成人小说亚洲一区二区三区,亚洲国产精品一区二区三区,国产精品成人精品久久久,久久综合一区二区三区,精品无码av一区二区,国产一级a毛一级a看免费视频,欧洲uv免费在线区一二区,亚洲国产欧美中日韩成人综合视频,国产熟女一区二区三区五月婷小说,亚洲一区波多野结衣在线

在2018年美國大公司新上任的CEO中，叫杰弗里和邁克爾的人比女性的數(shù)量還多。（是的，你沒有看錯：2018年被任命為CEO的人中，兩位叫邁克爾，兩位叫杰弗里，卻只有一位女性。）目前企業(yè)高管的人事變動增多，但超大型公司CEO們的任職時間平均卻接近10年，或至少和以往的任職時間一樣長。今天CEO最重要的訓(xùn)練基地是哪？不是蘋果或微軟，而是不斷創(chuàng)新的飲料企業(yè)——百事公司。

這些只是2018年《新CEO報告》中的其中一些觀察，這是Feigen Advisors（TheNewCEOReport.com）對標(biāo)普500公司中最大的250家（按照2018年歲入計算）新任命CEO的情況進行的一項調(diào)查。該公司的創(chuàng)始人馬克·費根（我給他起了個綽號叫“CEO代言人”）為美國候任CEO提供一流咨詢服務(wù)。費根的專長是CEO的繼任問題。他為被選定接替現(xiàn)任CEO的高管提供赴任前咨詢，幫助他們制定戰(zhàn)略愿景，把他們引薦給一個由《財富》美國500強企業(yè)退休高管組成的智囊團來為他們提供建議，讓接任過程更加順利。費根曾經(jīng)指導(dǎo)過（或者仍然在繼續(xù)提供指導(dǎo)）的在任CEO包括華特迪士尼的（Walt Disney）的鮑勃·艾格、雅詩蘭黛（Estee Lauder）的法布里齊奧·弗雷達和哈特福德（The Hartford）的克里斯·斯威夫特。

這份關(guān)于2018年信任CEO的報告可以將副標(biāo)題定為“穩(wěn)定性研究”，甚至是“我們又來了”。2014年以來，費根每年都會撰寫新報告，而今年的結(jié)果再一次證明，美國企業(yè)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人換屆的方式年復(fù)一年，始終如一——好的壞的方面都是如此。新任CEO再一次被資深的公司內(nèi)部人士主導(dǎo)，他們按照精心策劃的繼任程序接替任期（長得驚人）屆滿的前任。大部分都不是突然的調(diào)整。在企業(yè)巨頭中，因為董事會不滿或公司突然任命外部CEO被趕下臺的CEO比例非常低。

但美國企業(yè)對固有做法的堅守存在明顯缺點，其中包括董事會未能成功培養(yǎng)女性擔(dān)任最高職位。這導(dǎo)致了女性CEO的數(shù)量明顯不足，盡管各個大公司都聲稱自己在保護女性的職業(yè)前景，但這種情況并沒有得到改善。

費根在2018年《新CEO報告》中探索了一些非常重要且大都由來已久的趨勢。以下是其中重要的五點判斷。

大多數(shù)新CEO都是公司資深內(nèi)部人士

2014年以來，費根每年都撰寫新報告，因此將去年的結(jié)果和五年的整體趨勢進行對于很能說明情況。再次發(fā)現(xiàn)一些特點驚人得一致。報告發(fā)現(xiàn)，標(biāo)普指數(shù)前250家公司在去年更換了23位CEO。流動率為9.2%，低于5年間的平均數(shù)字11%。也就是說，盡管中小型企業(yè)的CEO任期年限正在變短，大企業(yè)至少仍然和過去一樣穩(wěn)定。但是，大企業(yè)的CEO們并沒有變得更年輕：2018年他們的平均年齡是56歲，而5年來的平均年齡是54.6歲。

在23位新CEO中，20位是董事會從公司內(nèi)部提拔的，占87%。在這20人中，16人在公司長期任職，平均而言，他們在本公司的工作時間遠遠超過20年。這與近幾年的數(shù)據(jù)是一致的。自2014年以來，134位新CEO中有112位（84%）是內(nèi)部人士。例如，邁克·沃斯1982年大學(xué)畢業(yè)后就加入雪佛龍，史蒂夫·斯奎里1985年加入Travelers Cheque Group，開始了在美國運通工作的經(jīng)歷。

但其他四名內(nèi)部人士卻走了一條不同的道路。他們大多是過去幾年從競爭對手公司中招聘來的，在本公司就任高級職位后，在一系列崗位上快速晉升，充分展示了讓他們贏得最高職位的特質(zhì)。湯姆·貝內(nèi)2013年離開百事，加入餐飲巨頭西斯科（Sysco），擔(dān)任首席商品官，洛克希德-馬丁公司（Lockheed Martin）的資深員工克里斯·庫巴西克于2015年以確定接班人的身份加入國防承包商L3 Technologies，擔(dān)任首席運營官。

招聘外部人士通常是為了拯救狀況不佳的公司

美國大公司的CEO任職時間都很長。去年，離職CEO的平均任期是9.3年，略高于近5年的平均任期（9年）。絕大多數(shù)退休是計劃之中的，而非因為危機。去年，23位新任CEO中有18位從任期屆滿的前任手中接過了火炬，他們在離職前都會按照精心安排的流程履行接任程序。這不是什么新鮮事；自2014年以來，約四分之三的CEO換屆都是計劃內(nèi)的，而非即興動作。

當(dāng)董事會迫使CEO辭職時，外部人士是最常見的選擇。在20多位新任CEO中，只有三位來自于公司外部，招聘他們往往是為了挽救境況不佳的公司。其中兩人的任命是因為董事會對前任表現(xiàn)不滿。曾在通用電氣董事會任職的拉里·卡爾普放棄了工業(yè)集團丹納赫（Danaher）的最高職位，成為這家陷入困境的電力和航天巨頭126年歷史上首位來自于公司外部的掌門人。他的前任約翰·弗蘭納里在上任14個月以后被董事會解雇了。馬文·埃里森放棄了彭尼百貨（J.C. Penney）的CEO一職，轉(zhuǎn)而執(zhí)掌勞氏（Lowe’s)），勞氏的股價表現(xiàn)一直不如競爭對手家得寶（Home Depot）。第三位外來者約翰·維辛丁是因為股東的反抗登上權(quán)力頂峰的?；钴S分子卡爾·伊坎領(lǐng)導(dǎo)了一場激烈的代理權(quán)爭奪戰(zhàn)之后，他親自挑選維辛丁接管了在復(fù)印機行業(yè)銷售不斷縮水的施樂（Xerox），希望他能開展一次大營救。

董事會青睞曾領(lǐng)導(dǎo)關(guān)鍵運營部門的候選人

在過去五年134位新上任的CEO中，至少有107位（80%）的簡歷上有同一個關(guān)鍵性的亮點：運營公司關(guān)鍵業(yè)務(wù)部門的經(jīng)驗。在所有新上任的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者中，超過一半的人——幾乎所有人都有過業(yè)務(wù)部門的運營經(jīng)驗——在他們升任之前曾經(jīng)擔(dān)任首席運營官、總裁或兩者兼而有之。也就是說，他們的上一個角色不是高級員工，而是負責(zé)整個公司的運營和財務(wù)業(yè)績。顯然，董事們想要的是曾經(jīng)在核心部門親力親為自負盈虧并成功證明了自己的管理者。

董事會也喜歡前任CEO。為重振勞氏、通用電氣和施樂而引入的外部人士都曾擔(dān)任過CEO——維辛廷此前曾經(jīng)擔(dān)任過流程自動化供應(yīng)商Novitex的CEO。首席財務(wù)官是第二大重要跳板，不過前財務(wù)部分負責(zé)人的數(shù)量遠遠落后于業(yè)務(wù)部門負責(zé)人。去年對于前任首席財務(wù)官來說是個好年頭，他們中有5人升為CEO，包括威瑞森（Verizon）的衛(wèi)翰思和奧馳亞（Altria）的霍華德·威拉德。其他職位很少能夠晉升為CEO：過去五年中，只有9%的CEO來自于市場營銷部門，僅有5%來自于后臺運營。

最好的CEO訓(xùn)練營是一家薯條可樂巨頭

大多數(shù)CEO都擁有非常出色的教育背景。2014年至2018年，超過60%的新CEO擁有研究生學(xué)位，幾乎一半擁有MBA學(xué)位。62個MBA中，11個來自于哈佛商學(xué)院。

CEO的頂級培訓(xùn)基地是哪？百事公司遙遙領(lǐng)先。2014年以來新的CEO中有9人曾經(jīng)在百事工作過,包括塔吉特（Target）的布萊恩·康奈爾（他曾經(jīng)執(zhí)掌百事的美洲食品部門）、達美航空（Delta）的艾德·巴斯蒂安（他曾掌管菲多利）、格雷格·克里德（他把塔可鐘和肯德基開到了澳大利亞和新西蘭）、西斯科的托馬斯·貝內(nèi)（主管百事的食品服務(wù)特許經(jīng)營業(yè)務(wù)）。其中7人目前仍然在擔(dān)任CEO；只有卡夫的前CEO、現(xiàn)任卡夫亨氏（Kraft Heinz）副主席約翰·卡希爾，Express Scripts前任CEO、在Express Scripts被信諾（Cigna）收購后掌管Express業(yè)務(wù)的蒂莫西·溫特沃斯有了新職位。

百事公司為什么是一個學(xué)習(xí)的好地方？盡管你可能認為主要原因是百事公司超強的營銷能力，但該公司顯然擁有引以為豪的輪崗機制，可以讓有前途的經(jīng)理人在不同崗位得到鍛煉，這些經(jīng)理人往往可以擁有在金融、制造以及在全球建立和運營大品牌特許經(jīng)營權(quán)方面的職業(yè)經(jīng)歷。而且，從歷史上看，百事公司的人力資源項目一直是美國排名最高的人才培養(yǎng)項目之一。

女性CEO驚人匱乏

去年，23位新上任的CEO中，只有一位是女性——科爾斯百貨（Kohl’s）的米歇爾·加斯，她2013年離開星巴克，加入了這家零售企業(yè)，從此一路快速晉升至最高職位。這一令人遺憾的數(shù)字和2017年相比有所下降，那年有兩名女性被任命為CEO，分別是Anthem的蓋爾·布德羅和PG&E的瑰夏·威廉姆斯。威廉姆斯于今年1月辭職，就在這家因為加州森林大火遭受重創(chuàng)的公用事業(yè)公司申請破產(chǎn)之前。自2014年以來，134位新任CEO中只有9位是女性。令人驚訝的是，美國大公司在性別平衡方面的努力失敗了，因為衡量相關(guān)舉措成功的最終指標(biāo)應(yīng)該是女性CEO人數(shù)的激增。

以2018年為例，三名女性因退休離開了CEO行列，包括百事可樂的盧英德、惠普（Hewlett Packard）的梅格·惠特曼和桑普拉能源（Sempra Energy）的黛布拉·里德，因此女性CEO的數(shù)量減少了兩位。美國全部高管中，女性占比為四分之一以上。然而據(jù)最新統(tǒng)計，標(biāo)普指數(shù)最大的250家公司中只有17位女性CEO。

為什么大公司難以提拔女性擔(dān)任CEO呢？費根指出，許多大公司往往無法發(fā)現(xiàn)30多歲女性身上的強大潛力，沒有讓她們通過擔(dān)任一系列不同的角色把她們培養(yǎng)成全面發(fā)展的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者。他說：“公司考慮的是三到五年之后的CEO繼任問題，但他們卻沒有培養(yǎng)出足夠多能夠在短時間內(nèi)勝任最高職位的女性候選人?！彼€提到，繁重的出差日常和24小時待命的工作安排，可能會讓一些有家庭的女性不愿意擔(dān)任高層運營工作。他說：“你也不能低估男性老板的隱形偏見，他們錯誤地認為，女性沒有足夠的動力驅(qū)使她們在關(guān)系到企業(yè)盈虧的關(guān)鍵職位上取得成功?！?/p>

大公司固執(zhí)地堅持那些幾乎沒有變化的“最佳實踐”。這些“最佳實踐”一直引導(dǎo)著幾十年來的CEO接替流程。但董事會未能發(fā)現(xiàn)足夠多具備成為超級明星的能力和動力的女性，未能按照本應(yīng)造就許多美國最偉大CEO的職業(yè)生涯培養(yǎng)她們。受傳統(tǒng)束縛的CEO繼任程序需要變革，需要一場全面運動讓女性登上最高崗位。（財富中文網(wǎng)）

譯者：Agatha

The roster of newly-minted CEOs at America’s largest companies for 2018 contains more executives named Jeffrey and Michael than it does women. (Yes, you read that right: two men named Michael were named CEO in 2018, two named Jeffrey, and just one lone woman.) Contrary to the myth of rising churn at the top, mega-cap CEOs are keeping their jobs for almost a decade, at least as long as in the past. The premier training ground for today’s chieftains? It’s not an Apple or Microsoft but that ever-inventive thirst-quencher, PepsiCo, Inc.

Those are just a few of the insights from the “New CEO Report” for 2018, a survey of the newly-named leaders at the 250 largest S&P 500 companies, measured by last year’s revenues, conducted by Feigen Advisors, LLC. (TheNewCEOReport.com) The firm’s founder, Marc Feigen––whom I nicknamed “the CEO whisperer”––is America’s leading adviser to CEOs in waiting. Feigen’s speciality is CEO succession. He smoothes the process by counseling the executives who’ve been anointed to succeed the current chief in the period before they take charge, helping them to shape a strategic vision and introducing them to a braintrust of retired Fortune 500 chiefs who proffer advice. The list of current CEOs whom Feigen’s guided (and in some cases, continues to advise) include Bob Iger of Walt Disney, Fabrizio Freda of Estee Lauder, and Chris Swift of The Hartford.

The report on the class of 2018 could be subtitled, “a study in stability,” or even “here we go again.” Feigen has been producing the report since 2014, and this year’s results underscore the relentless, year-to-year consistency in the way corporate America transitions to new leaders––for good and for bad. Once again, the new class is dominated by veteran insiders who are replacing leaders who served their full, surprisingly lengthy terms, in carefully planned successions. Most don’t arise from a sudden upheaval. At the corporate giants, the proportion of departing CEOs forced out by dissatisfied boards, and surprise appointments from outside the company, are remarkably low.

But corporate America’s adherence to long-established practices has glaring weaknesses, including the boards’ failure to groom women for the top job. That’s led to a paucity of female CEOs that despite employers’ claims of championing their careers, isn’t improving.

Feigen’s “New CEO Report” for 2018 explores a number of key, mostly enduring, trends. Here are five notable examples.

New CEOs are mostly long-serving insiders

Feigen has been producing the report since 2014, so it’s instructive to compare last year’s results with the trends over the full five-year period. Once again, the consistency is remarkable. The report found that last year, the S&P 250 replaced 23 CEOs. That turnover rate of 9.2% is below the 5 year figure of 11%, so although tenure at the top is shrinking in small and mid-sized companies, the giants are showing at least as much stability as in the past. Big Cap CEOs aren’t getting younger: The average age for the class of ’18 was 56 compared with the 5-year norm of 54.6.

Boards promoted 20 of the 23 new CEOs (87%) from within the companies’s ranks. Sixteen of those twenty insiders were long-tenured veterans who’d spent, on average, well over two decades with their employer. That’s right in line with recent history. Since 2014, 112 of the 134 new CEOs (84%) have been insiders. For example, Mike Wirth joined Chevron out of college in 1982, and Steve Squeri started at American Express in the Travelers Cheque Group in 1985.

But the other four insiders followed a different path. They were hired into senior positions, mainly from rivals, over the past several years, and “fast tracked” through through a range of roles where they displayed the mettle that won them top job. Tom Bene joined catering giant Sysco as chief merchandising officer from PepsiCo in 2013, and Lockheed Martin veteran Chris Kubasik went to defense contractor L3 Technologies as COO in 2015 as heir apparent.

Outsiders are usually hired to repair a struggling enterprise

CEOs in big-cap America serve a long time. Last year, the average tenure of the departing bosses was 9.3 years, slightly higher than the half-decade average of 9 years. Retirements overwhelmingly occur as planned, not because of a crisis. Last year, 18 of the 23 new CEOs took the torch from predecessors who’d served their full terms and left following a long-orchestrated process of succession. That’s nothing new; since 2014, around three-quarters of all CEO transitions were planned, not improvised.

Outsiders are the most frequent choice when boards force CEOs to resign. Only three of the two-dozen new CEOs came from the outside, and all were recruited to fix ailing companies. Two were installed by boards dissatisfied with the performance of their predecessors. Larry Culp, who’d been serving on GE’s board, left the top job at industrial conglomerate Danaher to became the first outsider to run the flailing power and aerospace giant in its 126 year history, after the board ejected predecessor John Flannery after fourteen months on the job. Marvin Ellison traded his CEO position at J.C. Penney to run Lowe’s, whose stock was underperforming shares of rival Home Depot. The third outsider, John Visintin, ascended via a shareholder revolt. He took over at Xerox, which has suffered years of shrinking copier sales, following a ferocious proxy fight led by activist Carl Icahn, who hand-picked Visintin to lead a rescue operation.

Boards covet candidates who’ve led big operating units

Over the past five years, no fewer than 107 or 80% of the 134 newly-named CEOs had a crucial attraction on their resumes: experience running key business units at their companies. More than half of the all new leaders––almost all of whom had operated business units at one point–-served as COO, president or both just prior to their ascension, so their last position wasn’t a top staff job, but responsibility for the entire company’s operations and financial results. Clearly directors want CEOs who’ve proven successful as hands-on managers running their own P&Ls at a core franchise.

Boards also like former CEOs. As noted, the outsiders brought in to revive the sagging fortunes at Lowe’s, GE, and Xerox are all former chief executives––Visintin had previously run process automation provider Novitex. The CFO slot is the second leading stepping stone, though former finance chiefs lag far behind the business unit leaders. Last year was a good year for ex-CFOs, five of whom rose to CEO including Hans Vestberg of Verizon and Howard Willard of Altria. Other staff jobs seldom lead to the CEO suite: Only 9% of CEOs named in the last five years came from marketing, and even fewer, 5% rose from back-office operations.

The top boot camp for CEOs is a chips and cola giant

Most CEOs are extremely well-educated. Of the classes from 2014 to 2018, over 60% had a graduate degrees, and almost half boasted MBAs. Harvard Business School dispensed 11 out of those 62 diplomas.

The top training ground for CEOs? It’s PepsiCo by a wide margin. Nine CEOs named since 2014 worked at Pepsi, among them Brian Cornell of Target, who ran the Americas Foods division at Pepsi, Ed Bastian of Delta who was controller of Frito-Lay, Greg Creed, who established Taco Bell and KFC in Australia and New Zealand, and Thomas Bene of Sysco, who ran Pepsi’s food service franchise. Seven are still in the CEO chair; only former Kraft chief John Cahill, now vice chairman of Kraft Heinz, and former Express Scripts CEO Timothy Wentworth, who runs the Express business following its acquisition by Cigna, have new roles.

Why is Pepsi such a great place to learn? Though you might think it’s primarily a marketing machine, Pepsi clearly prided itself on cycling promising managers through a wide variety of roles, so that careers often bridge job in finance, manufacturing, and building and running big brands franchises across the globe. And historically the company has operated one of the top rated, talent-building HR programs in America.

Female CEOs are shockingly rare

Last year, just one of the 23 newly-appointed CEOs was a woman––Michelle Gass of Kohl’s, who’d joined the retailer in 2013 from Starbucks, and was fast-tracked to the top. That sorry record is a downshift from 2017, when two women were named, Gail Boudreaux at Anthem and Geisha Williams at PG&E. Williams resigned in January just before the utility, devastated by California wildfires, filed for bankruptcy. Since 2014, only nine of the 134 new CEOs have been women. And amazingly, big cap America’s efforts at inclusion are failing at what should be the ultimate measure of success, swelling the number of female CEOs.

In 2018, for example, three women left the list via retirement, Indra Nooyi of Pepsi, Meg Whitman at Hewlett Packard, and Debra Reed at Sempra Energy—so the female CEO ranks slipped by two. Women account for over one-fourth of all the America’s executive talent. Yet at last count, only 17 of the S&P 250 have female CEOs.

So why do big companies struggle to elevate women to the CEO suite? Feigen notes that many big companies too often fail to identify women in their 30s with strong potential, then move them through a series of varied assignments to mold well-rounded leaders. “Companies think about CEO succession three to five years out,” he says, “yet they fail to develop a deep pool of female candidates who’d be ready for the top job in that short time-frame.” He also cites the grueling travel schedules and 24-7 availability that can discourage some women with families for taking top operating jobs. “You also can’t underestimate hidden bias by male bosses, who wrongly convince themselves that women won’t have the drive necessary to succeed in key jobs running a P&L,” he says.

Big companies stick doggedly to the little-changing “best practices” that have guided the CEO succession dynamic for decades. But boards are failing to identify women with the ability and drive to become superstars, then nurture careers that should be creating many of America’s greatest CEOs. The tradition-bound succession process needs an upheaval, an all-out campaign to bring female talent to the top.