直面常见的难题。

    很少有候选人具备所有条件，但董事会必须选出一个人。比如这样一个常见的两难选择：一个候选人拥有专门而深入的高度复杂的专业技能，但没有太多领导经验，另一个候选人在大型组织展现了领导力，但缺乏在选择公司未来方向时所急需的复杂专业技能。

    花旗集团（Citigroup）在金融危机中挑选查克•普林斯的继任者时面临着这样的难题。为了建立信用、激发信任，大多数人在寻找第二类候选人，就是来自大型金融机构的成功领导人，花旗董事长当时甚至向这样一个候选人发出了邀请。他就在同一个行业，但是缺乏处理有毒资产的经验，而那是花旗危机的根本问题；他成功的部分原因其实就是因为回避了这类金融工具。后来，有位德高望重的董事力排众议，董事会终于在数小时内改变了主意，转向第一类候选人：潘伟迪，花旗内部的有毒资产专家（值得一提的是，那位力挽狂澜的董事本人一辈子就在和这些有毒资产打交道）。董事会相信，潘伟迪能够成长为领袖，而他也不负众望。

    虽然花旗还未完全恢复，但现在没人质疑选择潘伟迪的正确性了。就花旗最急需的人才所做出的正确判断终于得到了回报。

为新任首席执行官的成功保驾护航。

    没有候选人会完全适合一个公司。董事会应该找出胜出候选人的弱项，同时决定如何帮助他/她弥补缺陷。董事们需要提前讨论他们为选择这个候选人所承担的风险。他们也要考虑随着时间的推移，候选人可能取得的进步。最近出现的最佳实践就是指派一名资深董事担任传声筒和教练的角色，帮助新任首席执行官获得成功，并且制定一个详尽的计划在第一年里把这种帮助落到实处。

    公司的领导职能已经从首席执行官转移到董事会。在这样激烈竞争和加速变化的时代，董事会尤其需要证明他们能胜任其首要任务，即确保公司一直拥有称职的首席执行官。按照以上四步行事，董事会有望大大增加他们成功的机会。

    你的董事会是否胜任分内的工作呢？

Confront common dilemmas.

    Few candidates have it all, yet directors must choose someone. For example, here's a common dilemma: choosing between a candidate possessing narrow, deep, highly sophisticated expertise but without much leadership experience, and a candidate with demonstrated leadership in a large organization but with no expertise in the sophisticated specialty urgently required for knowing where to take the company in the future.

    That was the dilemma that Citigroup's (C) board faced as it chose a replacement for CEO Chuck Prince in the financial crisis. To establish credibility and inspire confidence, most people were looking for the second type of candidate, someone with strong credentials as a successful leader from a large financial institution, and the chairman even made an offer to such a candidate. He was in essentially the same industry but without experience in toxic assets, which were at the heart of Citi's crisis; he was successful in part because he had avoided such instruments. Through the heavy-handed persuasion of a highly regarded director who had lived with these toxic issues for much of his life, the board within hours reversed its position and turned to the first type of candidate, Vikram Pandit, the internal expert on toxic assets. The board believed Pandit would grow as a leader, and he did.

    Citi is not totally out of the woods, but no one now questions the choice of Pandit. Making the right decision about what Citi needed most made the difference.

Set the new CEO up for success.

    No candidate is a perfect fit. The board should identify where the winning candidate falls short and determine how to help him or her close the gap. Directors need to discuss up front what risks they're taking by choosing that candidate. They should also try to imagine how the candidate might evolve over time. An emerging best practice is to appoint a senior director as a sounding board and coach to help make the new CEO successful, with a highly structured plan for delivering that help in the CEO's first year.

    Corporate leadership has shifted from the CEO to the board. In this age of intense competition and accelerating change, boards must above all demonstrate excellence in their No. 1 job of having the right CEO at all times. Following these four practices will vastly improve their chances.

    Is your board good enough to do the job they're accountable for?