????有些首席執行官從第一天起就注定要失敗，因為他或她本身就是錯誤的選擇。現在這居然成了一個普遍現象。雅虎（Yahoo）剛剛迎來五年內的第五任首席執行官，而李艾科在惠普（Hewlett-Packard ）的領頭人位置上只呆了11個月。

????首席執行官迅速失敗的時候，投資者會責怪他們，但真正的罪魁禍首是董事會。他們沒能履行其最重要的職責：確保公司一直擁有稱職的首席執行官。

????為避免如此嚴重的錯誤，董事們必須取得對選擇首席執行官的完全控制，而對大多數公司來說，他們必須以全新的方式來完成這個任務。我分析了過去20年來82位遭遇滑鐵盧的首席執行官，我也親眼目睹了多次交接班，效果有好有壞。我觀察到什么可行，什么不可行。成功之路其實很清楚，我們需要更多的董事會積極進取，依計行事。下面這些步驟至關重要：

對常規流程反其道而行之。

????大多數董事會在一開始就犯下大錯，注定失敗：他們還不清楚所要找尋的目標，特別是公司所急需的專門技能和關系網，就開始考慮候選人。董事必須采用反向的思路，首先應該嚴格而明確地界定在當前的環境中，對公司和成功的首席執行官的獨特要求是什么。哪些是候選人必須達到的不容討價還價的標準？

????IBM的董事會1993年的時候就是這么做的。為了物色約翰?艾克斯的繼承人，董事會指派了一個專門委員會，其中包括美國廣播公司（ABC Cap Cities）首席執行官湯姆?墨菲和聲名卓著的強生公司（Johnson & Johnson）前任首席執行官吉姆?伯克。獵頭、專家、股票分析師和媒體的共識就是IBM的新老板必須要有信息技術行業的經歷，有的人還相信IBM特別需要能夠帶領他們贏得個人計算機之戰的人。蘋果公司（Apple）前任老總約翰?斯卡利和摩托羅拉（Motorola）的喬治?費希爾都曾經是熱門人選。

????墨菲和伯克的看法卻截然不同。他們確定了一些非常明確的標準，同時認為那是核心要求。除了那些常見的“特質”，比如個性、誠信、價值觀，以及實施大規模改變的良好記錄，兩人還確定了下面這些不容置疑的標準：以客戶為導向；商業智慧，就是能夠診斷出IBM的病因并發現根治之道的能力；執行必要變革、帶領公司前行的能力。

????請注意他們并沒有使用一般性的詞匯比如“愿景”或“戰略”，而且他們明確提出信息技術行業的經歷并不是必須。董事會的選擇當然就是郭士納，煙草公司雷諾茲/納貝斯克（RJR/Nabisco）的首席執行官，他也是美國運通（American Express）的前任總裁。雖然沒有技術背景，但按照以上三個評判標準他都是出類拔萃的人選。他的名言就是IBM不需要愿景，然后在分拆的邊緣挽救了IBM。8年后他離開時，IBM已經是全世界最受尊敬、最有價值的公司之一。

將選擇標準分成5個類別。

????不要用陳詞濫調或者專門術語。要從這些標準能得出明確、直接的結論。

????第1類：一般“特質”：智力、個性、完成任務的記錄、實現執行力的方法以及充沛的精力。另外兩個特別重要的素質：決斷，是就是是，不是就是不是，不要模棱兩可的“也許”，當然，還要有勇氣。如果候選人嚴重缺乏上述的任一品質都必須淘汰。

????第2類：技能。就像墨菲和伯克對IBM的首席執行官所要求的專門能力。這些技能要求與時俱進，同時各公司也需要因人而異。

????第3類：關系網。在大多數公司，很多事務都是通過外部和內部關系形成的穩固網絡來完成的。關系的建立并非一時一日之功。外部關系的建立特別需要花費漫長的時間，但也能成為雙向信息交流的橋梁。需要考察候選人在不同層次上建立持久關系，并將其轉化為戰略優勢的過往記錄如何？

????第4類：判斷力。幾乎所有首席執行官的決定都需要權衡折衷，而很多因素都是定性乃至主觀的。候選人在關鍵問題上的判斷力如何，比如聽取哪一個信息來源？此外，他們在人員、戰略抉擇和資源配置方面的判斷明智與否？

????第5類：理解和認知。候選人是否比其他人先察覺到在轉折之后將要面臨的情況？理解力和將多種外界力量聯系起來進行分析的能力非常重要。何種經歷表明候選人擁有這種能力？面對臨突如其來的沖擊，候選人的恢復能力如何？

????It's becoming an epidemic: the dead-on-arrival CEO who is doomed from day one because he or she was the wrong choice. Look at Yahoo (YHOO), which just got its fifth CEO in five years, or think of Leo Apotheker, who lasted only 11 months at the top of Hewlett-Packard (HPQ).

????Investors blame the CEO when he or she flames out, but the real culprit is the board. The directors blew their most important job: making sure the company always has the right CEO.

????To avoid such damaging failures, directors must seize control of CEO selection and pursue the task in a way that's fundamentally new at most companies. I've analyzed 82 CEO failures from the past 20 years and have been on the scene of many successions, good and bad. I've observed what works and what doesn't. The winning approach is clear, and more boards should go firmly on offense and follow it. The following steps are critical:

Reverse the usual process.

????Most boards doom their efforts at the start by committing the blunder of considering CEO candidates without knowing what they're looking for – especially the specific skills and relationship the company will need most. Directors need to think in the opposite direction. They should first define rigorously and specifically the unique requirements for the company and a successful CEO in today's environment. What are the non-negotiable criteria the candidate must meet?

????That's what IBM's (IBM) board did in 1993. To find a successor to CEO John Akers, it appointed a committee that included Tom Murphy, CEO of ABC Cap Cities, and Jim Burke, the highly acclaimed former CEO of Johnson & Johnson (JNJ). The consensus of headhunters, pundits, security analysts, and media was that IBM's new boss needed infotech experience, and some believed IBM especially needed someone who could win the PC war. Former Apple (AAPL) chief John Scully and Motorola's George Fischer were highly touted candidates.

????Murphy and Burke took a radically different view. They identified a few extremely specific criteria that they deemed central. In addition to the normal "givens," such as character, integrity, values, and a strong record of making large-scale change, the duo decided on the following non-negotiable criteria: Customer orientation; business acumen – the ability to diagnose what ailed IBM and see how to fix it; and the ability to execute needed change and take the company forward.

????Note that they didn't use generic terms like "vision" or "strategy," and they explicitly didn't require infotech experience. The board's choice was of course Lou Gerstner, CEO of RJR/Nabisco and previously president of American Express (AXP) -- no techie, but outstanding on each of the three criteria. He famously made clear that IBM didn't need a vision and then rescued the company from the verge of breakup, leaving it eight years later as one of the world's most admired and valuable corporations.

Place the selection criteria into five buckets.

????No platitudes or jargon allowed. The directors need criteria that lead to a specific, pointed conclusion.

????Bucket 1: The "givens": intelligence, character, a record of getting things done, a methodology for excellent execution, high energy. Two more are especially important: decisiveness, a bias toward saying "yes" or "no" rather than "maybe," and courage. A dire lack of even one of these takes the candidate out of the running.

????Bucket 2: Skills. Specific abilities like the ones Murphy and Burke identified for IBM's CEO. They will vary widely from company to company and era to era.

????Bucket 3: Relationships. In most companies, much is achieved through a sustained network of external and internal relationships. It doesn't happen fast. External relationships in particular are built over long periods and become valuable two-way bridges of information. What is the candidate's record of building enduring relationships at several levels and converting them into strategic advantages?

????Bucket 4: Judgment. Almost all decisions at the CEO level require tradeoffs, and many factors are qualitative and subjective. How effective is the candidate's judgment on key questions, such as which information sources to listen to? In addition, how sage have the candidate's judgments been on people, strategic bets, and resource allocation?

????Bucket 5: Perception and cognition. Does a candidate see what waits around the bend before others do? Powers of perception and the ability to connect diverse external forces are worth a lot of points. What experiences signal that the candidate has this ability? What is his or her resilience in the face of shocks?