????隨著時間的推移，魯伯特?默多克建立的媒體帝國在丑聞泥潭中愈陷愈深。昨天，默多克出席了英國議會的聽證會，在此之前，對于默多克是否會辭去CEO一職（可能由COO蔡斯?凱里接任），媒體眾說紛紜。 這位身陷困境的媒體大亨將何去何從？

????上周，在發(fā)給道瓊斯公司（Dow Jones）員工的電子郵件中，默多克放下自己的架子寫道：“我只強調(diào)一點——新聞集團（News Corporation）并不是魯伯特?默多克?！边@與其一直以來表現(xiàn)出的英雄形象形成鮮明對比。

????目前，默多克在新聞集團擔(dān)任CEO兼董事長，在公司擁有約40%的投票權(quán)。

????但鑒于在他的統(tǒng)治下，新聞集團近年來所遭遇的種種困境，他是否應(yīng)該辭去CEO或者董事長得職位，甚至辭去全部兩個職位？

????很明顯，公司內(nèi)部需要進行徹底整頓，董事會需要換血。如果董事會對于多年來的指責(zé)無動于衷，那說明它失職。

????而對于新聞集團而言，這個問題更加嚴(yán)重。因為作為股東，默多克控制了公司的投票權(quán)。這么大的權(quán)利有何制約？少數(shù)股東的權(quán)利是否得到了保護？

????通常在危機來臨時，人們便會想起是否應(yīng)將CEO與董事長這兩個職位分開的問題（即兩個職位分別由不同人擔(dān)任）?！颈热缑绹y行（Bank of America）的肯?劉易斯】在目前的情況下，新聞集團可以重新任命一位董事長，或者默多克可以辭去CEO一職，只擔(dān)任董事長一職。

????但是如果默多克繼續(xù)擔(dān)任董事長，他的獨立性卻會引起質(zhì)疑。

????全美公司董事協(xié)會（National Association of Corporate Directors）創(chuàng)始人兼名譽主席約翰?M?納什（完全披露：納什曾在筆者公司任職）認(rèn)為，董事會所應(yīng)做的不僅僅是將董事長與CEO的職位分離。他表示：“董事長也不應(yīng)該由前CEO擔(dān)任，”因為這會削弱公司的治理結(jié)構(gòu)。

????那默多克擔(dān)任CEO又如何？

????納什認(rèn)為，暫且不提新聞集團所面臨的困境；單就實現(xiàn)公司良好治理普遍所需的條件來說，CEO不應(yīng)該加入任何董事會，包括他自己公司的董事會。

????納什表示，CEO可以參加董事會會議，但“不應(yīng)享有投票權(quán)” 。

????他認(rèn)為，明確誰是“受雇的職業(yè)殺手”，誰負(fù)責(zé)主持會議，又由誰來掌控CEO（的行為），這對于董事會的效力至關(guān)重要。CEO通常難以區(qū)分自己在董事會中的角色與他們的管理層成員的身份。

????筆者曾經(jīng)采訪過不在公司董事會任職的CEO，詢問他們對此作何感想，他們都表示對這種安排并不介意。他們認(rèn)為這種安排不但非常有效，而且明確了不同職位的職責(zé)劃分。

????在標(biāo)準(zhǔn)普爾500強（S&P 500）公司中，CEO不在董事會任職的公司包括O'Reilly汽車零部件銷售公司、鈦金屬公司（Titanium Metals Corporation）、電玩站公司（GameStop）、泰森食品（Tyson）與莎莉集團（Sara Lee）。

????如果CEO默多克能放棄他的董事會席位，或許新聞集團可以成立一個真正獨立的董事會。（默多克可以繼續(xù)擔(dān)任CEO，但必須放棄其董事會投票權(quán)。）

????之后，新組建的董事會就能開始著手確定一系列關(guān)鍵事務(wù)，比如CEO的繼任等，展開適當(dāng)?shù)膬?nèi)部調(diào)查，確定相關(guān)人員的去留。

????當(dāng)然，這一切可能都不會發(fā)生；但危機大幕已經(jīng)拉開，一切皆有可能。

????本文作者愛麗諾?布洛斯罕是董事會咨詢機構(gòu)價值聯(lián)盟和公司治理聯(lián)盟（The Value Alliance and Corporate Governance Alliance，http://thevaluealliance.com）首席執(zhí)行官。

????（翻譯 劉進龍）

????With each passing day, it looks like things are only getting worse for the media empire that Rupert Murdoch built. And with mixed reports over whether Murdoch will step down as CEO (potentially leaving COO Chase Carey to take the reins) in the run-up to his testimony before parliament today, what will be this beleaguered media mogul's fate?

????In contrast to his larger than life image and the reality of the power he wields, last week in an email to Dow Jones employees, Murdoch wrote: "Let me emphasize one point -- News Corporation is not Rupert Murdoch."

????Currently, Murdoch holds both the CEO and chair positions at News Corp (NWS) along with approximately 40% of the voting rights of the firm.

????But given all that has occurred at News Corp in the recent years under his reign, should he resign as CEO or chair or both?

????Clearly, the company needs to clean house and update its board. Boards that fail to look into serious allegations that drag over many years are not doing their job.

????At News Corp, the issue is even more critical because of the control Murdoch exercises as a shareholder over voting rights at the firm. What are the checks on so much power and the rights of minority shareholders for protection?

????The question of whether to separate the CEO and chair positions (so two, separate people occupy those posts) often arises when crisis hits. (Think Ken Lewis at Bank of America (BAC).) Under such a scenario, a new chair could be appointed -- or Murdoch could vacate the CEO slot and become the chair.

????But as a chair, Murdoch's independence would be a problem.

????John M. Nash, founder and president emeritus of the National Association of Corporate Directors (Full disclosure: Nash has done work for me and my firm), believes that boards should do more than just separate the chair and CEO positions. "Chairs should not be the former CEO," as it weakens the governance structure, he says.

????What about the CEO spot for Murdoch?

????As a general matter of good governance, regardless of News Corp's woes, Nash thinks that CEOs should not sit on any board, including their own company's board.

????The CEO can attend board meetings, but "shouldn't have a vote," Nash says.

????He believes it is important to boardroom effectiveness to be clear about who's the "hired gun", who runs the meeting, and who is holding the CEO accountable (for his or her actions). CEOs often have a difficult time separating their role on the board from their role as a member of management.

????When I've asked CEOs who don't sit on their company's board what they think about it, they tell me they don't mind the arrangement at all. It works well for them and does bring clarity related to who is accountable to whom.

????Examples of S&P 500 companies with CEOs who do not sit on their company's board include O'Reilly Automotive, Titanium Metals Corporation, GameStop, Tyson, and Sara Lee.

????Perhaps if CEO Murdoch gave up his board seat, a truly independent board could be installed. (Murdoch could stay on as CEO without a board vote.)

????Then, that newly constituted board could go about the business of making decisions on critical items like CEO succession, conduct a proper internal investigation, and determine who stays and who goes.

????Sure, it may not happen, but anything is possible as this saga unfolds.

????Eleanor Bloxham is CEO of The Value Alliance and Corporate Governance Alliance (http://thevaluealliance.com), a board advisory firm.