What every dissident former executive needs to know
The best advice to retired executives who are thinking of criticising their successors is: don't. Carping former executives are usually seen as bitter, past-it and retrospectively attempting to justify their own records. Any merit in their criticism goes unheeded; people are too overcome by the stench of sour grapes to listen.
ADVERTISEMENT
Recollections of Sir Edward Heath's time as British prime minister are not filled with affection or regard, marked as they were by industrial discord and national decline. But what really did for Sir Edward's reputation was his constant sniping at Margaret Thatcher, his successor as Conservative leader.
It is far better to maintain a dignified silence. If your successors really
are as bad as you think, time, the polls
or the market will unravel them.
Leave it to others to voice discontent.
Anything else smacks of disloyalty.
Of course, those who damn their successors protest that it is not disloyalty that drives them but the opposite. Anger at what is being done to the institutions they love compels them to speak out. And so it is with the eight former Morgan Stanley executives who have launched a bitter attack on Philip Purcell, the company's chief executive.
Intriguingly, the Morgan Stanley spat bears some resemblance to past Conservative feuds, particularly in its pitting of old money against new. Just as Tory traditionalists detested the public relations operators and property developers who surrounded the then Mrs Thatcher, so the Morgan Stanley Eight representing the company's blue-blooded past cannot hide their disdain for the financial services salesmen, headed by Mr Purcell, that the bank acquired when it merged with Dean Witter in 1997.
In their defence, the Morgan Stanley pensioners say that they went public only when the board ignored their private pleas. The eight are also shareholders in the company. So, having broken the golden rule of silence, are the Morgan Stanley pensioners going about their campaign in the best way?
Retirees, if they must speak out, need to get five things right.
First, the successors they are criticising must be doing a markedly worse job than they did. Does this apply to Mr Purcell? The eight say: “Over the last five years, the firm's total return has trailed the S&P diversified financial index by nearly 40 per cent.” Five former Dean Witter executives counter that, since the merger eight years ago, Morgan Stanley's annualised stock return has been 15 per cent, outpacing the S&P 500. So it depends whose time frame and comparisons you prefer.
The second thing outspoken pensioners need to ensure is that they do not act alone. The eight cover a wide range of Morgan Stanley experience, from Parker Gilbert, who was chairman until 1990, to Robert Scott, president until he was pushed out by Mr Purcell in 2003. But all eight are from the old Morgan Stanley side; a few Dean Witter dissidents would have made their onslaught harder to resist.
Third, the former executives must reflect widespread feeling among existing employees. Here, the former executives appear to be on stronger ground. John Havens, one of the senior managers forced out last week, left to an ovation from colleagues.
Mr Purcell acknowledged the internal dissent in a memo to staff. He said he was sure his actions were in the interests of employees, clients and shareholders, but conceded: “I know that some of you are not quite convinced.”
Fourth, retired executives should act more in sorrow than in anger. They should stress their reluctance to speak up and emphasise how long they pondered the matter before doing so. They should acknowledge how difficult it is to lead the organisation, as they know from personal experience. They should add that times and market conditions change and that they appreciate how irritating it is to be second-guessed by those no longer in charge. But, having said that, and with great regret, they feel they have to bring to the board's attention etc.
The eight did none of this in their initial letter to the board, which they made public after Mr Purcell had, as they had feared and predicted, promoted his own loyalists over people such as Mr Haven and Vikram Pandit, another highly regarded executive who left last week.
They did say that they cared deeply about Morgan Stanley but then leapt straight into their blistering attack. “We believe that the overriding cause of the firm's poor performance is a failure of leadership by Philip Purcell as the firm's CEO,” they wrote. “We believe that the current CEO will not be able to inspire and lead the firm back to its rightful position in the financial services industry. We also question whether he has the respect of industry peers or the firm's regulators necessary to the task of regaining Morgan Stanley's leadership in the industry.”
Fifth, and most important, dissident former executives need a clear idea of how they are going to win. Who can remove Mr Purcell? Only the Morgan Stanley board. And what did the eight executives tell the directors? That they had “very little financial services experience” and that none had a background in the institutional securities that made a “disproportionate contribution to the firm's profits and reputation”.
What is more, they wrote, although Morgan Stanley had its headquarters in New York, all the board members, including Mr Purcell, chose to live elsewhere. (Mr Purcell commutes from Chicago.) The board did not reply to this letter. I am not surprised.
Perhaps the eight former executives felt the board was so packed with
Mr Purcell's loyalists that there was no point in trying to convince them. But it is difficult to see who, in that case, they expect to effect the chief executive's departure.
The former executives may have a strong case. Morgan Stanley, at present, sounds a miserable place to work. But someone should have told the eight to identify whom they needed to win around and then remember not to call them idiots.
下台高管要学会说话
如果已退休的管理人士想批评自己的继任者，那么对他们的忠告就是：别那么做。吹毛求疵的前任高管往往被人视为尖刻、不中用，而且企图通过回顾来证明自己的功绩。他们的批评中无论有什么可取之处都不会被人留意，因为人们觉得他们的“酸葡萄”心态太重，不会去听他们的意见。
回想起爱德华?希思爵士(Sir Edward Heath)出任英国首相的那段时期，你不会充满爱戴和尊敬之情，因为那是一个以产业失调、国家衰落为标志的时代。但真正令爱德华爵士出名的事情，却是他不断诋毁接任保守党领袖之位的玛格丽特?撒切尔(Margaret Thatcher)。
最好保持高贵的沉默。如果继任者真像你认为的这样糟糕，那么时间、民意调查或市场将会揭露他们。让其他人去表示不满吧。此外的任何行为都带有不忠不义的意味。
当然，那些谴责继任者的人抗议说，驱使他们这么做的并非不忠不义，而是完全相反的原因。自己热爱的机构所遭受的待遇令他们感到愤怒，正是这种愤怒促使他们大声疾呼。也是出于这个原因，八位摩根士丹利(Morgan Stanley)前任高管向现任首席执行官裴熙亮(Philip Purcell)发起了猛烈攻击。
有趣的是，摩根士丹利的这场交锋与过去保守党内的长期不睦有某些相似之处，尤其是在把新老人马进行对比方面。保守党传统势力厌恶围在撒切尔夫人身边的公共关系运作者和房地产开发商，而对于以裴熙亮先生为首的金融服务销售人员，摩根士丹利那八位昔日的王公贵胄也难掩鄙夷之情。这支销售团队是摩根士丹利1997年同添惠(Dean Witter)合并时获得的。
这些领摩根士丹利养老金的前高管们辩解说，只因董事会不理睬他们的私下请愿，他们才公开发动抨击。这8位前高管同时也是公司股东。那么，在已经打破保持沉默的金科玉律后，这些摩根士丹利的退休高管们是否正以最佳方式展开抗议运动？
作为退休人士，如果非要大声疾呼不可，他们必须做好以下5件事。
首先，与当年相比，挨批的继任者在工作表现上要明显地差。这点适用于裴熙亮先生吗？那八位前高管说：“过去5年间，公司总回报率已比标准普尔(S&P)多样化金融指数低了近40%。”五位前添惠高官则反驳说，自从8年前合并以来，摩根士丹利的股票年均回报率已达15%，优于标准普尔500指数的表现。所以，这一点要取决于你愿意接受哪一方的时间段和比较数据。
第二，那些坦率直言的养老金领取者必须确保并非单独行动。摩根士丹利八老代表了公司很长一段历史，包括到1990年才卸任董事长的帕克?吉尔伯特(Parker Gilbert)，以及到2003年才被裴熙亮先生赶走的总裁罗伯特?斯科特(Robert Scott)。但八老都来自摩根士丹利的旧势力阵营。要是有几个来自添惠的持异议者加入，他们的攻势可能就比较难以抵挡。
第三，前高管们必须反映现任雇员的普遍情绪。在这一点上，摩根士丹利的前高管们似乎比较强势。高管约翰?哈文斯(John Havens)上周被迫离职，他是在同事们的赞誉声中离开的。
在一份致员工的备忘录中，裴熙亮先生承认了公司内部的不和。他表示，确信他所采取的行动符合员工、客户和股东的利益，但他也承认：“我知道你们中有些人并不信服。”
第四，退休高管们在行动时应当更多地表露悲痛，而不是愤怒。他们应该强调自己本不愿大声疾呼，并强调自己在这么做之前，曾进行了长时间的深思熟虑。他们应该承认，正如他们亲身体验的，领导这个组织有多困难。他们还应该补充说，时代和市场状况都变了，而且他们明白，那些不再当权的人对公司评头论足是多么令人生厌。但是，话虽这么说，很遗憾，他们还是觉得，有些事必须引起董事会的注意，等等。
在摩根士丹利八老致董事会的第一封信中，上面这些话一点也没提。正如他们所担心和预料的，裴熙亮先生把忠于自己的人提拔到哈文斯先生和潘伟迪(Vikram Pandit)等人之上，于是他们就公开了那封信。潘伟迪是上周离开公司的另一位深受尊敬的高管。
在信中，他们确实说了自己深深关切摩根士丹利，但随即就开始了激烈抨击。“我们认为，公司业绩糟糕最重要的原因是，裴熙亮先生作为公司首席执行官领导无方，”他们写道。“我们认为，现任首席执行官将无力鼓舞并带领公司回归在金融服务业中的恰当地位。我们还怀疑他是否得到业内同行或公司监管方的敬意，要想完成让摩根士丹利恢复行业领导地位的任务，这种敬意是必不可少的。”
第五点，也是最重要的一点，持异议的前高管必须清楚地知道，他们怎样才能赢。谁能将裴熙亮先生免职？只有摩根士丹利的董事会。而这八位前高管对董事们说了些什么？他们说，董事们只有“极少的金融服务业经验”，还说没有一位董事有机构证券业务背景，而那块业务“对公司的利润和声誉贡献极大”。
更有甚者，他们写道，尽管摩根士丹利的总部在纽约，但包括裴熙亮先生在内的所有董事会成员都住在其它地方。(裴熙亮先生上下班往返于芝加哥和纽约。)董事会没有回复他们的这封信。我对此并不感到奇怪。
或许这八位前高管感到，董事会里全是裴熙亮先生的死党，因此试图说服他们是没有意义的。但在这件事上，很难看出他们指望谁来让这位首席执行官离职。
这些前高管们或许有充分的理由。目前，摩根士丹利听上去像是个令人难受的工作场所。但本该有人告诉八老，他们应当弄清自己需要争取到哪些人的支持，然后记住不要把那些人称做傻瓜。
