-retirement rules or raised the retirement age. In others, boards of directors have ignored the rule at will. Exxon Mobil Corp.'s board, for instance, waived its rule for CEO Lee Raymond, who is 66. And Boeing Corp.'s board waived the rule to bring back 67-year-old Harry Stonecipher. (Mr. Stonecipher was subsequently dismissed after having an affair with another executive.)
Yet mandatory-retirement rules continue at many companies, in part because they provide a useful crutch. It's easier for the board of directors to tell a CEO to leave because of mandatory retirement than because he or she is doing a mediocre job. "It makes it less personal," says Ken Freeman, former CEO of Quest Diagnostics Inc.
Corporate-governance experts argue that the crutch should be tossed out. "If you have a strong assessment process for the CEO, you don't need mandatory retirement," says Roger Raber, head of the National Association of Corporate Directors. Nell Minow, who heads the Corporate Library, an independent research firm, agrees. "I'm opposed to mandatory-retirement rules," she says. "There is no substitute for a genuine and rigorous and substantive performance evaluation."
But many on the front lines see it otherwise. Mr. Freeman stepped down voluntarily at age 54 last year after nine years as CEO. But he recognizes that other CEOs are reluctant to give up their posts. And while Mr. Greenberg may provide the rare example of a CEO who is able to keep his company thriving over nearly four decades, Mr. Freeman believes that "the sweet spot for most CEOs is no more than eight to 10 years."
Regardless of age or tenure, examples of chiefs who don't want to give up the ship, or are reluctant to plan for their own succession, are plentiful. Mr. Greenberg was clearly one; Walt Disney Co.'s Michael Eisner is another. When faced with such a CEO, says one person who serves as a director of several large companies, "it helps to have a hammer."
CEO强制退休年龄规定或已过时
79岁高龄的汉克?格林伯格(Hank Greenberg)是全世界最年长的首席执行长(CEO)。74岁的沃伦?巴菲特(Warren Buffett)也数得上前几位。
但年龄有什么关系呢？
在格林伯格被迫辞去美国国际集团(American International Group Inc.)CEO一职的几天前，我刚刚和他共进了一次午餐。他给我留下的印象与熟悉他的人描述的一样：相比同年龄的人，格林伯格无论是精神面貌还是身体状况都要好得多。他被迫辞职并不是因为他不胜任，相反从某种程度上说，正是因为他太大包大揽了。
至于不久前因旗下Berkshire Hathaway Inc.某子公司与美国国际集团的交易受到监管机关传唤的巴菲特，股东们似乎都认为他将永远长生不老，就像参议员约翰?麦凯恩(John McCain)一次谈到格林斯潘(Alan Greenspan)这位79岁的美国联邦储备委员会主席时的说法：如果他死了，“就把他竖起来，给他戴上太阳镜，好像他还活著。就像电影Weekend at Bernie's里那样。”
但在CEO世界中，格林伯格和巴菲特恐怕是例外。在美国，CEO和执法官员、空中交通管制人员以及飞机驾驶员等少数群体依然面临强制性退休规定。虽然很难获得CEO退休规定的硬性数据，许多大公司（如果不是全部的话），包括《华尔街日报》的出版公司道琼斯，都有要求最高管理者年满65岁即退休的政策。
为什么？其实，这更大程度上是源于传统习惯，并无很强的逻辑性：因为在社会保障系统下，65岁是充分享受退休福利的启始年龄，虽然社会保障系统发放的支票对于如今收入丰厚的CEO们来说或许只够他们买一个花费了泰科(Tyco)前董事长科兹洛夫斯基(Kozlowski)6,000美元的浴帘。和社会保障系统规定的退休年龄一样，CEO们65岁强制性退休也是一个完全无视医学进步的过时的规定。
看看下面的数据吧：1940年美国人的平均寿命不超过63岁，而今天已达到77岁。1940年时65岁的人平均会期待再活12年，而如今是16年。如果医疗技术的进步能让我们更长寿，自然也能延长我们的职业寿命。
有些公司承认了这种现实，取消了强制性退休规定或调高了退休年龄，另一些公司的董事会则有意忽视了强制性规定。例如，埃克森美孚(Exxon Mobil Corp.)的董事会就没有对其CEO李?雷蒙德(Lee Raymond)行使这个规定。波音(Boeing Corp.)董事会在请回67岁的哈利?斯通塞弗(Harry Stonecipher)时也有意忽视了强制性退休年龄的规定。
但许多公司依然在执行这个规定，这或许在一定程度上是因为这个规定可为解聘CEO提供一个容易让人接受的借口。董事会如果以强制性退休规定要求CEO走人，要比以其工作不力为由容易得多。“这可以让辞退CEO这件事不显得是针对个人，”Quest Diagnostics Inc.的前首席执行长肯?弗里曼(Ken Freeman)表示。
但企业治理专家们建议应放弃这个借口。全美企业董事协会(National Association of Corporate Directors)的会长罗杰?拉伯(Roger Raber)表示，“如果一家公司对CEO有可靠的评估体系，就根本不需要什么强制性退休规定。”独立研究公司Corporate Library的负责人耐尔?米诺(Nell Minow)表示同意，“我反对强制性退休规定，没有什么可以替代行之有效的绩效考核。”
但许多处于第一线的人有不同看法。弗里曼去年在担任九年CEO后以54岁的年龄主动辞职，但他承认不少CEO都不愿放弃职位。虽然格林伯格在近40年的时间里维持了美国国际集团蓬勃发展的势头，但弗里曼认为对于大多数CEO来说，黄金时期不会超过8-10年。
不愿辞职或不愿对接班人作出安排的CEO比比皆是，格林伯格显然是一个，沃尔特-迪斯尼(Walt Disney Co.)的艾森纳(Michael Eisner)也是一个。当面临这样一位CEO时，一位在多家大公司担任董事的人士表示，“一只榔头总是能有一些帮助。”
