誰說商人不是好政治家
Jeffrey Sonnenfeld
2018-06-27
|
自從媒體曝出星巴克前董事長霍華德·舒爾茨或?qū)⒏傔x美國總統(tǒng)的消息，政治觀察圈就傳來了一片冷嘲熱諷。這也提醒了我們，企業(yè)家的職業(yè)軌跡是很容易固化的。這主要有兩個原因：一是企業(yè)家自身不愿意承擔(dān)轉(zhuǎn)行的風(fēng)險；二是因為所謂的“專家學(xué)者”天生對商人有種“你也配從政”的迷之鄙視，打心眼兒里不把半路轉(zhuǎn)行的商人當(dāng)成是“搞政治的”。 先說第一個問題。很多企業(yè)家創(chuàng)業(yè)成功之后，已經(jīng)沒有了離職再就業(yè)的動機。我曾寫過一本研究CEO更替的書，名叫《英雄的告別》（The Hero’s Farewell），我在書中將這一類企業(yè)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)稱為“帝王型領(lǐng)袖”。 比如今年87歲的傳媒大亨魯伯特·默多克，自從父親去世，他接手家族生意算起，他已經(jīng)統(tǒng)治他的新聞帝國長達65年了。另一位傳媒大佬薩默·雷德斯通也統(tǒng)治了他的娛樂帝國近50年，直到2016年退休——雖然后期他的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)能力越來越走下坡路。聯(lián)邦快遞公司CEO費雷德·史密斯也領(lǐng)導(dǎo)了這家他親自創(chuàng)辦的公司長達47年之久。 成功不一定要成為限制企業(yè)家人生選擇的窠臼。舒爾茨認(rèn)為，35年的商海生涯對他來說已經(jīng)夠長了。另外跟以上“帝王型領(lǐng)袖”不同，舒爾茨是可以選擇自行離開的，除了辦企業(yè)，他的人生還有其他的興趣。但“帝王型領(lǐng)袖”的人生已經(jīng)與他們的企業(yè)捆綁在了一起，可以說他們是在為企業(yè)活著。而舒爾茨則是出于巨大的社會責(zé)任感而選擇了自愿辭職從政。 舒爾茨的決定一開始受到了不少人的肯定，但《華爾街日報》記者霍爾曼·詹金斯卻對人們的熱情不屑一顧，他表示：“他就像很多人眼中的那種商業(yè)精英型政治明星，他沒有足夠的膽量去做一些必要的事情來贏得總統(tǒng)選舉?！? 專門研究歷屆美國總統(tǒng)的歷史學(xué)家道格拉斯·布林克利也認(rèn)為，舒爾茨成功競選總統(tǒng)的機率非常渺茫，其他商業(yè)領(lǐng)袖同樣也不適合搞政治。他對《紐約時報》表示：“商業(yè)領(lǐng)袖競選美國總統(tǒng)成功的例子很少見，基本上只有胡佛和特朗普這兩個特例?！? 顯然，他沒有算上喬治·華盛頓和哈里·杜魯門從商的經(jīng)驗。 他們的這番論調(diào)其實并不陌生，三年前特朗普宣布要競選美國總統(tǒng)時，我們也聽過同樣的論調(diào)。當(dāng)時，各大新聞頻道都把特朗普的競選聲明當(dāng)作娛樂新聞來看。彭博社的約翰·海勒曼宣稱：“特朗普有可能成為總統(tǒng)，甚至是總統(tǒng)的候選人嗎？我不認(rèn)為。”MSNBC的麥克·巴尼克爾也表示：“我們是不是現(xiàn)在就可以說，特朗普永遠也當(dāng)不上美國總統(tǒng)了？” 當(dāng)時，支持特朗普也不是所謂的“政治正確”。2015年8月，有40位財大氣粗的共和黨大佬（多數(shù)是保守派）在經(jīng)濟學(xué)家拉里·庫德羅的家中搞了一次沙龍式晚宴，席間就他們青睞的共和黨候選人展開了一番討論。我當(dāng)時提出，有一匹黑馬被大家都忽略了，這匹黑馬就是特朗普，因為他煽動聽眾和潛在選民的能力實在不容忽視。結(jié)果人群爆發(fā)出陣陣哄笑，所有人都說他缺乏公共政策領(lǐng)域的經(jīng)驗，也沒有在民選機構(gòu)工作過，更別說他還是這么一副愛得罪人的性格。有兩個其他候選人的競選經(jīng)理當(dāng)場表示，如果特朗普過了勞動節(jié)還沒有放棄，他們只要聯(lián)合起來，就能輕松地把特朗普搞下去。 我在一篇發(fā)表于《財富》雜志的文章中曾駁斥過這些“專家”對特朗普的偏見。特朗普的個人形象當(dāng)然帶有本土主義、反女權(quán)、種族主義和“通俄”等種種負面色彩，但他的核心形象仍然是一個商人的形象，而商人在美國歷史的多個時期都曾扮演過英雄的角色。 除了特朗普以外，星巴克的前董事長舒爾茨、美國的脫口秀“一姐”奧普拉·溫弗瑞、摩根大通的杰米·戴蒙也都涉足過政界，并各自取得了不小的成就。 克服逆境的能力 從各種民間傳說中就能看出，英雄不怕出身低，越是出身貧賤的英雄，越容易給人一種平易近人的感覺。 尋常百姓看待國家領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人或商業(yè)領(lǐng)袖，也跟看待英雄差不多，他們都應(yīng)該具有敗中求勝的能力。比如特朗普本人就好幾次從破產(chǎn)中絕地求生。杰米·戴蒙1999年還曾被花旗集團開除過，但最終他卻當(dāng)上了美國第一銀行的負責(zé)人，并促成了第一銀行與摩根大通的合并。昔日的花旗銀行“勸退生”，也成了今日全球銀行界最令人敬畏的金融大亨。 奧普拉·溫弗瑞少年時曾遭遇過猥褻，14歲就懷了孕，兒子早早夭折。后來她搬到田納西與親戚住在一起，并且成為了一名優(yōu)等生，19歲時，她抓住機會成了一名電臺新聞主播。到了1986年，她已經(jīng)成了一檔日間節(jié)目的主持人。目前，她的個人財富已達30億美元。 舒爾茨7歲時，有一天回到家，發(fā)現(xiàn)他那個退伍老兵父親由于工傷已經(jīng)成了殘廢。由于他父親沒有任何醫(yī)保和離職補償，他們一家不僅經(jīng)濟困頓，精神上也陷入了絕望。后來舒爾茨獲得了一所州立大學(xué)的體育獎學(xué)金，并且靠打工上完了大學(xué)。畢業(yè)后他曾干過幾份銷售的工作，然后他發(fā)現(xiàn)當(dāng)?shù)赜幸患医行前涂说男】Х裙菊谡腥恕Ｓ纸?jīng)過幾十年的努力，他終于成了一名億萬富翁和模范雇主。 大膽求新，敢于顛覆 企業(yè)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者們一般不乏勇氣、眼光和執(zhí)行力，敢于創(chuàng)新和轉(zhuǎn)型，這些也正是我們希望國家領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人具備的特質(zhì)。他們不僅能在自己的企業(yè)中推動變革，也應(yīng)能在整個行業(yè)甚至整個社會推動變革。 在舒爾茨的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)下，星巴克從11家門店，做到了如今的28,000家門店，遍布全球77個國家。雖然不論哪個超市都在賣星巴克的罐裝咖啡，但同時“星巴克”三個字也已經(jīng)成了高端咖啡店的標(biāo)桿，說是重新定義了咖啡界也不為過。 善于學(xué)習(xí)溝通 作為一個優(yōu)秀的美國總統(tǒng)，你必須知道如何傾聽別人的聲音，如何整合復(fù)雜信息，如何推銷你的理念，如何擔(dān)負責(zé)任。這一點正是商人的長項。許多上市公司的CEO都不知疲倦地出席各種活動，在全國乃至全球各地通過他們的形象傳遞自己的理念。 比如2007年，杰米·戴蒙曾極有遠見地向美國金融監(jiān)管機構(gòu)發(fā)出警告，稱全球金融市場存在定價錯誤的風(fēng)險。在金融市場崩潰后，他成了美國國會聽證會上最清楚、可靠和值得信賴的聲音，向老百姓解釋了那些復(fù)雜的金融工具和不計后果的做法所帶來的災(zāi)難。 舒爾茨給予了他的大量支持者以見解和希望，而不是讓他們只會憤怒和抱怨。不管他做的事有多正確，人們之所以支持他，都是出于他的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)能力，而不是因為這些事以前是什么樣子。 投身公共事務(wù) 這些商人從政后，不管是當(dāng)了內(nèi)閣官員，還是委員會主席，服務(wù)的都是公共事業(yè)。比如溫弗瑞就積極投身于心臟病、地緣政治、靈性、冥想、抗癌、慈善事業(yè)、藥物濫用等很多公益事業(yè)。戴蒙也不僅僅關(guān)心摩根大通的利益，作為商業(yè)圓桌會議的主席，他也關(guān)心整個華爾街甚至華盛頓的國家大事。 舒爾茨也曾熱情投身過許多公益事業(yè)，比如可持續(xù)發(fā)展、種族關(guān)系、槍支暴力、貧富差距、經(jīng)濟發(fā)展、退伍軍人就業(yè)和財政赤字等等。 社會需要戰(zhàn)士，也需要外交官、探險者、技術(shù)員和企業(yè)家。社會最需要哪些人充當(dāng)英雄，取決于社會最大的不確定性是什么，也取決于領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者的個人角色。有了公眾的鼓勵，或許將有越來越多經(jīng)驗豐富的企業(yè)家扔掉他們的“王冠”，投身到政治活動中來。 下一屆美國總統(tǒng)或許不是溫弗瑞、戴蒙或者舒爾茨這些人，但特朗普也絕對不會是最后一個商人出身的美國總統(tǒng)。因此，所謂的“政治專家們”應(yīng)該認(rèn)真了解一下企業(yè)家精神，學(xué)會公正地評價商人，而不是因為他們沒機會當(dāng)官，就斷言他們不是從政的料。（財富中文網(wǎng)） 本文作者杰弗里·索南菲爾德是耶魯大學(xué)管理學(xué)院領(lǐng)導(dǎo)力研究高級副院長、管理實務(wù)教授，也是《反擊：CEO如何從職業(yè)災(zāi)難中反彈》一書的作者。 譯者：樸成奎 |
The wave of cynicism that followed the speculation that Starbucks Chairman Howard Schultz was departing the corner office for the campaign trail reminds us how easy it is for leaders to get typecast. Two very different barriers are: 1) the leader’s reluctance to take a risk and try a career switch and 2) the unwillingness of cynical pundits to take seriously later-career business leaders as newcomers to politics. On the first barrier, those leaders who control their own thrones see little reason to leave. In my study of CEO succession, The Hero’s Farewell, I termed such leaders as “monarchs.” Media monarch Rupert Murdoch, at age 87, amazingly has run his news empire for 65 years, taking over from his father after his death. Fellow media baron Sumner Redstone ran his entertainment empire for roughly 50 years until 2016 despite deteriorating command. FedEx CEO Fred Smith has led the business he founded for 47 years. But business leaders do not have to be trapped by their success. Schultz decided that 35 years was long enough for him, and unlike the above monarchs, was able to voluntarily depart. He has other interests beyond the enterprise. Business monarchs generally do not—and live only for the business. It is due to this large societal calling, then, that Schultz can make this voluntary exit. The Wall Street Journal’s Holman Jenkins dismissed the initial public enthusiasm for this move, suggesting, “Like many business types with political stars in their eyes…h(huán)e perhaps lacks the stomach to do what’s necessary to win in presidential politics.” Similarly, presidential historian Douglas Brinkley dismissed Schultz’s prospects as well as those of other business leaders, telling The New York Times, “The history of business leaders in the White House has not been good. You basically have Herbert Hoover and Donald Trump.” Apparently he discounts the business experience of George Washington and Harry Truman. The skeptics are reminiscent of the same groupthink haze we heard three years back. On the day Trump announced his candidacy for president, the major news networks framed it as nothing more than entertainment. Bloomberg’s John Heilemann announced: “Will it get him anywhere close to becoming the nominee or the President of the United States? I think not.” MSNBC’s Mike Barnicle proclaimed: “Can we stipulate for the purposes of this conversation that Donald Trump will never be President of the United States?” He was taken no more seriously on the political right. At an August 2015 salon-style dinner in then-TV economist Larry Kudlow’s home, 40 deep-pocketed, largely conservative Republican fellow guests debated the qualities of their favorite Republican candidates. I suggested that the missing “elephant in the room” candidate to be discussed was Trump, given his ability to electrify audiences and address disaffected potential voters. The group exploded in gales of laughter, commenting on his lack of public policy experience or service in elected office—let alone his offensive style. The managers of two other campaigns insisted they’d join forces to easily destroy Trump’s candidacy if it lived past Labor Day. I challenged such pundit ridicule of Trump’s chances in a Fortune article. Regardless of the contribution of voter nativist sentiment, misogyny, racism, and Russian interference, Trump tapped into core iconography of mythic American business figures, which has made them heroic at various times in our history. Other private sector contenders to the White House such as Schultz, Oprah Winfrey, and Jamie Dimon offer parallel relevant crossover appeal to public service. Resilience from adversity Folklorists have highlighted the importance of humble origins for heroes to show a common touch and accessibility. We look to presidents and business leaders like mythic heroes to provide a path to recovery from setbacks. Trump rebounded from multiple bankruptcies. Dimon was fired from Citigroup in 1999. He eventually took over the troubled Bank One, leading it into a merger with JPMorgan Chase, which resulted in Dimon becoming the most feared and revered global banker. Winfrey was molested through her childhood and early teens, became pregnant at 14, and lost her son in his infancy. She moved to Tennessee to live with a relative, became an honors student, and got a break to be a radio news anchor at age 19. By 1986, she was hosting her own daytime show and has since accumulated $3 billion of personal wealth. Schultz came home from school at age 7 to discover his father, a war veteran, was disabled due to an industrial accident. Lacking health insurance, workman’s compensation, or severance, they were financially impoverished and spiritually demoralized. Schultz earned an athletic scholarship to a state college and worked his way through school. Later he drifted through sales roles before he discovered the small regional coffee company called Starbucks, becoming a billionaire as well as a model employer. Bold, disruptive impact CEOs can show the same courage, vision, and execution we seek in a U.S. president through their ability to create and spark transformations. They trigger transformation not just in their own business, but across their industry, across sectors, and beyond Schultz took Starbucks from 11 to 28,000 stores in 77 countries. It became the standard for premium coffee despite being available in grocery stores everywhere—while its own stores reinvented café society. Great learners and communicators Good U.S. presidents must know how to listen, integrate new complex information, sell concepts, and be accountable. With indefatigable energy, many public company CEOs drive nearby ubiquitous campaigns to convey their message around the nation and around the world relying upon vivid imagery. In 2007, Dimon challenged leading financial regulators prophetically warning of mispriced risk in global markets. After financial markets collapsed, he become the most reliable, trusted, clear voice in congressional hearings untangling complex instruments and reckless practices for the public to understand. Schultz draws large town hall audiences advancing with vision and hope rather than angry finger-pointing slogans. However virtuous his causes, they are generally defined around his own leadership over pre-existing movements. Sweeping civic causes Serving as cabinet officers and commission chairs, they champion national causes. Winfrey has championed issues regarding: heart disease, geopolitics, spirituality, meditation, inter cancer, charity work, and substance abuse, Dimon has gone above and beyond parochial JP Morgan interests to bridge Wall Street, Main Street, and Washington as chairman of the Business Roundtable. Schultz has passionately launched virtuous, if transitory, initiatives regarding: sustainability, race relations, gun violence, income disparity, economic development, veteran employment, and the budget deficit. Society turns to warriors, diplomats, explorers, technologists, and even business titans, depending on where our greatest uncertainties lie and thus anoint its heroes depending on our needs and the leaders’ personas. With public encouragement, longstanding business titans may increasingly be drawn off their thrones into political campaigns. The next U.S. president may not be Oprah Winfrey, Jamie Dimon, or Howard Schultz, but Donald Trump is surely not our last. Thus, the political pundits should start to learn about business to learn to judge them rather than to write them off because they did not have a chance to serve as public officials. Jeffrey Sonnenfeld is the senior associate dean for leadership studies and Lester Crown professor of management practice at the Yale School of Management, and author of Firing Back: How CEOs Rebound From Career Disasters. |
財富中文網(wǎng)所刊載內(nèi)容之知識產(chǎn)權(quán)為財富媒體知識產(chǎn)權(quán)有限公司及/或相關(guān)權(quán)利人專屬所有或持有。未經(jīng)許可，禁止進行轉(zhuǎn)載、摘編、復(fù)制及建立鏡像等任何使用。
