????不久前與漢克?鮑爾森交談時(shí)，他的一句話讓我沉思：“從上世紀(jì)70年代起我就開(kāi)始和CEO們打交道，當(dāng)今的CEO們比過(guò)去強(qiáng)太多了。

????當(dāng)然，他有底氣這么說(shuō)。他服務(wù)高盛（Goldman Sachs）多年后升任這家銀行的CEO，之后又當(dāng)過(guò)美國(guó)財(cái)政部長(zhǎng)，對(duì)于很多大公司CEO們都有著近距離的觀察。那么，他說(shuō)的對(duì)嗎？

????我認(rèn)為，他說(shuō)的沒(méi)錯(cuò)。很多人都抱怨，現(xiàn)在不再有CEO英雄了，但有力的論據(jù)證明，我們實(shí)際上正處在杰出CEO人才輩出的黃金時(shí)代。假如亞馬遜（Amazon）的杰夫?貝佐斯今天退休，必將入圍五十年CEO名人堂，而他現(xiàn)在才49歲。史蒂夫?喬布斯把一家瀕于倒閉的公司變成了一家全球最有價(jià)值的公司，他也將因?yàn)閷?duì)蘋(píng)果（Apple）產(chǎn)品的管理性創(chuàng)新而被載入史冊(cè)。我不確定是否能有CEO比美國(guó)運(yùn)通（American Express)的肯?錢納特做得出色很多。沒(méi)人關(guān)注海爾集團(tuán)（Haier Group）的張瑞敏，但我要告訴你，他將被人們作為中國(guó)的杰克?韋爾奇而被廣為傳誦。一談起好市多（Costco）的詹姆斯?辛尼格或IBM的彭明盛 (這兩人都已于去年離職)，我就有太多話要說(shuō)。我還可以繼續(xù)講下去。

????如今的CEO們變得更出色了，不只是我們印象如此。現(xiàn)在的CEO比上世紀(jì)70年代的CEO更出色是有原因的。試想一下：

????——那時(shí)，很少有美國(guó)公司直接面對(duì)一流的海外巨頭競(jìng)爭(zhēng)。當(dāng)年，歐洲仍在努力走出二戰(zhàn)的陰影；中國(guó)和俄羅斯是共產(chǎn)主義國(guó)家；印度因社會(huì)運(yùn)動(dòng)而一團(tuán)糟。隨著業(yè)務(wù)的國(guó)際化，CEO實(shí)際上已被從高中運(yùn)動(dòng)場(chǎng)推著走進(jìn)了奧運(yùn)會(huì)，而且已經(jīng)顯著提高了競(jìng)技水平。

????——當(dāng)前對(duì)CEO們的審查要多很多。雖說(shuō)現(xiàn)在很流行對(duì)于明星CEO的出現(xiàn)不屑一顧，但在上世紀(jì)70年代，沒(méi)有幾個(gè)美國(guó)人能叫出一家《財(cái)富》美國(guó)500強(qiáng)公司CEO的名字。一旦世人都知道你的名字，風(fēng)險(xiǎn)可就大了。

????——如今股東擁有的權(quán)力要大很多。理論上，股東總是可以解聘CEO，但這幾乎從未發(fā)生過(guò)。如今，由于很多原因——股份集中在機(jī)構(gòu)手中、美國(guó)證券交易委員會(huì)（SEC）的規(guī)則調(diào)整、科技促進(jìn)和便利了股東之間的溝通——權(quán)力平衡已經(jīng)發(fā)生了改變。不讓對(duì)沖投資巨頭比爾?阿卡曼插手的最佳方式就是確保他沒(méi)有任何理由染指。

????Talking with Hank Paulson not long ago, I was stopped short by an observation he made: "I've been working with CEOs since the 1970s, and CEOs today are so much better than they used to be."

????He's certainly in a strong position to judge. In a long career at Goldman Sachs (GS), where he rose to CEO, and then as Treasury Secretary, he got a close-up look at a wide range of major corporate chiefs. So is he right?

????I think he is. Many people lament that there aren't any CEO heroes anymore, but a powerful case can be made that we're actually in a golden age of outstanding CEOs. If Amazon's (AMZN) Jeff Bezos retired today he'd be in the CEO pantheon of the past 50 years, and he's still only 49. Steve Jobs, who turned a failing company into the world's most valuable, will be remembered as much for his managerial innovations as for Apple's (AAPL) products. I'm not sure CEOs get much better than American Express' (AXP) Ken Chenault. No one pays attention to Haier Group's Zhang Ruimin (HRELF), but I'm telling you now that he'll be remembered as the Chinese Jack Welch. Don't get me started on Costco's (COST) Jim Sinegal or IBM's Sam Palmisano (IBM), both of whom stepped down last year. I could keep going.

????The notion that CEOs have improved is more than just an impression. It stands to reason that they'd be better now than they were in the '70s. Consider:

????-Back then most U.S. businesses were barely exposed to giant, top-caliber foreign competitors. Europe was still recovering from the destruction of World War II; China and Russia were communist; India was a socialist basket case. As business has globalized, CEOs have in effect been pushed from high school sports to the Olympics and have had to raise their game dramatically.

????-CEOs are under far more scrutiny today. It's fashionable to deride the advent of the celebrity CEO, but in the '70s, few Americans could name the CEO of any Fortune 500 company. When the world knows your name, the stakes get higher.

????-Shareholders have far more power today. In theory, shareholders could always fire the CEO, but it almost never happened. Today, for many reasons -- shares more concentrated in the hands of institutions, SEC rule changes, technology that lets shareholders find one another and communicate far more easily -- the balance of power has shifted. The best way not to hear fromBill Ackman is to make sure he has no reason to call.