The outsider at the controls
Chairmen of large British public companies are often invisible to theoutside world as long as things are going well. The chief executive has a higher profile, and usually takesthe lead in dealing with the media and the City.
But when a storm blows up, as it has around Vodafone in recent weeks, the spotlight suddenly falls on the chairman - in this case Lord MacLaurin, the former Tesco boss who has been in the post since 1997 and is due to hand over to Sir John Bond, retiring chairman of HSBC, in July.
Lord MacLaurin was obliged last Sunday to issue a strong statement of support for his embattled chief executive, Arun Sarin. The question now is whether the two men, acting together, can convince shareholders that the company is on the right track.
This boardroom drama, like the one at Marks and Spencer last year (which ended with the appointment of a new chairman, Lord Burns), draws attention to a distinctively British cor???-porate governance structure, as yet unadopted by any other major industrial ???-country. It is the requirement, laid down in the combined code which applies to all UK listed companies, that the posts of chairman and chief executive should be separate and that the chairman should be independent at the time of his or her appointment.
In most US companies the chief executive is also chairman, while in France the président-directeur généralreigns supreme.
Americans believe, with some dissenting voices, that an independent chairman from outside adds little value to the business and leads to confused responsibilities at the top.
The British view is that the objectivity and broad experience of an outsider make for a more effective board and provide a necessary balance to the power of the chief executive.
Which system is better? There is no conclusive evidence one way or the other, but, as we found in a study carried out for the Chairmen's Forum*, an association of chairmen, most British holders of the title have no doubt that the separation of roles is right. Moreover, many of those surveyed have experience of both arrangements, as the single chairman/chief executive was common in UK companies in the 1970s and 1980s.
In the old days, they argue, too much power was concentrated in a single individual. Today, with companies exposed to greater scrutiny from investors and the media, the tasks of running the board and running the company have become increasingly different from each other. One person is unlikely to have both sets of skills or sufficient time to do both jobs well.
What skills does the chairman need? Most of those interviewed felt that direct experience of the industry in which the company operates was not essential. Indeed, some felt that if the newcomer knew too much about the business - a top-class retailer, for example, moving to another retailing company - he or she would be inclined to interfere in operational decisions.
What matters more than industry knowledge is that the candidate has a solid record of corporate performance, probably as chief executive of a listed company.
That was clearly the attraction for Shell, the energy group, of Jorma Ollila, the outgoing chief executive of mobile phone maker Nokia, when selecting its next chairman.
Another industry crossover is the former Renault boss, Louis Schweitzer, who now chairs the Anglo-Swedish pharmaceutical group, AstraZeneca; the fact that he is neither British nor Swedish may have boosted his appeal.
Some companies have picked former finance directors as their chairman. Philip Hampton, chairman of J Sainsbury and formerly finance director at British Steel, British Gas, British Telecom and Lloyds TSB, is a recent example. A minority of interviewees take this further, arguing that finance directors make better chairmen than chief executives because they are more analytical and less likely to want to run the business.
Former politicians and ambassadors are generally ruled out on the grounds, as one chairman put it, that "you must have people who have strong commercial instincts - people who have learnt to live or die by making money".
Other criteria to consider when appointing new chairmen are:
*they should be young enough to serve at least two three-year terms (which means not much more than 60 years old at the time of appointment);
*they should have a re-cord of making good appointments;
*they should have served as a non-executive director in comparable companies;
*they should be sufficiently respected in the business community to attract other non-executive directors of high quality.
The newcomer's skills and those of the chief executive need to be mutually reinforcing. The two also need to be compatible in personality and style, which is difficult to predict. Because of this, many companies prefer their new chairman to come from the ranks of their existing non-executive directors. He or she will have built up an understanding of the business and a rapport with the management team.
One chairman describes his relationship with the chief executive as paternal rather than fraternal. That is not easy to achieve in companies where a long-serving, dominant chief executive is better known in the outside world, and carries more weight within the company, than an incoming chairman.
In such cases the chairman may become too passive - and, since the chairman sets the tone for the board as a whole, there is a danger that any unease an outside director might feel about the direction of the business will be stifled.
There is also the tricky question of how much weight the serving chief executive should have in the selection process. Everyone accepts that any objections from this source must be taken very seriously, since the two individuals have to work closely together.
But if the chief executive's influence is too dominant, the company could endup with a non-threatening chairman who will be inclined to defer to rather than challenge the chief executive. Not surprisingly, chief executives in companies that are looking for a new chairman look warily at candidates who are known to have fired chief executives elsewhere.
The study demonstrates an overriding need for clarity in the chairman's job description. Some chairmen have a more proactive conception of the job than others - perhaps influenced by such leaders as Sir Owen Green, under whose chairmanship BTR became one of Britain's most successful engineering groups. This version of the chairman's role is workable, but only if it is accepted and understood by the chief executive and supported by the board.
One image captures perhaps more than any other the common perception of role: the chairman as airline pilot. He may delegate the task of operating the aircraft to the first officer, but is always available to take over in an emergency and is ultimately responsible for the safety of the passengers.
The analogy may not be perfect, but it underlines the point that no chairman, whether he spends a day a fortnight or four days a week with the company, can afford for one moment to take his eye off the controls.
*"The Changing Role ofthe Chairman", ￡25, is available from
admin@chairmensforum.org.uk.
Geoffrey Owen is a senior fellow at the London School of Economics. Tom Kirchmaier is a lecturer at Manchester Business School
外来的“董事长”好念经？
只要一切运转良好，外界往往看不到英国大型上市公司董事长们的身影。公司首席执行官更为高调，与媒体和金融城打交道的工作通常由他们负责。
不过一旦风波骤起，董事长就会突然成为人们关注的焦点。最近几周沃达丰(Vodafone)就遭遇了一场风波，而该公司董事长麦克劳林勋爵(Lord MacLaurin)则成为了焦点。他曾任特易购(Tesco)董事长，1997年开始担任沃达丰董事长，并将于今年7月份，交权给届时已退休的现汇丰董事长(HSBC)庞约翰爵士(Sir John Bond)。
上周日，麦克劳林勋爵被迫发表一份措辞强硬的声明，支持四面楚歌的首席执行官阿伦?萨林(Arun Sarin)。现在的问题是，一致行动的这两个人能否令股东相信：公司正处于正确轨道上。
玛莎百货(Marks and Spencer)去年也上演了这样一场董事会纷争（其结果是公司任命了新的董事长伯恩斯勋爵(Lord Burns)）。这样的争斗使英国这种与众不同的公司治理结构受到人们的关注，其他任何一个工业化大国都没有采用这种体系。在适用于所有英国上市公司的综合法规中，有这样的规定：董事长和首席执行官不得兼任，在任命董事长时，应保持其独立性。
在多数美国公司中，首席执行官和董事长都由同一人担任，在法国通常也都是董事长兼任首席执行官。
美国人认为，外来的独立董事长不会给企业带来任何价值，还会导致高层责任混乱。也有美国人不同意这一说法。
英国人则认为，外来董事长的客观性和丰富的经验，有利于提高董事会的效率，并对首席执行官的权利形成一种必要的制衡。
那种体系更好呢？这一问题没有定论，但为董事长论坛*(Chairmen’s Forum)所做的一份调查显示，多数英国董事长都认为，董事长和首席执行官职位分开是合理的。此外，接受调查的许多董事长都有着同时担任这两个职位的经历，上世纪70年代和80年代，董事长和首席执行官由一人担任的做法在英国也颇为普遍。
他们辩称，过去权力过多集中在了一个人身上。如今，公司面临投资者和媒体更多的监督，董事会管理和公司经营的任务越来越不同。一个人不太可能同时掌握两套技能，或有足够的时间处理好这两项工作。
董事长需要什么技能呢？大多数受访者觉得，公司所在行业的直接经验并非必要。实际上，有些人倒认为，如果新任董事长对于本行业太过了解，例如一位顶级零售商跳槽至另一家零售企业，他或她往往更容易去干预经营决策。
比行业知识更重要的，是候选人是否拥有企业任职方面的良好记录，比如是否曾担任过上市公司的首席执行官。
在能源企业壳牌(Shell)挑选下一任董事长时，上述一点显然是约玛?奥利拉(Jorma Ollila)吸引该企业的原因。当时奥利拉是手机制造商诺基亚(Nokia)即将离任的首席执行官。
另一位跨行业担任董事长的是雷诺汽车(Renault)前任老板路易斯?施魏茨尔(Louis Schweitzer)。现在，他在英国-瑞典合资的药业集团阿斯利康(AstraZeneca)担任董事长。他既不是英国人也不是瑞典人，这一点或许使他更受青睐。
一些企业挑选前任财务总监担任董事长。桑斯博里超市(J Sainsbury)董事长菲利普?汉普顿(Philip Hampton)就是一个新近的例子。他曾在英国钢铁公司(British Steel)、英国天然气(British Gas)、英国电信(British Telecom)和劳合社(Lloyds TSB)担任财务总监。少数受访者更进一步，认为财务总监比首席执行官更适合担任董事长，因为前者的分析能力更强，想插手业务的可能性也更小。
政治家及外交家通常会被直接排除在外。正如一位董事长所言：“你必须用那些有着强烈商业本能的人――那种通过挣钱学会了生死存亡的人。”
在任命新董事长时需要考虑的其它标准还有：
他们的年纪应该足以供职至少两个三年任期(这意味着任命时不能超过60岁)；
他们应该拥有任命方面良好的记录；
他们应该在同等公司中担任过非执行董事的职务；
他们应该具备业界较高的声望，以吸引其他高素质的非执行董事。
新任董事长和首席执行官的技能需要相互促进。同时，双方还需要在个性和做派上谐调一致，而这是难以预知的。由于这个原因，许多公司宁愿从现有非执行主管中挑选新董事长。那样的话，这个人已经对企业颇为熟悉，并与管理团队形成了融洽的关系。
一位董事长将他与首席执行官的关系描述为“父子般的”而非“兄弟般的”。这一点在一些公司中不容易做到，因为与新任董事长相比，供职时间较长、大权在握的首席执行官在外面的知名度更高，在公司内部的份量也更重。
在这种情况下，董事长可能变得过于被动，同时因为他要为整个董事会确定基调，故存在这样的风险：外部董事在企业发展方向上可能感到的任何不安都将受到压制。
还有一个棘手问题：在董事长选拔过程中，在任首席执行官应该有多大的发言权。每个人都认为，这方面的任何异议都必须认真予以考虑，因为这两个人需要在工作中密切协作。
但是，如果首席执行官的影响力过于强大，公司最终可能会选择一位没什么威胁的董事长，他将倾向于听命于首席执行官，而非向其挑战。首席执行官们在物色新董事长时，对曾在其它地方解雇过首席执行官的候选人格外警惕，这一点不足为怪。
这一研究表明，明确描述董事长的职责至关重要。有些董事长对该职位的看法更为积极――这可能是受欧文?格林爵士(Sir Owen Green)等领导者的影响，在他的领导下，英国轮胎和橡胶公司(BTR)成为英国最成功的工程集团之一。董事长能够起到这种作用，但前提是要得到首席执行官的接受和理解，并得到董事会的支持。
与其它比喻相比，有一个比喻可能更好地道出了人们对该角色通常的诠释： 董事长就像飞行员。他可能会将飞机操作任务委托给副手，但始终会在遇到紧急情况时接手，为乘客安全承担最终责任。
这一类比或许不算完善，但它凸显了以下一点：无论董事长是两周在公司呆一天，还是每周呆四天，他对企业的管理控制都不能有片刻的疏漏。
*《董事长角色的不断转换》(The Changing Role of the Chairman)，定价25美元，在admin@chairmens forum.org.uk有售。
杰弗里?欧文(Geoffrey Owen)是伦敦经济学院(London School of Economics)高级研究员。汤姆?基希迈尔(Tom Kirchmaier)为曼彻斯特商学院(Manchester Business School)讲师。
