直面常見的難題。

????很少有候選人具備所有條件，但董事會必須選出一個人。比如這樣一個常見的兩難選擇：一個候選人擁有專門而深入的高度復(fù)雜的專業(yè)技能，但沒有太多領(lǐng)導(dǎo)經(jīng)驗(yàn)，另一個候選人在大型組織展現(xiàn)了領(lǐng)導(dǎo)力，但缺乏在選擇公司未來方向時所急需的復(fù)雜專業(yè)技能。

????花旗集團(tuán)（Citigroup）在金融危機(jī)中挑選查克?普林斯的繼任者時面臨著這樣的難題。為了建立信用、激發(fā)信任，大多數(shù)人在尋找第二類候選人，就是來自大型金融機(jī)構(gòu)的成功領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人，花旗董事長當(dāng)時甚至向這樣一個候選人發(fā)出了邀請。他就在同一個行業(yè)，但是缺乏處理有毒資產(chǎn)的經(jīng)驗(yàn)，而那是花旗危機(jī)的根本問題；他成功的部分原因其實(shí)就是因?yàn)榛乇芰诉@類金融工具。后來，有位德高望重的董事力排眾議，董事會終于在數(shù)小時內(nèi)改變了主意，轉(zhuǎn)向第一類候選人：潘偉迪，花旗內(nèi)部的有毒資產(chǎn)專家（值得一提的是，那位力挽狂瀾的董事本人一輩子就在和這些有毒資產(chǎn)打交道）。董事會相信，潘偉迪能夠成長為領(lǐng)袖，而他也不負(fù)眾望。

????雖然花旗還未完全恢復(fù)，但現(xiàn)在沒人質(zhì)疑選擇潘偉迪的正確性了。就花旗最急需的人才所做出的正確判斷終于得到了回報。

為新任首席執(zhí)行官的成功保駕護(hù)航。

????沒有候選人會完全適合一個公司。董事會應(yīng)該找出勝出候選人的弱項(xiàng)，同時決定如何幫助他/她彌補(bǔ)缺陷。董事們需要提前討論他們?yōu)檫x擇這個候選人所承擔(dān)的風(fēng)險。他們也要考慮隨著時間的推移，候選人可能取得的進(jìn)步。最近出現(xiàn)的最佳實(shí)踐就是指派一名資深董事?lián)蝹髀曂埠徒叹毜慕巧瑤椭氯问紫瘓?zhí)行官獲得成功，并且制定一個詳盡的計劃在第一年里把這種幫助落到實(shí)處。

????公司的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)職能已經(jīng)從首席執(zhí)行官轉(zhuǎn)移到董事會。在這樣激烈競爭和加速變化的時代，董事會尤其需要證明他們能勝任其首要任務(wù)，即確保公司一直擁有稱職的首席執(zhí)行官。按照以上四步行事，董事會有望大大增加他們成功的機(jī)會。

????你的董事會是否勝任分內(nèi)的工作呢？

Confront common dilemmas.

????Few candidates have it all, yet directors must choose someone. For example, here's a common dilemma: choosing between a candidate possessing narrow, deep, highly sophisticated expertise but without much leadership experience, and a candidate with demonstrated leadership in a large organization but with no expertise in the sophisticated specialty urgently required for knowing where to take the company in the future.

????That was the dilemma that Citigroup's (C) board faced as it chose a replacement for CEO Chuck Prince in the financial crisis. To establish credibility and inspire confidence, most people were looking for the second type of candidate, someone with strong credentials as a successful leader from a large financial institution, and the chairman even made an offer to such a candidate. He was in essentially the same industry but without experience in toxic assets, which were at the heart of Citi's crisis; he was successful in part because he had avoided such instruments. Through the heavy-handed persuasion of a highly regarded director who had lived with these toxic issues for much of his life, the board within hours reversed its position and turned to the first type of candidate, Vikram Pandit, the internal expert on toxic assets. The board believed Pandit would grow as a leader, and he did.

????Citi is not totally out of the woods, but no one now questions the choice of Pandit. Making the right decision about what Citi needed most made the difference.

Set the new CEO up for success.

????No candidate is a perfect fit. The board should identify where the winning candidate falls short and determine how to help him or her close the gap. Directors need to discuss up front what risks they're taking by choosing that candidate. They should also try to imagine how the candidate might evolve over time. An emerging best practice is to appoint a senior director as a sounding board and coach to help make the new CEO successful, with a highly structured plan for delivering that help in the CEO's first year.

????Corporate leadership has shifted from the CEO to the board. In this age of intense competition and accelerating change, boards must above all demonstrate excellence in their No. 1 job of having the right CEO at all times. Following these four practices will vastly improve their chances.

????Is your board good enough to do the job they're accountable for?