Everyone benefits from a beast in the boardroom

董事會應該有根攪屎棍
Everyone benefits from a beast in the boardroom
作者：英國《金融時報》專欄作家露西•凱拉韋


Last week, I found myself sitting next to a woman at dinner who chairs companies. We were talking about boardroom diversity, and she suddenly declared: “I always make sure that there is one shit on each of my boards.”


上週，我在飯局上發現，坐在我旁邊的姐們儿在幾家公司擔任董事長。我們聊到董事會的多樣性，這時她冷不丁地說道：“我一直設法確保我每家公司的董事會裡有一個像坨屎一樣的爛人。”

I wanted to kiss her. It was not just the word, so sharp in contrast to the soft drivel that nearly everyone lets rip whenever they discuss diversity. It was also the bracing sentiment that delighted me, even if I had a nagging doubt that she might be wrong. Surely, I protested, the ideal number of egos on a board was zero?


我簡直都想吻她一下了。不光是因為她敢用這麼直白的字眼兒（這種字眼兒與甭管誰說到董事會多樣性時都會扯上兩句的那種空話形成鮮明對比），更是因為她這種觀點令我耳目一新、如沐春風，儘管我還是隱隱感覺她說的可能不完全對。我反駁道，董事會裡自大狂的理想人數顯然是“零”吧？

She looked at me with exaggerated patience, as if I were an amiable, if dim, child. I was making the elementary mistake, she said, of confusing egos and shits. The ego has no place on any board, as he is only interested in himself. A cumbersome ego is no help at all when you are trying to examine the corporate risk register.


她以誇張的耐心看著我，彷彿我是一個萌萌的、或許還有點兒笨的小朋友。她說，我犯了一個低級錯誤，就是把“自大狂”和“屎一樣的爛人”混為一談了。自大狂根本不該進董事會，因為自大狂只對自己感興趣。在審查公司的風險登記冊時，礙手礙腳的自大狂一丁點兒用處都沒有。

The argument for Shits on Boards (SOBs) is quite different. An SOB is someone who couldn't care less what others think of him or her, and is therefore low-maintenance, whereas an ego demands endless admiration and attention.


董事會裡的爛人（Shits on Boards，縮寫為SOB）則有著截然不同的存在理由。 SOB才不會管別人怎麼看待自己，因此他們的“養護成本”很低，而自大狂總是不斷地需要別人崇拜和關注。

An SOB doesn't mind upsetting people, cares nothing for bonding and rather enjoys stirring things up. They are dislikeable people, but their very nastiness is useful.


SOB不介意惹惱別人，完全不考慮人際關係，並且很樂意充當攪屎棍。他們都是招人討厭的人，不過他們的用處恰恰在於招人討厭。

Now that I think of it, I can see that the SOB serves many functions. They dash in on the attack, battering-ram style, leaving it up to the chairman to restrain them before serious damage is done. Their attack leaves the way open for the nicer, more constructive, board members to come in after them, attacking more powerfully than they otherwise would have.


現在想想，我發現SOB還真有很多功能。他們是進攻的排頭兵，就像用大木樁子去撞城門，要董事長出手約束他們才能避免造成嚴重破壞。他們在前面開道，更溫和、更富建設性的董事緊隨其後，如此一來後者便可發起比平時更有力的攻擊。

The SOB has other uses too. He prevents things from getting too cosy round the table, and is someone harmless for others to gang up against.


SOB還有別的用途。他們能夠避免董事會變得一團和氣。而且，即使SOB在董事會裡成為眾矢之的，也沒什麼壞處。

Indeed, the pro-SOB arguments are so persuasive that there ought to be quotas to ensure every company has a beast in the boardroom. According to my new friend, the ideal number of SOBs around the table is one – implying a quota of about 10 per cent –​​ as more than that means too many clashes.


的確，支持SOB存在的理由太有說服力了。每家公司都應建立配額制度，確保董事會裡有一個爛人。我新認識的這個姐們儿告訴我，每個董事會裡爛人的理想數量是一個，這意味著配額應當為10%左右——因為如果超出這個數字，董事會裡就會爆發太多的衝突。

However, this scheme may be harder to implement than other quotas. If you are a woman, say, you know that you are one, and others do, too. But if you are an SOB, you may not think of yourself in that way .


然而，這種配額可能比其他配額更難執行——因為如果你是女人，你起碼知道自己是個女人，別人也知道；可如果你是一坨SOB，​​你多半不會覺得自己是。

Verifying whether a company has hit its target could be tricky, as the SOB might not want to be labelled as such. The system would have to operate rather as it does in poker: if you can't work out who the sucker is, it's you.


核查一家公司是不是已經用光配額很需要技巧，因為SOB或許不希望自己被貼上那樣的標籤。這個制度的運作方式應該與打牌類似：如果你打牌時不知道誰是那個笨蛋，那你自己就是。

There is another reason why there is no need for a formal SOB quota. That is because they are in such plentiful supply, the problem may not be getting one on board but not getting half a dozen.


正式設置SOB配額還有另一個理由：SOB的供應很充足，麻煩的可能不是怎樣往董事會裡弄一個SOB，而是怎樣避免放五、六個進來。

Still, whether one does it through quotas or more informally, ensuring a diversity of the nice and nasty seems a better way of achieving diversity of thought (which is the object of the exercise) than to use the proxy of male and female. The latter has never struck me as obviously better than insisting on a mixture of black and white, old and young, rich and poor, or posh and chav.


不過，要想實現思想的多樣性（這是搞董事會多樣性的目的所在），無論是以配額還是以更加非正式的形式來確保董事會裡好人和爛人混搭，似乎都比通過控制董事會男女比例的做法更有效。我從來都沒覺得，後者比堅持讓黑人和白人混搭、老的和少的混搭、窮的和富的混搭、雅的和俗的混搭明顯更有道理。

Yet every week the WOB (Women on Boards) lobby shouts more loudly. Last week, management consultancy Hay Group published an apparently shocking survey of large European companies showing that women directors get paid 7 per cent less on average than men because they are under- represented on the audit or risk committees.


可每過一周，“讓婦女進入董事會”的呼聲都會變得更加響亮。上週，管理諮詢公司合益集團(Hay Group)公佈了一份針對歐洲大型企業的調查，調查結果顯然令人震驚：女性董事的收入平均比男性董事低7%，原因在於她們在審計委員會或風險委員會中占得比例較少。

I can't see what's so bad in this. The additional pay directors get from being on the audit committee – €11,000 a year – doesn't seem a lot when you think of all that time, all that detail and all the extra risk you carry should things go wrong.


我不覺得這樣有什麼不好。如果考慮要花費的時間、要關注的細節和萬一出問題要承擔的額外風險，董事因在審計委員會任職而得到的額外回報（每年1.1萬歐元）實在不算多。

My chief feeling on not being on the audit committee of the company where I'ma non-executive director is not outrage, it's relief.


我在一家公司任非執行董事，對於沒能進入那家公司的審計委員會，我的主要感受不是憤怒，而是如釋重負。

The survey also bleats that far too few companies are chaired by women. If all WOBs were all like


這份調查還唧唧歪歪地說，女性擔任董事長的公司實在太少了。如果所有女性董事都像上週飯局坐我旁邊那位姐們儿那樣，我願舉雙手贊成把女性董事長的配額定為100%。




哎，可惜現實不是這樣。有的女性坦白直率，有的女性則滿嘴空話。我上次偶然碰到的另一位女董事長，也迳自解釋了自己公司董事會的構成機制。她同樣使用了縮寫，即“ABC”：態度(Attitude)、行為(Behaviours)、承諾(Commitment)。

the one I sat next to at dinner last week, I would agree: the quota for female chairmen ought to be 100 per cent.


世界上應該有ABC的立足之地，只不過那是在小學。到了董事會這一級，還是每次都來SOB吧。




譯者/王柯倫