????上一次，雷富禮從消費(fèi)品巨頭寶潔公司卸任CEO一職時(shí)，被許多人視為企業(yè)史上最謹(jǐn)慎的權(quán)力移交之一。

????筆者曾經(jīng)對雷富禮及其繼任者麥睿博（現(xiàn)任美國聯(lián)邦政府退伍軍人事務(wù)部部長）進(jìn)行過數(shù)日的采訪，《財(cái)富》雜志隨后刊發(fā)的文章詳細(xì)介紹了他為何以及如何選擇麥睿博作為自己的接班人。雷富禮于2009年退休，被稱贊為空前的英雄式CEO。此后，作為一位備受歡迎的企業(yè)戰(zhàn)略專家，他開始了一段金光熠熠的半退休生活。

????為確保權(quán)杖順利交接，寶潔公司開展了諸多工作，但收效甚微。由于經(jīng)濟(jì)陷于衰退，雷富禮迅速卸去董事長職務(wù)，以及麥睿博自身的過失等諸多原因，寶潔公司設(shè)計(jì)完美的權(quán)力交接計(jì)劃產(chǎn)生了令人失望的結(jié)果。在麥睿博任期內(nèi)，寶潔公司艱難地應(yīng)對著核心美妝護(hù)理業(yè)務(wù)嚴(yán)重下滑、創(chuàng)新速度放緩、來自維權(quán)股東的審查、以及員工士氣下降等問題。2013年，麥睿博在壓力下黯然辭職，雷富禮再度出山。

????然而，在不到兩年后的今天，《華爾街日期》報(bào)道稱，大衛(wèi)?泰勒將被任命為寶潔公司（其銷售額達(dá)到830億美元）下任CEO。寶潔公司“未對傳言發(fā)表評論”。此次權(quán)利交接會比上次效果更好嗎？

????當(dāng)然，這項(xiàng)任命并不會讓人感到驚訝。泰勒已在寶潔公司工作35年，一直被視為最有力的競爭者。今年1月公司重組時(shí)，泰勒被任命為寶潔公司美容美妝護(hù)理和保健業(yè)務(wù)全球總裁，這被外界看作是成為繼任CEO的信號。與麥睿博相同，泰勒符合擔(dān)任寶潔公司典型CEO的各方面條件：在寶潔工作多年，擁有全球（中國和西歐）和多業(yè)務(wù)部門工作經(jīng)驗(yàn)（護(hù)發(fā)、家庭和居家護(hù)理業(yè)務(wù)）；在公司內(nèi)部備受尊敬；是男性白種人（多位女性候選人落選）。

????寶潔公司原市場銷售經(jīng)理吉姆?斯登戈?duì)柋硎?，“大衛(wèi)是個(gè)不錯(cuò)的選擇。他很聰明、擁有個(gè)人魅力，非常正直，而且全心全意為寶潔公司服務(wù)?！?/p>

????在第二屆任期期間，雷富禮進(jìn)行了大量的重組工作，砍掉約100種表現(xiàn)不佳的品牌，努力推動陷于停滯的公司文化的發(fā)展，并大幅削減成本。但寶潔股票的表現(xiàn)仍低于麥睿博任職時(shí)期，銷售增長依舊停滯，在截至6月30日的財(cái)年中，估計(jì)增長率約為2%。

????雷富禮致力于推動寶潔公司實(shí)現(xiàn)成功。他放棄舒適輕松的退休生活，致力于解決問題的做法，理應(yīng)獲得無數(shù)的贊賞。但是，如果他在重掌大印不足兩年后，而且公司仍面臨著與以往相同的長期挑戰(zhàn)時(shí)離任，人們很容易從不同角度看待他的聲譽(yù)，并懷疑另一位完全勝任的內(nèi)部候選人能否扭轉(zhuǎn)乾坤。（財(cái)富中文網(wǎng)）

????The last time A.G. Lafley stepped down as CEO of the Procter & Gamble Company PG 0.33% , it was interpreted (by many, but especially by me), as one of the most carefully considered handoffs in corporate history.

????I spent days with Lafley and his successor, Bob McDonald (now head of the federal Veterans Affairs Administration), and the piece Fortune published detailed exactly how—and why—McDonald was chosen. Lafley retired in 2009, hailed as an all-time CEO hero, and began a gilded semi-retirement as an in-demand guru on corporate strategy.

????But for all the work done to ensure a smooth succession, it didn’t work. For many reasons, including the recession, Lafley’s quick exit as chairman, and McDonald’s own missteps, P&G’s perfectly planned succession turned sour. Under McDonald’s tenure, the consumer products giant battled a big slowdown in its core beauty business, slowing innovation, scrutiny from activist shareholders, and sinking morale. In 2013, McDonald resigned under pressure, to be replaced by Lafley once again. (For Fortune’s deep dive on this, see “Can Procter & Gamble CEO Bob McDonald hang on?”)

????Now, less than two years later, WSJ is reporting—and the company is “not commenting on speculation”—that David Taylor is about to be named the next CEO of the $83 billion in sales Procter & Gamble. Will this handoff go better than the last one?

????Certainly, if the transition is announced on Tuesday, after the company’s board meeting, it would come as no surprise. Taylor, a 35-year P&G vet, has long been considered a top contender. Since a reshuffling in January, when Taylor was elevated to group president for global beauty, grooming and health care, it seemed all but certain that he would be the next inhabitant of the corner office. Like McDonald, Taylor checks all the boxes of a typical P&G CEO: a long career at the company, including both global (China, Western Europe) and multiple business unit expertise (hair, family, home care); he’s well respected internally; and, yes, he’s a white male (several female candidates fell by the wayside).

????“David is a great choice,” says former P&G global head of marketing Jim Stengel. “He is smart, engaging, deep in integrity, and totally committed to P&G.”

????Lafley has done a lot of reorganizing in his second tenure at P&G. He announced the company’s intention to sell off some 100 underperforming brand, tried to get the moribund culture moving, and cut costs dramatically. Yet the company’s stock performance has lagged what it was under McDonald, and sales growth remains stagnant, up an estimated 2% in the fiscal year ended June 30.

????Lafley is clearly committed to P&G’s success, and he deserves enormous credit for giving up his comfortable and easy retirement to focus on the hard stuff. But if he leaves now—after less than two years back at the helm and with the company still facing the same secular challenges as before—it’s hard not to consider his reputation in a different light, and wonder whether yet another perfectly qualified internal candidate can make a difference.