When chief executives should be able to go on and on
One of the most strident calls from British business over the past year has been for the government to readdress its extravagant, weak and divisive deal with its trade union paymasters, whereby people in the public sector (but not, interestingly, university lecturers) can retire on full pension at 60, when it exhorts everyone in the private sector to work longer and when the state pension is not intended, in years to come, to kick in until 67 or 68.
These concerns are not purely a British phenomenon; across the developed world, demographics are forcing a re???-appraisal of retirement ages. Although people are living longer, healthier lives and will want to earn money and feel fulfilled way past present retirement ages, it is not a big vote-winner to tell people they are going to have to put more into their pension pot, probably enjoying fewer benefits in spite of working into their late 60s. Everyone knows this is inevitable. The lack is in the selling of the unpalatable.
ADVERTISEMENT
Strange, then, that at this difficult moment BP chooses to have a public spat over the retirement age of Lord Browne, probably the UK's best, and one of the world's most successful, chief executives. Yesterday he confirmed he would leave by the end of 2008, having reached the company's mandatory retirement age of 60 in February that year.
Of course, shareholders are entitled to know where their company stands on the issue of succession. But was the wider interest of getting the population at large - not to mention unions itching for the whiff of perceived hypocrisy from which to make political hay - to accept the cultural change of working longer, best served? The cry will now be: "He can retire at 60, why can't I?" The timing could have been better.
The whole question of BP's chief executive having no option but to stand down at 60 calls for a rethink of companies' retirement policies in the boardroom in an increasingly competitive, globalised economy. While pending legislation will force this rethink to a certain extent, we simply cannot afford to denude the country of talent when the US at one end of the competitiveness spectrum and China at the other do not let age get in the way. Alan Greenspan, former chairman of the US Federal Reserve, was not even getting into his stride at 60.
Should highly experienced, well-connected heads of government departments be made to retire at 60 when their political masters can, as Margaret Thatcher, once said, go on and on and on? A 66-year-old Winston Churchill promising nothing but blood, toil, tears and sweat would not presumably be employable in the 21st-century boardroom or the Foreign Office.
Losing chief executive officers who are 60 years young (as opposed to some who are 55 years old) also makes a company vulnerable to its competitors. I remember a CEO of a large UK multinational in the late 1980s being forced to retire at 60 only to move to a smaller, local rival and spend the next five years building it up into a real thorn in the side of his former employer.
But a call for chief executives (highly successful, for now, or otherwise) to go on past 60 or any other mandatory or contractual point of termination (it does not have to be age alone) carries dangers of its own. An agreed termination point allows employers to let people go without liability at any and every level of the workforce. A decision on "the right time to go" is made for you. Outstaying your welcome is not the prerogative only of politicians. There have been many instances in business where begging someone to stay becomes, a year or two later, a clamour for their head on the block.
If 60 is indeed the new 50, how do successful businesses refresh themselves and how does the difficult question get asked of the deliverer of success, the talisman? Was the BP board right if, as reported, it insisted on a "60 means 60" stance with its chief executive? Leaders with Lord Browne's talent are few in the world. Britain needs the potency and respect that he commands for BP in international markets. The drive to get the British workforce, especially in the public sector, to buy into a "work longer" culture needs one or two high-profile examples to contribute to necessary change.
But shareholders do not expect boards to have rules that are dis???-regarded when it suits. Succession and stability are vital issues, especially when BP is fighting a few fires inthe US. The rules should be changed but not on the hoof. The board had,and still has, time - and timing is ???-everything.
Sir Digby Jones is former director-general of the CBI
CEO不必六十退休
英
国商界过去一年最尖锐的呼吁之一，就是要求政府着手修改与工会签订的退休金协议。这一协议超出了合理范围，没有说服力，而且会制造分裂。根据协议，公共部门的人(有趣的是，大学讲师除外)可以在60岁拿到全额养老金退休，但却劝诫私营部门的所有人士工作更长时间，而且未来几年，政府打算把领取养老金的年龄推迟到67或68岁。
国商界过去一年最尖锐的呼吁之一，就是要求政府着手修改与工会签订的退休金协议。这一协议超出了合理范围，没有说服力，而且会制造分裂。根据协议，公共部门的人(有趣的是，大学讲师除外)可以在60岁拿到全额养老金退休，但却劝诫私营部门的所有人士工作更长时间，而且未来几年，政府打算把领取养老金的年龄推迟到67或68岁。
上述问题绝非只是“英国现象”；在所有发达国家，人口结构的变化都在迫使人们重新考虑退休年龄问题。虽然人们寿命更长，生活更健康，而且希望在过了目前的退休年龄后还能挣钱，感觉充实，但是，告诉人们要向养老金账户放更多的钱，而且即使工作到近70岁，可能也只能享受更少的福利，这样做决不会赢得大量选票。所有人都知道这是必然的，只是没人肯说出这种令人不快的事罢了。
然而，奇怪的是，就在这样一个艰难时刻，英国石油(BP)竟然选择让公众对布朗勋爵(Lord Browne)的退休年龄评头论足。布朗勋爵也许是英国最好的首席执行官(CEO)，也是全球最成功的CEO之一。他近日确认，在2008年2月达到公司的强制退休年龄60岁后，将于当年年底退休。
当然，股东有权知道公司在继任问题上的立场。但是，还有一种更广泛的利益得到最大满足了吗？这种利益就是让社会大众普遍接受文化上的改变，工作更长时间，那些渴望通过一点表面上的伪善来发政治财的团体就不用说了。现在的呼声将是：“他可以在60岁退休，我为什么不能？”这个时机选择得可不太好。
英国石油的CEO别无选择，只能在60岁引退――在竞争日益激烈、全球化程度越来越高的英国，这个问题要求公司董事会重新思考企业的退休政策。虽然尚在讨论之中的立法将把这种反思推进到一定程度，但是在竞技场一头的美国与另一头的中国都没有让年龄挡路，在这种时刻，我们确实无法承受英国失去人才的后果。美联储(Federal Reserve)前任主席艾伦?格林斯潘(Alan Greenspan)60岁的时候甚至还没有进入职业高峰期。
难道要让经验极为丰富、社会关系广泛的政府部门负责人在60岁的时候退休，而他们的政治领袖却可以像玛格利特?撒切尔(Margaret Thatcher)曾经说过的那样，继续继续再继续？66岁的温斯顿?丘吉尔(Winston Churchill)曾表示：“我所能奉献的只有血和汗、苦和泪”，但21世纪的董事会或外交部大概不会聘用他吧。
失去年已60却依然年轻（而不是那些55岁却已经苍老）的CEO，还会使公司容易受到竞争对手的冲击。我记得，在上世纪80年代末，英国一家大型跨国公司的CEO被迫在60岁时退休，结果他加盟了当地一家规模较小的竞争对手，在接下来的5年时间，将其发展为前雇主的眼中钉肉中刺。
但是，在CEO（目前非常成功，或不太成功）年满60，或是过了其它强制性的或合同规定的离职时机，还呼吁他们留任，这本身也有风险(离职不一定就出于年龄因素)。双方就离职时间达成一致，可以使雇主可以轻松让手下的人离开，而不会对任何层次的员工造成不利影响。做出“在适当时间离职”的决定是最理想的。并非只有政界人士才会呆得太久，直到招人厌烦。乞求某人留下来，一两年后又吵着要他离开，这在商界有很多例子。
如果说按照新的标准，60岁实际上就是50岁，那么成功的企业如何能保持活力？为何又会对成功的创造者、公司的守护神出这样一个难题？如果真如报道所述，英国石油董事会在首席执行官的问题上坚持“60岁就是60岁”的立场，这样做对吗？这个世界上，有布朗勋爵这种才干的领导者可谓凤毛麟角。英国需要他在国际市场上为英国石油赢来的实力和尊敬。要想推动英国的就业人口（尤其是在公共部门）接受“推迟退休”的文化，就需要有一两位备受公众关注的人物做榜样，从而为必要的变化做出贡献。
不过，股东们并不希望董事会的规定碰到合适时机就不起作用。连续性和稳定性是两个至关重要的问题，特别是英国石油在美国正遭到攻击的时候。规定应该改变，但不是马上改变。董事会有时间，过去有，现在还有――时机就是一切。
作者迪格比?琼斯爵士曾任英国雇主组织英国工业联合会(CBI)总干事
