The meaning of Walt Disney’s latest boardroom changes
迪士尼最近的董事會(huì)變化意味著什么
Oct 15th 2011 | from the print edition
AMONG the many voids left by the death of Steve Jobs on October 5th was an empty seat in the boardroom of Walt Disney, where he was the largest shareholder. Soon afterwards, Disney announced that Robert Iger, the media and theme-park giant’s chief executive since 2005, had signed a new five-year contract, at the end of which he will leave the firm. Next March Mr Iger will also become chairman of Disney’s board.
十月五日喬布斯去世遺留下來(lái)了眾多空缺，其中之一是他在沃爾特·迪士尼公司董事會(huì)的席位——他是迪士尼最大的股東。之后不久，迪士尼宣布已經(jīng)與Robert Iger 簽訂了新的為期五年的合約，合約期滿之后他將離任。自2005年起擔(dān)任傳媒和主題公園巨頭迪士尼總裁的Robert Iger 將于明年三月接任董事會(huì)主席職務(wù)。
The timing may be linked to the death of Mr Jobs. With his shares likely to go on the market, and Disney’s performance having stalled again lately, there are rumours that a rival might try to buy the firm. Announcing Mr Iger’s new deal and departure date sent investors a reassuring message: there will be continuity at the top. And the board has ample time to plan for life after the esteemed Mr Iger, who is said to fancy a new career in politics.
這一時(shí)間安排可能與喬布斯去世有關(guān)。由于喬布斯的股份可能被出售，而迪士尼最近的市場(chǎng)表現(xiàn)不佳，競(jìng)爭(zhēng)對(duì)手可能試圖收購(gòu)迪士尼的謠言四起。宣布與Robert Iger的新協(xié)議以及他的離任日期，給投資者服下了定心丸：高級(jí)管理層將延續(xù)。而董事也會(huì)有足夠的時(shí)間計(jì)劃的Robert Iger 離任之后領(lǐng)導(dǎo)層的變動(dòng)。Robert Iger是個(gè)受人尊敬的人，據(jù)說(shuō)離任后他將謀求政治上的發(fā)展。
Still, Disney’s decision to combine the posts of chairman and chief executive infuriates corporate-governance activists. They see this merging of the two roles as a step backwards, allowing the possibility of a return to the lousy governance for which Disney was notorious under Michael Eisner, Mr Iger’s over-mighty predecessor. Back then, Disney’s board might easily have been mistaken for a pair of Snow White’s dwarf pals (specifically, Sleepy and Dopey). At one point, its directors included an architect friend of Mr Eisner and a local schoolteacher. This made it a target of shareholder activists who, after a series of corporate scandals at other firms with insufficiently accountable bosses, campaigned for big changes in how all American firms were governed. The separation of the chairman and chief executive roles at Disney marked an important victory for that campaign, which is why its reversal is disappointing.
然而迪士尼把董事會(huì)主席和總裁的職務(wù)合二為一的決定還是激怒了公司治理的激進(jìn)分子。他們認(rèn)為兩個(gè)角色的合二為一是一種倒退，可能會(huì)回到Robert Iger 權(quán)傾一時(shí)的前任Michael Eisner 的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)下公司混亂名聲敗壞的情形。那時(shí)候，董事會(huì)被當(dāng)做白雪公主身邊的兩個(gè)小矮人（尤其是那個(gè)愛(ài)睡覺(jué)的和那個(gè)遲鈍的）。董事中一度包括Michael Eisner 的一個(gè)建筑師朋友和一名教師。在一系列其他公司由于不負(fù)責(zé)任的總裁引起的丑聞后，上述行為成為股東中激進(jìn)分子的攻擊目標(biāo)，他們發(fā)起運(yùn)動(dòng)以變革美國(guó)公司的管理方式。迪士尼公司總裁和董事會(huì)主席的兩權(quán)分離標(biāo)志著該運(yùn)動(dòng)取得了重大的勝利，而這也是為什么事情的逆轉(zhuǎn)如此令人失望。
Less than a decade ago, it was highly unusual for more than a handful of shareholders of American public companies to cast their votes against the re-election of board members, especially the chairman. Indeed, such was the feebleness of shareholder democracy at most firms that “no” votes were not even counted; only “yes” votes were. But in March 2004, following some high profile opposition and disappointing profits at Disney, 43% of shareholder votes were cast against the election of Mr Eisner to another term on the board. Instead of ignoring this vote, as it was free to do, the board stripped Mr Eisner of his chairmanship. In his place it appointed George Mitchell, a politician with a spotless name and a reputation for independence. Having brokered the Northern Ireland peace process, he was unlikely to be intimidated by a mere media mogul. Mr Eisner stayed on for a while as chief executive, but stepped down earlier than expected in September 2005.
不到十年以前，很少能看到美國(guó)上市公司的大量股東投票反對(duì)被重新選出的董事會(huì)成員，尤其是主席。事實(shí)上，這就是大部分企業(yè)里股東民主的脆弱性：否決票不算數(shù)，只有贊成票算數(shù)。但是2004年3月，在迪士尼中出現(xiàn)了一些高調(diào)反對(duì)的聲音和讓人失望的公司業(yè)績(jī)后，43%的股東投票反對(duì)Michael Eisner 連任董事會(huì)主席。董事會(huì)不像以前那樣忽略這些反對(duì)票，而是將Michael Eisner從主席的位子上趕了下來(lái)。接替他職位的是George Mitchell，一個(gè)名聲清白、以獨(dú)立著名的政治家。曾經(jīng)成功推進(jìn)北愛(ài)爾蘭和平進(jìn)程的他不太可能被區(qū)區(qū)一個(gè)傳媒界要人嚇到。Michael Eisner繼續(xù)擔(dān)任總裁職務(wù)，但是不久后就離任，早于預(yù)期的2005年9月。
Looking back, this vote at Disney, and the board’s reaction to it, was a turning point for the movement for better corporate governance. Today, far fewer board members appear to have been picked by the boss largely on the basis of their probable support for whatever he does. It is now the norm for “no” votes to be counted, and less unusual for shareholders to exercise their right to cast them. Shareholders of American firms have also been given a “say on pay” vote (albeit only an advisory one) on the remuneration of top executives. And this year they have said “nay on pay” on a record number of occasions. The number of American firms with a separate chairman and chief executive has also risen sharply, bringing America more into line with corporate practice on the other side of the Atlantic. Of the companies in the S&P 500, 210 now split the two roles. There is, to be fair, an ongoing debate over whether there is any tangible evidence that having a separate chairman improves a company’s performance. Yet it is mostly bosses who argue that it does not, while shareholders generally think it does.
回顧過(guò)去，迪士尼股東的投票和董事會(huì)對(duì)它做出的反應(yīng)是公司轉(zhuǎn)向更好的管理方式的轉(zhuǎn)折點(diǎn)。今天，由總裁挑選的董事會(huì)成員比以前少了許多，總裁挑選那些人很大程度上基于他們可能支持自己任何的決策和行為?，F(xiàn)在的常規(guī)是否決票也算數(shù)，而股東行使權(quán)力投票選出董事會(huì)成員也不是那么鮮見(jiàn)了。美國(guó)企業(yè)的股東還有權(quán)對(duì)高層管理人員的獎(jiǎng)金進(jìn)行投票（盡管投票僅具有參考價(jià)值）。而今年他們又在少數(shù)幾個(gè)場(chǎng)合中要求“不發(fā)獎(jiǎng)金”的投票權(quán)。總裁與董事會(huì)主席兩權(quán)分離的美國(guó)企業(yè)的數(shù)量也迅速增加，美國(guó)的公司慣例和大西洋對(duì)岸的歐洲更加一致了。標(biāo)準(zhǔn)普爾指數(shù)前五百名的企業(yè)中，有210家企業(yè)都是兩權(quán)分離的。公平地說(shuō)，關(guān)于兩權(quán)分離有利于提高公司業(yè)績(jī)是否有確鑿證據(jù)的爭(zhēng)論仍然在持續(xù)。對(duì)于大多數(shù)總裁來(lái)說(shuō)答案是否定的，而股東們總體上認(rèn)為答案是肯定的。
That said, there are still plenty of reasons to worry about the quality of corporate governance in America, as the recent mishandling of the firing of bosses at both Yahoo! and HP highlighted. There have also been some setbacks to efforts to strengthen shareholder rights, such as a recent court ruling against a measure in the Dodd-Frank financial-reform law that was intended to make it easier for shareholders to nominate candidates for the board. And now Disney’s board, which had grown to be admired both for its accountability and diversity, has taken a step in the wrong direction. While hardly catastrophic, this has certainly sent a disappointing message.
那就是說(shuō)，我們?nèi)匀挥写罅坷碛蓳?dān)心美國(guó)公司管理的質(zhì)量，最近雅虎和惠普公司錯(cuò)誤地解雇了各自的老板就突出了這一點(diǎn)。加強(qiáng)股東權(quán)利的努力也面臨著很多的挫折。最近，法庭否決了Dodd-Frank經(jīng)濟(jì)改革法中的一項(xiàng)措施，該法規(guī)的意圖是使股東更順利地提名董事會(huì)候選人。現(xiàn)在又輪到迪士尼董事會(huì)。它曾經(jīng)成長(zhǎng)壯大并因其責(zé)任感和多樣化被稱贊，而現(xiàn)在卻向錯(cuò)誤的方向邁進(jìn)了一步。雖然此舉遠(yuǎn)不具有毀滅性，但是這確實(shí)傳達(dá)了一則令人失望的信息。
With luck, this reversal will only be temporary, as Disney has promised. It has also pledged to appoint a “l(fā)ead director”, who will carry out some of the board duties that might otherwise have fallen to a stand-alone chairman—though it is unclear precisely what the responsibilities of this officer will be.
迪士尼承諾，如果運(yùn)氣好的話這一逆轉(zhuǎn)僅僅是暫時(shí)的。它亦承諾任命一個(gè)“董事領(lǐng)袖”，負(fù)責(zé)執(zhí)行獨(dú)立的主席不會(huì)執(zhí)行的董事會(huì)職責(zé)——盡管他的具體職責(zé)是什么還并不清晰。
The award for best supporting actor goes to: no one
最佳男配角：空缺
Why Disney’s board gave both roles to Mr Iger is also not clear. But it is consistent, albeit in a small way, with a lamentable pattern: the tendency of media firms to opt for a leadership structure based on a dominant mogul, weak boards and open scorn for what shareholders regard as the best practice in corporate governance. There are other recent examples of this. IAC, a firm run by Barry Diller, recently appointed Chelsea Clinton to its board. Schumpeter has nothing against Ms Clinton, but it is hard to imagine what virtuous instructions to a headhunter could have resulted in a 31-year-old with little relevant experience making its shortlist. However, the firm that puts the Mickey into Mickey Mouse corporate governance is surely Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. Thirteen members of its board are currently up for re-election. Institutional Shareholder Services, a firm that advises shareholders on how to vote, is recommending “no” votes for the whole miserable lot.
迪士尼將兩項(xiàng)大權(quán)都交給Robert Iger 的原因并不明確。但是它卻和一種可悲的模式保持一致（盡管是在很小的程度上），該模式下，媒體企業(yè)傾向于選擇的一種領(lǐng)導(dǎo)結(jié)構(gòu)是建基于集權(quán)的要人、軟弱的董事會(huì)和對(duì)股東眼中最好的公司管理模式的公開的不屑。還有其他真實(shí)的例子。Barry Diller管理的IAC最近任命Chelsea Clinton為董事會(huì)成員。筆者（Schumpeter）并不反對(duì)Clinton先生，但是很難想像怎樣卓越的指示會(huì)使得獵頭將一個(gè)31歲幾乎沒(méi)有相關(guān)經(jīng)驗(yàn)的人列入他最終的考慮名單。然而，將米奇列入米老鼠家族公司的管理中的企業(yè)必然是默多克（Rupert Murdoch）的新公司。其董事會(huì)的13名成員都將在最近參與董事改選。為股東提供投票建議的公司Institutional Shareholder Services，建議所有不滿的股東都投否決票。
聯(lián)系客服
