Men's Wearhouse創(chuàng)始人被掃地出門背后的故事
|
????要是股東大會如期召開，你還會留任董事嗎？ ????或許會留任吧，盡管我在那一刻的想法是：“你們顯然不想留我，但我也壓根不愿意與你共事?！?/p> ????那份詮釋解雇原因的新聞通稿聲稱，你一直在敦促董事會將The Men's Wearhouse賣給一家私人投資集團(tuán)，而董事會顯然不認(rèn)同你的提議。實(shí)情是這樣的嗎？ ????我沒有接觸過任何一家私募股權(quán)公司。我的確與投資銀行家接觸過，讓他們評估私有化是否合理。過去5年來，在許多不同場合，我們被多次問起涉及私有化的問題。我們的反應(yīng)（通常是我提出的）是，絕對不可能。 ????但我在舊金山出席了一場由全食超市公司(Whole Foods)CEO約翰?麥基召集，名為自覺資本主義(Conscious Capitalism)的會議——我是這個會議的常客。會議期間，一些人詢問我為什么不考慮私有化。我給出了標(biāo)準(zhǔn)答復(fù)：沒興趣。我當(dāng)時被告知，我們可以私有化，我們的股東將獲得30%到40%的溢價，而且利率正處于歷史最低點(diǎn)。我的腦海突然萌生了一種想法，我與這些銀行家聊了聊，他們確認(rèn)這看起來像一個好主意。 ????于是，我通過電話把董事們召集在一起，向他們解釋我認(rèn)為我們應(yīng)該做的事情：邀請銀行家參加一次董事會會議，向所有人解釋相關(guān)問題。但我現(xiàn)在相信，在我召開電話會議前，他們已經(jīng)聽到了太多的傳言，還聘請法律顧問宣布我為不受歡迎的人。所以，我的提議實(shí)在不會有任何結(jié)果。至少這是我的看法。 ????公司還聲稱，你“拒絕支持團(tuán)隊(duì)，除非他們默許你的要求?！甭犉饋硐袷呛侠淼呐u？ ????這種說法有一定的道理。沒錯，在我的繼任者執(zhí)掌公司一年后，我開始對他失去信心。但從喜歡他到不喜歡他，并不是一個突然出現(xiàn)的變化，而是一個持續(xù)了數(shù)月的過程。我從來沒有推翻過他的決定。董事會如此定性多少有點(diǎn)諷刺意味，因?yàn)槲彝滔铝俗约旱闹庇X，允許公司沿著他正在設(shè)定的路徑向前發(fā)展。 ????去年年末的董事會上，我第一次私下里與一些董事磋商，道格此前已經(jīng)私下聯(lián)系過他們了。我確實(shí)指出，道格和我有一些分歧，但我不知道為什么有人會認(rèn)為我是給他們下最后通牒。在這個時間點(diǎn)上，我不再認(rèn)為The Men's Wearhouse依然是我在40多年前苦心創(chuàng)建的那家公司。 |
????Had they gone through with the previously scheduled shareholder meeting, would you have stayed on as a director? ????I would have probably stayed on, although in the exact moment I felt like "I don't want to work with you any more than you apparently want to work with me." ????In explaining your termination, the company claimed that you had been pushing to sell The Men's Wearhouse to a private investment group – something the board disagreed with. True? ????I didn't have any conversations with private equity firms. I spoke with [investment bankers] -- people who evaluate if a going-private makes sense. We had been approached over the last five years about going private on a number of different occasions, and our response, usually initiated by me, was absolutely not. ????But I was at a San Francisco conference put on by Whole Foods CEO John Mackey, called Conscious Capitalism -- at which I normally present. And I was approached by some people who asked why we weren't considering going private. I gave the standard response about not being interested, at which point I was told that we could go private, and our shareholders would get a 30% to 40% premium and that interest rates were at a historical low point. All of a sudden a light bulb went off in my head, and I spoke to these [bankers] who confirmed that this looked like a good idea. ????So I got the board together telephonically and explained what I thought we ought to do: Invite the [banker] to a board meeting to explain to all of us what's involved. But I now believe that, prior to my call, they'd heard enough rumblings, retained counsel, and declared me persona non grata. So my idea wasn't going anywhere. At least that's my perception. ????The company also argued that you "refused to support the team unless they acquiesced to his demands." Legitimate criticism? ????There is some truth to the idea that, after the first year of my successor's administration, I began to lose confidence in him. But it's not like all of a sudden I went from loving him to not liking him. It was a process that went on over months. At no point did I overrule his decisions. The way the board has framed it is somewhat ironic, because I swallowed my own instincts and allowed the company to go down the path he was embarking on. ????At the end of last year we had a board meeting where I first spoke privately to the board, followed by Doug speaking privately to them. I did indicate that Doug and I were having some disagreements, but I don't know why anyone would think I was giving them an ultimatum. At this point in time, I don't think The Men's Wearhouse is the organization that I had worked to create over 40 years. |
最新文章