為什么說今天的CEO比前輩更優秀

????不久前與漢克?鮑爾森交談時，他的一句話讓我沉思：“從上世紀70年代起我就開始和CEO們打交道，當今的CEO們比過去強太多了。

????當然，他有底氣這么說。他服務高盛（Goldman Sachs）多年后升任這家銀行的CEO，之后又當過美國財政部長，對于很多大公司CEO們都有著近距離的觀察。那么，他說的對嗎？

????我認為，他說的沒錯。很多人都抱怨，現在不再有CEO英雄了，但有力的論據證明，我們實際上正處在杰出CEO人才輩出的黃金時代。假如亞馬遜（Amazon）的杰夫?貝佐斯今天退休，必將入圍五十年CEO名人堂，而他現在才49歲。史蒂夫?喬布斯把一家瀕于倒閉的公司變成了一家全球最有價值的公司，他也將因為對蘋果（Apple）產品的管理性創新而被載入史冊。我不確定是否能有CEO比美國運通（American Express)的肯?錢納特做得出色很多。沒人關注海爾集團（Haier Group）的張瑞敏，但我要告訴你，他將被人們作為中國的杰克?韋爾奇而被廣為傳誦。一談起好市多（Costco）的詹姆斯?辛尼格或IBM的彭明盛 (這兩人都已于去年離職)，我就有太多話要說。我還可以繼續講下去。

????如今的CEO們變得更出色了，不只是我們印象如此。現在的CEO比上世紀70年代的CEO更出色是有原因的。試想一下：

????——那時，很少有美國公司直接面對一流的海外巨頭競爭。當年，歐洲仍在努力走出二戰的陰影；中國和俄羅斯是共產主義國家；印度因社會運動而一團糟。隨著業務的國際化，CEO實際上已被從高中運動場推著走進了奧運會，而且已經顯著提高了競技水平。

????——當前對CEO們的審查要多很多。雖說現在很流行對于明星CEO的出現不屑一顧，但在上世紀70年代，沒有幾個美國人能叫出一家《財富》美國500強公司CEO的名字。一旦世人都知道你的名字，風險可就大了。

????——如今股東擁有的權力要大很多。理論上，股東總是可以解聘CEO，但這幾乎從未發生過。如今，由于很多原因——股份集中在機構手中、美國證券交易委員會（SEC）的規則調整、科技促進和便利了股東之間的溝通——權力平衡已經發生了改變。不讓對沖投資巨頭比爾?阿卡曼插手的最佳方式就是確保他沒有任何理由染指。

????Talking with Hank Paulson not long ago, I was stopped short by an observation he made: "I've been working with CEOs since the 1970s, and CEOs today are so much better than they used to be."

????He's certainly in a strong position to judge. In a long career at Goldman Sachs (GS), where he rose to CEO, and then as Treasury Secretary, he got a close-up look at a wide range of major corporate chiefs. So is he right?

????I think he is. Many people lament that there aren't any CEO heroes anymore, but a powerful case can be made that we're actually in a golden age of outstanding CEOs. If Amazon's (AMZN) Jeff Bezos retired today he'd be in the CEO pantheon of the past 50 years, and he's still only 49. Steve Jobs, who turned a failing company into the world's most valuable, will be remembered as much for his managerial innovations as for Apple's (AAPL) products. I'm not sure CEOs get much better than American Express' (AXP) Ken Chenault. No one pays attention to Haier Group's Zhang Ruimin (HRELF), but I'm telling you now that he'll be remembered as the Chinese Jack Welch. Don't get me started on Costco's (COST) Jim Sinegal or IBM's Sam Palmisano (IBM), both of whom stepped down last year. I could keep going.

????The notion that CEOs have improved is more than just an impression. It stands to reason that they'd be better now than they were in the '70s. Consider:

????-Back then most U.S. businesses were barely exposed to giant, top-caliber foreign competitors. Europe was still recovering from the destruction of World War II; China and Russia were communist; India was a socialist basket case. As business has globalized, CEOs have in effect been pushed from high school sports to the Olympics and have had to raise their game dramatically.

????-CEOs are under far more scrutiny today. It's fashionable to deride the advent of the celebrity CEO, but in the '70s, few Americans could name the CEO of any Fortune 500 company. When the world knows your name, the stakes get higher.

????-Shareholders have far more power today. In theory, shareholders could always fire the CEO, but it almost never happened. Today, for many reasons -- shares more concentrated in the hands of institutions, SEC rule changes, technology that lets shareholders find one another and communicate far more easily -- the balance of power has shifted. The best way not to hear fromBill Ackman is to make sure he has no reason to call.