玛丽•巴拉沦为通用汽车替罪羊

    时机就是一切。如果你愿意，请试想一下通用汽车公司（General Motors）首席执行官玛丽•巴拉最近所经历的一切。就在不到一个月的时间里，她就从业界先锋变成了众矢之的。这一部分要归咎于通用汽车的问题，一部分是由于她前任的错——但显然和她本人无关。

    巴拉花了整整33年，一路披荆斩棘，才登上通用汽车的权力巅峰，在今年1月15号正式成为首席执行官，成为所有人的偶像。但她上任还不到一个月，通用汽车就因为致人死命、现在已经臭名远扬的点火开关缺陷大规模召回。巴拉再也不会因她的坚韧不拔和勇于突破玻璃天花板而广受赞誉了，现在她就是各界攻击的靶子，不断地在电视转播的国会听证会、媒体质询会和难以计数的各种论坛上饱受抨击。

    一般来说，我并不怎么同情首席执行官们，他们肩负重任，却也拿着天价高薪。当然，公司陷入麻烦的时候，他们也得挺身而出。如果你拿着八位数的高薪，同时因为公司里众多下属的工作而拿到大笔好处，那你因为下属犯错而代人受过也实属公平合理，哪怕你对这些问题实际上毫不知情。这种狂轰滥炸总得有个尽头，首席执行官的办公室就正好是它瞄准的好靶子。

    不过，尽管痛贬巴拉能让那些嗜血的华盛顿政客满意，也能搞得满城风雨、舆论哗然，但这么做却着实荒唐。如果点火开关召回事件发生在去年，而不是巴拉今年上任后不到一个月，那么2010年成为通用汽车首席执行官的丹•阿克森现在就应该在国会这场美式审判秀上接受质询。如果通用汽车或美国国家公路交通安全管理局（National Highway Traffic Safety Administration）或是这两者都反应迅捷、精明强干，那可能就该轮到阿克森的前任埃德•惠塔克里来受这份活罪了。

    我完全明白为什么要把火力集中到有头有脸的个人、而不是把它分散到一个庞大的、非个人化的公司身上的道理。毕竟，三十多年前当我在《福布斯》杂志（Forbes）【别跟我现在供职的《财富》杂志（Fortune）弄混了】效力时就学会了把公司和个人划等号的本事，此后还一直赖此谋生。

    不过就算你真打算因为公司的问题而抨击某个个体，也应该找对人，而不是对准问题浮出水面时刚好成为首席执行官的那个人。

    可能国会应该传唤的是里克•瓦格纳，即2000年6月开始担任通用汽车首席执行官，也就是2009年政府出手救助公司免于破产时被迫下台的那位。点火开关问题好像在他掌权期间就已初露端倪，而且一直没人理会，但我敢说瓦格纳（我对此人了解不深，但却颇有好感）对此也知之甚少，甚至完全不知情。不过毕竟那时候是他大权在握。

    或者也应该传唤联邦政府安排的那两位首席执行官：埃德•惠塔克里（2009年12月到2010年9月）或阿克森（2010年1月到2014年1月15日）。还有两位在位时间很短的执行官，但他们在任时间太短，轮不到对这个问题承担责任。

    诚然——这真是媒体圈最滑头的一个词——巴拉现在所受的这种不公平抨击跟当年作为美国国际集团（AIG）总裁的埃德•李迪所受的不公平待遇相比实在是小巫见大巫。巴拉毕竟长期效力于通用汽车公司，还拿着大把年薪，而李迪当年的年薪只有区区1美元，却要处理一大堆跟他毫无关系的破事。

    我举双手赞成问责。如果想让巴拉第一个站出来，对眼下的混乱局面承担责任，那么别客气，也请把通用汽车2009年破产这件事当作挡箭牌，让这家公司摆脱跟大多数死亡索赔的干系。

    不过，如果我们真打算因为某些重大人祸痛扁首席执行官们，比如美国国际集团草率鲁莽的金融投机行为，或是通用汽车致人死地的点火开关，那也应该揪出那些问题发生时在任的执行官，而不是问题曝光时正好上任的继任者。(财富中文网)

    译者：清远

    Timing is everything. Consider, if you will, the story of Mary Barra, the first female chief executive of General Motors, who in less than a month went from pioneer to punching bag. For something that's clearly GM's fault, and some of her predecessors' fault -- but clearly not her fault.

    Barra, who spent 33 years clawing her way to the top of GM (GM), became its CEO on Jan. 15, making her an icon of sorts. But less than a month later, GM began recalling vehicles because of its deadly, now-infamous faulty ignition switch. Instead of being praised for perseverance and cracking the glass ceiling, Barra is now a target, getting beaten up on a regular basis in televised Congressional hearings, in media scrums, and in other forums too numerous to name.

    I don't normally sympathize very much with CEOs, who get paid amazing amounts of money to assume a lot of responsibility, including taking the heat when the company screws up. If you're getting eight-digit paychecks and thus benefiting from the work of everyone below you in the corporate hierarchy, it's only fair that you get whacked for the sins of your subordinates, even if you knew nothing about them. The buck is supposed to stop somewhere, and the CEO's office is the right place.

    But beating up on Barra, which satisfies the bloodlust of Washington pols and makes for good theater and massive buzz, is absurd. Had the ignition-switch recall happened last year instead of less than 30 days after Barra took office this year, Dan Akerson, who became GM's CEO in 2010, would have been the one called in front of Congress to be tortured in the U.S. version of a show trial. Had GM or the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration or both of them been quick and competent, it might have been Akerson's predecessor, Ed Whitacre, who was tortured.

    I totally get the point of focusing blame on an individual, who's identifiable, rather than diffusing it over a big, impersonal corporation. After all, that's the kind of thing I have been doing for a living ever since I learned the art of personalizing companies during my days at Forbes magazine (not to be confused with my current employer Fortune) more than 30 years ago.

    But if you're going to beat up on an individual for the failure of a company, you ought to beat up the right individual -- not the person who happens to be CEO when the problem surfaces.

    Maybe Congress should be calling Rick Wagoner, the company's CEO from June of 2000 until the government forced him out in 2009 as the price of rescuing the company's operations from collapse. The ignition problem seems to have started and been ignored sometime during his regime, even though I would be willing to bet that Wagoner (whom I know slightly, and kind of like) knew little or nothing about it. But he was in charge then.

    Or you could call either of the two CEOs the federal government installed: Ed Whitacre (Dec. 1, 2009 to Sept. 1, 2010) or the aforementioned Akerson (Sept. 1, 2010 to Jan. 15, 2014). There are two other short-timers, but they weren't around long enough to be held responsible.

    To be sure -- three of the most weaselly words in journalism -- the unfair beating that Barra is getting doesn't approach the unfairness of the way that Ed Liddy got as chairman of AIG. Barra, after all, is a GM lifer with a serious comp package, while Liddy was serving at $1 a year to preside over a mess he had nothing to do with.

    I'm all in favor of accountability. And if you want to hold Barra responsible for the mess of first admitting responsibility, then trying to use GM's 2009 bankruptcy to shield the company from most of the death claims, be my guest.

    But if we're going to beat up CEOs for disasters like AIG's reckless financial bets or GM's deadly ignition switches, let's beat up the people who were in charge when the mistakes were made. Not the people who happen to be in charge when the problems surface.