One hat is enough for (almost) any chief executive
(几乎)对任何高管来说，单个职位就够了。

IS THERE any limit to the audacity of Scandinavians? Not content with stirring up America’s polarised politics by awarding Barack Obama a premature Nobel peace prize, they are also stirring up America’s polarised debate on corporate governance.
这些胆大包天的斯堪的纳维亚人就不知道个“度”吗？先前操之过急给奥巴马颁了个诺贝尔和平奖，激起美国极化政治还不够，现在更是在挑起美国公司治理的极化辩论。

This time the culprits are not the Norwegian politicians who award the peace prize, but the savvy investors who run Norges Bank Investment Management (NBIM), which manages a state pension fund of $400 billion. NBIM is trying to persuade four American companies—Harris Corporation, Parker Hannifin, Cardinal Health Incorporated and Clorox—to separate the jobs of chief executive and chairman of the board when they next appoint chief executives. The fund has already scored a notable success by persuading Sara Lee to split the two jobs. It says that this is only the beginning of its campaign.
不过这次始作俑者倒不是颁奖的挪威政治家，反倒是挪威央行投资管理局NBIM(Norges Bank Investment Management)里消息灵通的投资者。NBIM现持有高达四千亿美元的国家养老基金，现在该机构试图说服四家美国公司将来任命高管时将首席执行官和董事会主席的职位分离：哈里斯（Harris Corporation）、派克汉尼汾(Parker Hannifin)、凯纳迪医材贸易（Cardinal Health Incorporated）、高乐氏（Clorox）。之前，该机构已成功让莎莉集团(Sara Lee)转型，如今它表示，战役才刚刚开始。

America is unusual in the power that it awards to chief executives. Splitting the two jobs is commonplace in Canada, Australia and much of continental Europe (though France is a notable exception: even AXA, one of the few French firms to separate the roles, now wants to fuse them). In Britain 95% of companies in the FTSE 350 list have an outside chairman. But in America 53% of Standard & Poor’s top 1,500 companies combine the two jobs.
与高管所得权力而言，美国是一个特例。加拿大、澳大利亚及欧洲大陆多数国家（但法国颇是与众不同：国内实行该制度的公司寥寥无几，即使是其中一员安盛AXA，日前也在考虑是否要废除该制度）来说，职位分离再正常不过了。英国95%进入富时（FTSE）350的公司另有董事会主席。然而53%进入标准普尔（Standard & Poor, S&P）前1500的美国公司让CEO身兼二职。

The economic crisis has put the supporters of this bit of American exceptionalism on the defensive. Shareholder activists are up in arms about imperial bosses, and they scored a notable hit in April when they forced Ken Lewis to surrender his second hat as chairman of Bank of America, after his decision to buy Merrill Lynch (Mr Lewis has since lost his first hat as well). A growing number of bigwigs are agitating for change. Chuck Schumer, the senior senator for New York, has introduced a “Shareholder Bill of Rights” which, among other reforms, would force companies to separate the two jobs.
然而特例的支持们在危机面前却处于自我辩护地位。面对权倾天下的高管，维权股东已是怒发冲冠，今年四月，肯•刘易斯（Ken Lewis）决心收购美林之后，他们成功将了他一军，让他丢了美国银行董事长这第二顶帽子（后来，他连CEO的第一顶帽子一并丢了）。寻求变革的大人物也在不断增加中。纽约资深参议院查克•舒默(Chuck Schumer)提出了一项“股东权利法案”(Shareholder Bill of Rights)，其内容包括了职位分离在内的数种改革。

The case for separation is based on the simple principle of the separation of powers. How can boards discharge their basic duty—monitoring the boss—if the boss is chairing its meetings and setting its agenda? How can a board act as a safeguard against corruption or incompetence when the possible source of that corruption and incompetence is sitting at the head of the table?
分职的基础是分权。如果老板本身既掌管了董事会，又是计划安排制定者的话，那么，董事会何能执行其基本职能——监督高管呢？或者说，如果腐败之源、无能之辈恰好就坐在会议桌上座的话，董事会又怎能充当防范卫士呢？

Dual-purpose bosses make it more difficult for the board to manage the succession from one chief executive to another. ITV, a British broadcaster, is paying dearly for its decision to appoint Michael Grade as both chairman and chief executive: not only is it scrambling to fill two jobs at once but it also keeps losing leading candidates, bringing ridicule down on its head and forcing it to make do with a lame-duck boss. Two-timers also reinforce popular doubts about the legitimacy of the system as a whole, conjuring up images of bosses writing their own performance reviews and setting their own salaries. It is notable that one of the first things that some of America’s troubled banks, including Citigroup, Washington Mutual, Wachovia and Wells Fargo, did when the crisis hit was to separate the two jobs.
主管的双重职能也会导致董事会更难处理主管的交替期。比如说，英国独立电台ITV就因为让迈克尔•格雷德（Michael Grade）身兼二职付出了沉重的代价：首先是要找到一个合适的人选上任就很困难，而后，优秀的人选不断离开，ITV充斥着滑稽的想法，找到个庸人上位也就只能满意了。何况，公众本来就对于整个体系的正当性有所怀疑，认为高管一边评判自己的绩效，一边给自己定工资，而这些“劈腿族”更是加强了这种疑虑。值得注意的是，危机发生之后，美国遭受打击的一些银行首先就做的就是职位分离，比如花旗集团（Citigroup）、华盛顿相互银行（Washington Mutual）、美联银行（Wachovia）和富国银行（Wells Fargo）。

These arguments are so compelling that it is tempting to dismiss the opposition out of hand. That would be a mistake. The defenders of fusion point out that there is no solid evidence that splitting the two jobs does any good. Over the past two decades academics have produced more than 30 studies comparing the financial performance of companies that divide the two roles with those that combine them. The result is a wash: Enron and WorldCom both split the two jobs, as did the Royal Bank of Scotland and Northern Rock.
这种说法是颇具说服力，以至于提到反对观点，人们马上就会予以否定。如果这样，就真是大错特错了。该做法的支持者指出，现在没有任何切实证据表明，分职能带来多大的好处。过去20年间，学界至少就分职和并职带来的金融绩效进行了30次比较研究。结果倒是良莠不齐：不仅安然、世界通信采用了分职制，苏格兰皇家银行、北岩银行也是如此。

Separating the two jobs may produce all sorts of undesirable consequences. Chief executives may find it harder to make quick decisions. Ego-driven chief executives and chairmen may squabble over who is ultimately in charge. The shortage of first-class business talent may mean that bosses find themselves second-guessed by greybeards who know little about the business.
分职也可能带来各种不良后果。高管想要迅速做决策愈发困难。而究竟哪个人享有最高指挥权的问题上，心高气傲的高管和董事会主席也会对此吵得不可开交。缺乏最优秀的商业天才也意味着高管总会被对商业一无所知，却又事后聪明的老将指责。

Anyway, traditionalists argue, America is already dealing with the problem of conflicts of interest in its own way. American boards are far more independent than they were as recently as five years ago. More than 90% of S&P 500 companies have appointed “lead” or “presiding” directors to act as a counterweight to a combined chairman and chief executive.
传统主义者认为，不管怎样，美国有自己的一套以解决利益冲突。美国董事会已经远比五年前来的独立了。S&P500九成以上的公司已任命“首席”或“主管”经理以平衡身兼二职的高管。

It is possible to pick holes in all these arguments. Many of them constitute a rejection of all robust systems of monitoring. “Presiding” directors sound like an unsatisfactory compromise—especially if they do not actually preside. Even at those firms where merging the jobs has worked reasonably well in the past, it may not do so in the future. Today’s global bosses have enough on their plates without having to chair board meetings as well. Boards are becoming more independent and professional, rendering the old-style strongmen ever more of an anachronism.
这些观点中都可能有漏洞。否决所有有力监管系统的不在少数。所谓的“主管”经理听起来更像是一种难以让人满意的妥协方案，尤其是在这些经理并非真是“主管”之时更是如此。而即使是过去双职成效颇佳的公司，未来恐怕也不能这么顺利了。现金全球化的高管就算不主持董事会，要费心的事也已经够多了。如今都故事会愈发独立、专业，传统铁腕大亨由此更显落伍。

Just tell me why告诉我为什么
But these objections nevertheless suggest some important caveats to the case for driving bosses out of the boardroom. There is no one-size-fits-all solution. Smaller companies, particularly start-ups, may benefit from the simplicity and clarity provided by bosses with two hats. Separating the two jobs is only one element of better corporate governance, as the many disasters presided over by independent chairmen demonstrate. Companies need to devote as much thought to the chemistry between the boss and chairman as they do to getting the structure right.
然而，在把高管踢出董事会这件事上，上述反对呼声确实提出了一些重要的警告声。世上没有什么百试百灵的解决之道。小企业，尤其是新兴企业，如果高管能够身兼二职，公司就能从自身的简单清晰中获益。分职只是提高公司治理水平的一个方法罢了，这也是许多实例中，主管专攻一职，却引起灾难带来的其实。企业在思考如何推出更好的企业结构时，也要在高管和董事会主席关系间投入同等的精力。

The best solution to the corporate problem is evolutionary, rather than revolutionary: pressure from activists and investors rather than sweeping legislation from Congress. Back in 1992 Sir Adrian Cadbury ushered in a boardroom revolution in Britain when he urged companies to comply with his recommendation to split the two jobs or explain why they had not. “Comply or explain” would not be a bad battle-cry for boardroom reformers the world over.
这个问题上最好的解决方案并非革命，而在于逐步推荐：源于活动家的压力，而非国会制定的广泛地法律法规。1992年时，阿德里安•凯德博雷爵士（Sir Adrian Cadbury）在英国引入了一项董事会革命，当时，他力劝企业要么接受他的建议，将董事和主席人选分开，要么就解释不做的原因。对于世界各地的董事会改革家来说，他的“接受或解释”是个不赖的冲锋号。