性、謊言與CEO：高管劣跡大揭秘

不論在電視新聞編輯部還是公司董事會，對公眾人物的信任都至關重要。而一旦公眾人物背叛了這種信任，股東將會遭受損失，而且代價不菲。

一項最新研究顯示，CEO出軌、濫用藥物、暴力行為和不誠實等不良行為，會導致股東價值大幅受損。這一研究由密西西比州立大學教授布蘭登?克萊因、德雷克塞爾大學教授拉爾夫?沃克林和北伊利諾伊大學教授亞當?約爾共同完成。研究顯示，在CEO不當言行曝光后3日內，股東平均損失了2.26億美元?？巳R因在接受《財富》雜志采訪時表示：“有證據顯示，CEO私人生活中的暴力活動、濫用藥物、不誠實和出軌，會對公司造成傷害?！?/p>

研究中列舉了近期備受關注的一些實例，包括在2012年因與一名29歲的管理培訓生存在不正當關系而備受指責的前百思買公司CEO布萊恩?鄧恩；2007年因酒后駕車被捕的前全美航空公司CEO（現任美國航空公司CEO）白偉德，他之前已有過兩次前科；以及2007年，被指控拳擊賽后在米高梅賭場外對女朋友施暴的前時代華納公司家庭影院頻道負責人克里斯?阿爾布里特。研究還提到了前雅虎公司CEO斯克特?湯普森，他在2012年被曝出計算機科學學位造假。

研究共發現了219位CEO的輕率行為，一些人屢次犯錯。在這些CEO中，96%為男性。最常見的不良行為與性有關，約占一半左右，有三分之一涉及不誠實。僅有十分之一左右涉及濫用藥物或暴力行為?？巳R恩說道：“我們發現，在CEO不良行為給公司造成嚴重傷害的許多示例中，CEO均為多次犯錯，這凸顯了股東真正了解公司領導層的重要性?！?/p>

當CEO的婚外情或在任職資格問題上撒謊被曝光之后，市場反應非常明顯，公司股價幾乎不可避免地應聲下跌。但公司遭受的傷害會持續更久。高管不良行為不僅會導致短期內的股價下跌。在CEO曝出丑聞的12個月內，公司股價跌幅在11%至14%之間。

此外，在CEO不當行為被曝光的財年，其所在公司的經營業績往往差強人意。而且這些公司很有可能被股東告上法庭，并更有可能成為司法部或證券交易委員會的調查對象，甚至會同時面臨兩方面的調查。

至于CEO在丑聞曝光后繼續留任還是被辭退，并沒有太大影響。辭掉CEO的公司和允許CEO留任的公司，表現同樣糟糕。盡管董事會更有效率的公司（如擁有更多獨立董事、對管理層有更完善的監督等）比董事會松散的公司更有可能辭退有不良行為的CEO，但都無法改變丑聞對公司造成沖擊的事實。

研究發現CEO最常曝出的丑聞是出軌，但這種行為對公司的傷害并非最大?？巳R恩說道：“有趣的是，相比其他不良行為，如濫用藥物和出軌等，不誠實行為造成的后果最為嚴重。個人的不誠實有損信譽，將毀掉投資者、董事會和客戶對管理層的信任和信心?！?/p>

股東對這類事件反應強烈，因為他們主要關心管理層的兩個問題。第一個問題是“注意力分散”；CEO要處理丑聞曝光帶來的負面影響，因此他無法做好自己的本職工作。第二個問題是“管理者品質”；股東不會信任撒過謊的CEO。

為了更加細致地研究這個問題，研究人員嘗試查明CEO行為不當的公司是否更有可能篡改賬目。結果顯示，他們確實存在這樣的傾向。

這些公司要遭受多重打擊——股價下跌、經營業績不佳、法律訴訟和收入造假。因此，所有CEO們都應該記住一句話——不要有不良行為。不過，更有效的公司治理可以幫助解決這個問題。

被發現不良行為的CEO有四分之一為創始人。相比被廣泛持股的機構，由創始人擔任的CEO，在董事會擁有更多權力。如果董事會能夠持續關注CEO的行為，并且CEO知曉這種監督的存在，那么出現這類問題的幾率將大大降低。（財富中文網）

譯者：劉進龍/汪皓

審校：任文科

Trust in public figures is as important in television newsrooms as it is in company boardrooms. And when that trust is betrayed, shareholders lose money. A lot of money.

CEOs guilty of sexual misadventure, substance abuse, violence, and dishonesty are responsible for massive destruction in stockholder value, according to new research. A study by Professor Brandon Cline of Mississippi State University, with co-authors Ralph Walkling (Drexel University) and Adam Yore (Northern Illinois University), shows that companies experience an average shareholder loss of $226 million in the three days after the announcement of a CEO indiscretion. “The evidence shows,” said Cline in an interview with Fortune, “that activities of violence, substance abuse, dishonesty, and sexual misadventure in personal lives translates into damage to companies.”

The study gives a number of recent, high-profile examples of such behavior, including former Best Buy CEO Brian Dunn, who was accused of having an affair with a 29 year-old leadership trainee in 2012; former US Airways CEO (and current CEO of American Airlines) Doug Parker, who was arrested in 2007 for driving under the influence, following two prior convictions; and, again from 2007, the former head of Time Warner’s HBO unit, Chris Albrecht, who was accused of assaulting his girlfriend outside an MGM casino after a boxing match. The study also cites former Yahoo CEO Scott Thompson, who in 2012 was found to have claimed an unearned computer science degree.

In all, the study found examples of 219 CEO indiscretions, some of whom had multiple instances of such behavior. Some 96% of the CEOs under examination were male. The most common misbehaviors – almost half – were sexual in nature, while a third involved some form of dishonesty. Only around a tenth each involved substance abuse or violence. “We find that in many of the examples where a CEO’s indiscretion caused significant harm to the company, the CEO was a repeat offender, underscoring the importance of stakeholders really getting to know company leadership,” Cline said.

Knee jerk reactions to the announcement of an extramarital affair or lying about qualifications would seem obvious, and an immediate damage to a company’s stock price is almost inevitable. But the damage lasts longer. Indiscretions are not just associated with short-term stock price damage. Stock prices at companies that suffered from CEO mess-ups fell in total by between 11% and 14% over the subsequent 12 months.

Firms with badly behaved CEOs also have poorer operating performance during the fiscal year in which the CEO is found out. And such companies are also far more likely to be sued by shareholders, and they are more likely to the subject of an investigation by the Department of Justice or the Securities and Exchange Commission, or both.

It doesn’t seem to make much difference whether the CEO keeps his job or is dismissed. Companies who fired their CEO perform just as poorly as those who leave him in the job. This seems to be the case despite the fact that companies with better boards—more independent directors, better oversight of management – are far more likely to fire a guilty CEO than those with lax boards.

Sexual indiscretions were the most common CEO mishap examined in the study, but they were not the most damaging to a company’s performance. “Interestingly, relative to the other indiscretion categories, such as substance abuse and sexual misadventure, the results are particularly severe for cases of dishonesty,” Cline said. “Personal dishonesty impairs reputation and ruins the trust and confidence that investors, the board, subordinates, and customers have in management.”

Shareholders react badly to these events because they are concerned about two major issues with management. The first is “distraction”; the CEO can’t do a good job because he is dealing with fallout from the disclosures. The second is “managerial character”; shareholders simply don’t trust a CEO who has told lies.

To look at this even more closely, the study tried to find out if companies with indiscreet CEOs were also more likely to manipulate their finances. It turns out that they were.

These companies are hit multiple times – falling stock prices, poor operating performance, legal action, and manipulating earnings. There is an obvious conclusion for CEOs—don’t do it. But better corporate governance can help.

Almost a quarter of the CEOs who were found to have committed such indiscretions were founders. Founder CEOs have far more power over their boards than widely held institutions. Boards that are paying attention, and where the CEO knows it, are far less likely to have these kinds of problems in the first place.