????時機就是一切。如果你愿意，請試想一下通用汽車公司（General Motors）首席執行官瑪麗?巴拉最近所經歷的一切。就在不到一個月的時間里，她就從業界先鋒變成了眾矢之的。這一部分要歸咎于通用汽車的問題，一部分是由于她前任的錯——但顯然和她本人無關。

????巴拉花了整整33年，一路披荊斬棘，才登上通用汽車的權力巔峰，在今年1月15號正式成為首席執行官，成為所有人的偶像。但她上任還不到一個月，通用汽車就因為致人死命、現在已經臭名遠揚的點火開關缺陷大規模召回。巴拉再也不會因她的堅韌不拔和勇于突破玻璃天花板而廣受贊譽了，現在她就是各界攻擊的靶子，不斷地在電視轉播的國會聽證會、媒體質詢會和難以計數的各種論壇上飽受抨擊。

????一般來說，我并不怎么同情首席執行官們，他們肩負重任，卻也拿著天價高薪。當然，公司陷入麻煩的時候，他們也得挺身而出。如果你拿著八位數的高薪，同時因為公司里眾多下屬的工作而拿到大筆好處，那你因為下屬犯錯而代人受過也實屬公平合理，哪怕你對這些問題實際上毫不知情。這種狂轟濫炸總得有個盡頭，首席執行官的辦公室就正好是它瞄準的好靶子。

????不過，盡管痛貶巴拉能讓那些嗜血的華盛頓政客滿意，也能搞得滿城風雨、輿論嘩然，但這么做卻著實荒唐。如果點火開關召回事件發生在去年，而不是巴拉今年上任后不到一個月，那么2010年成為通用汽車首席執行官的丹?阿克森現在就應該在國會這場美式審判秀上接受質詢。如果通用汽車或美國國家公路交通安全管理局（National Highway Traffic Safety Administration）或是這兩者都反應迅捷、精明強干，那可能就該輪到阿克森的前任埃德?惠塔克里來受這份活罪了。

????我完全明白為什么要把火力集中到有頭有臉的個人、而不是把它分散到一個龐大的、非個人化的公司身上的道理。畢竟，三十多年前當我在《福布斯》雜志（Forbes）【別跟我現在供職的《財富》雜志（Fortune）弄混了】效力時就學會了把公司和個人劃等號的本事，此后還一直賴此謀生。

????不過就算你真打算因為公司的問題而抨擊某個個體，也應該找對人，而不是對準問題浮出水面時剛好成為首席執行官的那個人。

????可能國會應該傳喚的是里克?瓦格納，即2000年6月開始擔任通用汽車首席執行官，也就是2009年政府出手救助公司免于破產時被迫下臺的那位。點火開關問題好像在他掌權期間就已初露端倪，而且一直沒人理會，但我敢說瓦格納（我對此人了解不深，但卻頗有好感）對此也知之甚少，甚至完全不知情。不過畢竟那時候是他大權在握。

????或者也應該傳喚聯邦政府安排的那兩位首席執行官：埃德?惠塔克里（2009年12月到2010年9月）或阿克森（2010年1月到2014年1月15日）。還有兩位在位時間很短的執行官，但他們在任時間太短，輪不到對這個問題承擔責任。

????誠然——這真是媒體圈最滑頭的一個詞——巴拉現在所受的這種不公平抨擊跟當年作為美國國際集團（AIG）總裁的埃德?李迪所受的不公平待遇相比實在是小巫見大巫。巴拉畢竟長期效力于通用汽車公司，還拿著大把年薪，而李迪當年的年薪只有區區1美元，卻要處理一大堆跟他毫無關系的破事。

????我舉雙手贊成問責。如果想讓巴拉第一個站出來，對眼下的混亂局面承擔責任，那么別客氣，也請把通用汽車2009年破產這件事當作擋箭牌，讓這家公司擺脫跟大多數死亡索賠的干系。

????不過，如果我們真打算因為某些重大人禍痛扁首席執行官們，比如美國國際集團草率魯莽的金融投機行為，或是通用汽車致人死地的點火開關，那也應該揪出那些問題發生時在任的執行官，而不是問題曝光時正好上任的繼任者。(財富中文網)

????譯者：清遠

????

????Timing is everything. Consider, if you will, the story of Mary Barra, the first female chief executive of General Motors, who in less than a month went from pioneer to punching bag. For something that's clearly GM's fault, and some of her predecessors' fault -- but clearly not her fault.

????Barra, who spent 33 years clawing her way to the top of GM (GM), became its CEO on Jan. 15, making her an icon of sorts. But less than a month later, GM began recalling vehicles because of its deadly, now-infamous faulty ignition switch. Instead of being praised for perseverance and cracking the glass ceiling, Barra is now a target, getting beaten up on a regular basis in televised Congressional hearings, in media scrums, and in other forums too numerous to name.

????I don't normally sympathize very much with CEOs, who get paid amazing amounts of money to assume a lot of responsibility, including taking the heat when the company screws up. If you're getting eight-digit paychecks and thus benefiting from the work of everyone below you in the corporate hierarchy, it's only fair that you get whacked for the sins of your subordinates, even if you knew nothing about them. The buck is supposed to stop somewhere, and the CEO's office is the right place.

????But beating up on Barra, which satisfies the bloodlust of Washington pols and makes for good theater and massive buzz, is absurd. Had the ignition-switch recall happened last year instead of less than 30 days after Barra took office this year, Dan Akerson, who became GM's CEO in 2010, would have been the one called in front of Congress to be tortured in the U.S. version of a show trial. Had GM or the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration or both of them been quick and competent, it might have been Akerson's predecessor, Ed Whitacre, who was tortured.

????I totally get the point of focusing blame on an individual, who's identifiable, rather than diffusing it over a big, impersonal corporation. After all, that's the kind of thing I have been doing for a living ever since I learned the art of personalizing companies during my days at Forbes magazine (not to be confused with my current employer Fortune) more than 30 years ago.

????But if you're going to beat up on an individual for the failure of a company, you ought to beat up the right individual -- not the person who happens to be CEO when the problem surfaces.

????Maybe Congress should be calling Rick Wagoner, the company's CEO from June of 2000 until the government forced him out in 2009 as the price of rescuing the company's operations from collapse. The ignition problem seems to have started and been ignored sometime during his regime, even though I would be willing to bet that Wagoner (whom I know slightly, and kind of like) knew little or nothing about it. But he was in charge then.

????Or you could call either of the two CEOs the federal government installed: Ed Whitacre (Dec. 1, 2009 to Sept. 1, 2010) or the aforementioned Akerson (Sept. 1, 2010 to Jan. 15, 2014). There are two other short-timers, but they weren't around long enough to be held responsible.

????To be sure -- three of the most weaselly words in journalism -- the unfair beating that Barra is getting doesn't approach the unfairness of the way that Ed Liddy got as chairman of AIG. Barra, after all, is a GM lifer with a serious comp package, while Liddy was serving at $1 a year to preside over a mess he had nothing to do with.

????I'm all in favor of accountability. And if you want to hold Barra responsible for the mess of first admitting responsibility, then trying to use GM's 2009 bankruptcy to shield the company from most of the death claims, be my guest.

????But if we're going to beat up CEOs for disasters like AIG's reckless financial bets or GM's deadly ignition switches, let's beat up the people who were in charge when the mistakes were made. Not the people who happen to be in charge when the problems surface.