??? 美國一部分頂級公司未能進行嚴格的背景調查，確保CEO候選人是帶領公司迎接未來挑戰(zhàn)的最佳人選，結果在眾目睽睽之下遭遇滑鐵盧。上周，雅虎（Yahoo）就嘗到了這樣的苦果，這家公司的CEO斯科特?湯普森被曝簡歷造假。

????當初主導此次CEO篩選并最終選定湯普森的雅虎董事帕蒂?哈特已計劃退出董事會。對于目前服務于財富500強公司董事會的4,000多名高管或考慮加入這些董事會的人，雅虎事件無疑敲響了警鐘。

????如果這些問題在CEO任命前沒有浮出水面，結果可能導致這家公司以及來自其他公司、但是服務與這家公司董事會的高管在眾目睽睽之下陷入窘境，同時會動搖股東和員工對管理層的信心。學歷核查并不難。難的是要從市場領域獲得實實在在的數(shù)據(jù)，確保入選的CEO能勝任這份工作。惠普（Hewlett-Packard）就是一個例子，去年在李艾科的領導下這家公司的市值縮水了40%。最近，惠普一位董事告訴我們，李艾科是被“推銷給董事會的”，“這種情況不會再發(fā)生了”。

????類似的失誤不光出現(xiàn)在雅虎，也出現(xiàn)在摩托羅拉（Motorola）、可口可樂（Coke）和寶潔（Procter & Gamble）等公司中。一旦發(fā)現(xiàn)選錯人，指責之聲便會四起，人們首先就會質問：“為什么我們以前不知道這些情況？”優(yōu)秀的公司會建立體系，確保能夠做到這一點。比如，寶潔第二次就取得了極大的成功，它在組織內部深入挖掘，根據(jù)更充分的信息進行篩選，最終選定了雷富禮（A.G. Lafley）。

????很多公司CEO招聘看走眼，最后只能一拍兩散，皆因信息不足和過于放權，過于依賴第三方的工作。幸運的是，要改善這個流程有很多工作可以做。

????要弄清候選人能為公司帶來什么以及他/她與未來的職責和公司文化是否相符，企業(yè)不能停留于粗淺的背景調查。不同于其他高管職位，CEO候選人的背景調查比較特殊，因為很多時候候選人都沒有做過CEO。

????下面三種措施可以幫助企業(yè)避免雅虎式的困境：

確保董事會的參與

????帕蒂?哈特退出雅虎董事會，凸顯了很重要的一點：招聘CEO是董事會的重要職責，因此背景調查應該始于董事、終于董事。即使是與第三方、如獵頭公司合作時，董事會也不能完全放手不管。董事們應該核查背景調查，如果他們與證明人有私人關系的話就更是如此。如果董事會打算像很多公司那樣，完全依賴第三方進行背景調查，董事們需要確保第三方能獲得候選人管理經(jīng)歷的“內部一手資料”。我們看到過太多董事會完全放手的結果。結果并不美妙。

????Some of the best companies in the U.S. have failed, very publicly, to rigorously check references on CEO candidates to ensure that they are the right fit for the company's challenges ahead. Yahoo learned this lesson the hard way last week when it was revealed that their CEO, Scott Thompson, padded his resume.

????Now Yahoo (YHOO) board member Patti Hart, who led the executive search that resulted in Thompson's hiring, plans to step down from the board. For the more than 4,000 executives currently serving on Fortune 500 boards, or considering joining one, these events concerning Yahoo should be a wake-up call.

????When these issues are not surfaced before the CEO is hired, the result can be both public embarrassment – for the company and the executives from other companies that serve on its board – and a jolt to shareholder and employee confidence in leadership. And checking academic pedigrees is the easy part. The more difficult challenge is getting the hard data from the market to ensure that your CEO pick is right for the job. Just look at Hewlett-Packard (HPQ), where shareholders were stripped of 40% of their stock value under Leo Apotheker last year. One HP director recently told us that Apotheker had been "sold to the board" and "that won't happen again."

????Similar misfires have happened not only at Yahoo but also at companies like Motorola (MSI), Coke (KO), and Procter & Gamble (PG). When the wrong person is picked, recriminations and questions immediately begin with, "Why didn't we know this before?" The best companies put in place systems to ensure that they do. P&G, for example, was highly successful the next time around because it dug deeper into the organization and based CEO selection on better information, which led to the selection of CEO A.G. Lafley.

????Many companies make a final hiring decision with too little information and too much delegation, and rely too heavily on third parties to get the job done. Fortunately, there is a great deal that can be done to improve the process.

????Companies must go beyond superficial referencing to determine what a candidate can contribute and how he or she aligns with the future imperatives and culture of the company. But unlike referencing for other senior executive positions, referencing for CEO contenders is tricky because in many cases the person up for the job has never been a CEO before.

????Here are three ways in which companies can avoid a Yahoo-like debacle:

Make sure the board is involved

????Patti Hart's departure from Yahoo's board underscores a crucial point: Hiring the CEO goes to the heart of a board's fiduciary duties, so it makes sense that referencing begins and ends with the directors. Even when working with a third party, such as a search firm, boards should never completely hand off the referencing process. Directors should be a check on referencing, especially if they have a personal relationship with a reference. If a board is going to rely on a third party to take care of the referencing process, as many companies do, the directors need to make sure that that group can get the "inside scoop" on how a candidate leads. We've seen the consequences of boards that relinquish control of the referencing process. It's not pretty.