THEY are falling like dominoes. Executives caught behaving badly might once have been slapped on the wrist. Today they are shown the door. On July 19th Paramount Television fired its president, Amy Powell, over reports of insensitive comments about race (she strongly denies these and is hiring lawyers). A week earlier saw the forced resignation of John Schnatter (pictured), founder of Papa John’s, a pizza chain, for using the “n-word” during a training session. In June, Jonathan Friedland of Netflix got sacked for using the same word in front of colleagues at least twice (he was, of all things, chief communications officer).
行為不端的高管如多米諾骨牌般下臺。以前，只是對他們施以小懲，而如今卻是對他們掃地出門。7月19日，派拉蒙電視因總裁艾米·鮑威爾發表了有關種族的不當言論而解僱了她(她強烈否認有這樣的言論，並要聘請律師打官司)。此前一週，棒約翰披薩連鎖店（Papa John 's）創始人約翰·施納特（John·Schnatter）被迫辭職，原因是他在一次培訓中使用了“n”開頭的單詞（對黑人的侮辱性詞彙）。今年6月，Netflix的對外聯絡主管喬納森•弗裡德蘭（Jonathan Friedland）因在同事面前至少兩次使用上述詞語而遭解僱。
These are only the latest bigwigs to go in a line of departures linked to “personal misconduct”, a term that covers a multitude of sins. The dismissal of Harvey Weinstein last October from the Weinstein Company, a studio, over allegations of sexual assault, has sparked a string of sackings related to sexual misconduct, including the dismissal of 12 executives at Nike, several senior men in entertainment and at least one executive at Bank of America (who is now suing the firm.) This year the trigger for action seems to be moving into greyer areas, such as obnoxious behaviour and insensitive language. “Boards are now holding executives to higher standards, looking not just at how they treat people but also how they talk to and about them,” says Pam Jeffords of Mercer, a consultancy.
這些只是與“個人不端行為”有關的最新消息，而“行為不端”一詞涵蓋很多方面。去年十月，哈維•韋恩斯坦因多起性騷擾指控遭自己的公司解僱，引發了一系列與不當性有關行為的辭退活動，這其中包括耐克的12名高管、娛樂圈多名重要人物以及至少美國銀行的一位高管（目前正打官司）。今年，引發辭退員工的“不良行為”似乎進入灰色地帶，如令人討厭的行為和麻木不仁的語言。美世諮詢公司（Mercer）的Pam Jeffords說道:“董事會現在對高管有更高的標準，不僅要看他們如何對待員工，還要看他們如何與人交談以及如何談論他們。”
Some firms have kept details surrounding departures close to their chests. On July 3rd Barnes & Noble, a bookseller, wrote that its boss had been fired “for violations of the company’s policies”. Last week Texas Instruments, a technology firm, said its boss resigned over violations “related to personal behaviour that is not consistent with our ethics and core values”.
一些企業將解僱員工的具體標準放在顯眼的地方。7月3日，Barnes & Noble書店發通告稱其總裁“違反公司政策遭辭退”。上週，德州儀器科技公司(Texas Instruments)表示，CEO因做出與公司的道德和核心價值觀不一致的個人行為而遭辭退。
The thread connecting these incidents is that all are about perceptions of executive integrity, and by extension, trust. Since trust violations are particularly hard for firms to overcome, often more so than incompetence, says Peter Kim of the University of Southern California, firms may believe that firing an errant executive can be the safest, most pragmatic course of action.
這些事件的內在關聯是對高管誠信以及——在很大程度上是——信任的觀念。南加州大學的Peter Kim表示，對企業來說，很難接受違背信任的行為，通常比員工無能還難接受，因此，企業可能認為解僱犯錯的高管是最安全、最務實的做法。
Executives were never all angels. What has changed is that boards are now far less willing to overlook bad behaviour for the sake of superior performance, says Brian Tayan of Stanford University. Although the Weinstein scandal certainly accelerated this shift, it preceded him. A 2017 report from PwC, a professional-services firm, found that the share of chief-executive dismissals that were due to ethical lapses increased between 2007-11 and 2012-2016, because bosses were behaving worse but because they were held more accountable.
高管從來都不是天使。斯坦福大學的Brian Tayan認為，如今的董事會不會為了獲得更好的業績而忽視不端行為。雖然韋恩斯坦的醜聞確實加速了這種轉變，這種趨勢早在性醜聞之前就出現了。普華永道在2017年的一份報告中發現，在2007至2011年以及2012至2016年這兩個階段，因道德汙點而遭解僱的首席執行官的比例有所上升，原因不是因為管理者的行為變惡劣，而是因為他們承受了更多的問責。
Boards seem to be acting thus for two reasons. First, to protect employees and create a safe and inclusive work environment (oh, and not get sued). Second, to protect their brands’ reputations. A 2016 study from researchers at Stanford showed that the fallout from chief executives behaving badly, but not unlawfully, was large and lasting. On average each of the 38 incidents studied garnered 250 news stories, with media attention lasting 4.9 years. Shares usually suffered, though not always. And in a third of cases firms faced further damage, including loss of major clients, federal investigations, shareholder lawsuits or proxy battles.
企業董事這麼做的目的有兩二。第一，保護員工，創造安全包容的工作環境（當然，不想攤上官司）；第二，保護品牌聲譽。斯坦福大學的研究人員在2016年進行的一項研究顯示，首席執行官的不端行為（但並不違法）會帶來巨大而持久性的影響。在調查的38起事件中，平均每起都有250篇新聞報道，且伴隨4.9年的媒體關注。股價通常受損，但並非總是如此。案例中有三分之一的企業遭受了進一步的損失，包括失去大客戶，接受聯邦政府調查，遭到股東訴訟或官司纏身。
Not all bosses leave quietly. Shareholders of Papa John’s are learning this lesson the hard way. Mr Schnatter’s recent comment that leaving was a mistake has fed rumours that he may try to force his way back in—he owns nearly a third of the company. Shares of the pizza chain fell by 10% after the board announced that it would take the unusual step of issuing a “poison pill” in order to block him from taking a bigger stake.
不是所有的高管都會不聲不響地離開。棒約翰的股東們正吸取這一教訓，並付出極大的代價。約翰·施納特最近表示離開是一個錯誤的決定，因此有謠言稱他可能要強行迴歸，畢竟他擁有近三分之一的股份。棒約翰的董事會此前宣佈將採取非常規的“毒丸計劃”措施，阻止施納特獲得更多的股份，隨後，棒約翰股票下跌10%。
Should an executive’s words be judged as harshly as their actions? From the perspective of protecting the brand, as well as discouraging a toxic work environment, they probably should. The power of social media to turn a whispered comment into a Twitterstorm, and the fact that everyone now has a mobile recording device, demands a decisive response.
高管的言論真地要像他們的行為一樣受到嚴厲的評判？從保護品牌以及防止出現不良工作環境的角度來看，或許應該這麼做。社交媒體有著將不經意的言語放大為推特風暴的強大力量，同時，每個人都可隨身攜帶移動錄音設備，這都需要相關人員作出果斷的回應。
But boards and the media also risk rushing to judgment and painting miscreants with too broad a brush. A past consensual relationship with a subordinate, the reason for the departure of Intel’s boss in June, does not fall into the same category as sexual assault. An insensitive remark made long ago or as a one-off is not the same as one made as the face of the firm or as part of a consistent pattern. Disney’s firing of James Gunn, a director, last week over tweets from a decade ago, before he was hired and for which he has apologised, seems to be one instance in which such distinctions have been papered over. And plenty of companies benefit from environments where people can speak openly and brainstorm out loud.
不過，董事會和媒體也會冒著過於草率判斷和傷及無辜的風險。英特爾CEO因與一名下屬存在情人關係而被迫在6月離職，但這並不屬於性侵的範疇。在很久以前說過的不過大腦的評論，或者是隻說過一次的話，都不等同於企業形象，也不等同於一種一貫不變的模式。上週，迪士尼解僱了導演詹姆斯·古恩，理由是他10年前發佈的推帖，而那時他還沒為迪士尼工作，之後他為此事道歉。這個案例掩蓋這種差異性。許多企業都從員工暢所欲言，集思廣益的環境中受益。
Once the fallen dominos have been counted, some firms may turn out to have been too gung-ho in responding to the “Weinstein effect”. Many, perhaps most, exits will be justified. But all?
一旦要計算倒下的多米諾骨牌數量，一些企業在應對“溫斯坦效應”時可能會過於狂熱。也許大多數高管的下臺都是合理的。難道所有的都是嗎？
編譯：賈毅榮
閱讀更多 翻吧 的文章
