在上市公司里，股東和職業經理人之間的矛盾是一對永恒的矛盾，同時它也是企業最主要的矛盾之一。不過在某一個方面上，股東已經獲得了決定性的勝利?，F在的上市公司大幅減少了“輪選制”董事會結構，而該結構可以減輕期待改革的投資者給企業領導者帶來的壓力。

股東雖然贏得了勝利，但是否卻輸掉了戰爭？看來確實是這樣。董事會輪選制實際上是可能帶來更好的回報的。

董事會輪選制有點像美國參議院選舉。董事會成員是分組輪流選舉的，一般每年會改選三分之一的董事會成員。非輪選制的董事會更像美國眾議院，所有席位在每次選舉中都是開放的。在參議院式的結構下，要想取得多數席位，至少要經過兩次選舉。這樣一來，股東要想趕走現有的董事，要求企業做出戰略轉向，就要難得多了。

根據來自財經信息公司FactSet的數據，2009年的時候，標普500指數公司中有41%采用了輪選制董事會架構。而現在，在標普500指數公司中，采用這種架構的只有54家，約占總數的11%。這種轉變一定程度上要歸功于安然（Enron）和世通（WorldCom）的倒掉。這兩家公司的崩潰與腐敗有著千絲萬縷的聯系，他們的前車之鑒也使加強企業治理改革成了企業界的“政治正確”，而輪選制董事會的“舒適區”也使這種架構很容易成為靶子。到了10年代初，鼓吹股東權益的人開始進一步反對董事會輪選制，稱這種架構保護了無能的職業經理人，損害了企業的價值。他們的理論成功說服了100多家公司放棄了這種架構。

不過近年來，采取輪選制架構的公司在業績上卻超過了他們的競爭對手，有的差距還相當明顯。過去五年間（截止到三月底）在標普500企業中，采取輪選制架構的公司的平均回報率達到了125%。而作為一個整體而言，標普500企業的平均回報率僅為52%。

當然，這些數據也可能代表了經理學家們所謂的“幸存者偏差”，即一家采用了輪選制架構的公司如果獲得的回報率太低，就會更傾向于放棄這種架構。不過更深入細致的研究表明，這種架構也是可以帶來回報的。研究人員馬爾蒂安·克里默斯、盧博米爾·利托夫和西蒙·塞普等曾對1978年至2015年間改變了董事會架構的3000多家公司進行研究，這些公司要么是由輪選制改為非輪選制，要么反之。研究發現，在輪選制架構下，這些公司的“企業價值”平均增長了3.2%到6.1%——這里的“企業價值”是用諾貝爾經濟學獎得主詹姆斯·托賓的Tobin’s Q值衡量的，代表企業的市場價值與資本重置成本之比。無獨有偶，哈佛商學院教授查爾斯·王和他的團隊進行了類似研究。在1990年，馬薩諸塞州因為該州法律修改，總部設在該州的公司都被要求采取輪選制架構。查爾斯·王發現，在接下來的15年里，這些企業的平均Tobin’s Q值增長得非常迅速。

輪選制何以成為企業成功的秘訣？因為它使優秀的經理人不容易受到外界干擾，從而更容易地進行創新，查爾斯·王的研究發現，那些在研發上投入巨資的企業，在輪選制架構下往往表現得更好。他表示：“外部影響一般對這些創新活動較為不利”，因為股東往往更期待管理層拿出短期成績，而不是著眼長期進行投資。（值得一提的是，在標普500企業中現存的54家采用輪選制架構的公司中，有16家從事醫療行業，包括生物技術和制藥行業。）

現在，越來越多的公司傾向于在上市時采取輪選制董事會架構，在2008年，只有38%的IPO公司采取了這一架構。而到了2016年，這個比例上升到了81%。（今年迄今為止最受矚目的IPO公司Lyft也采取了輪選制董事會架構。）

不過，投資者也不能想當然地以為董事會輪選制是包治百病的靈丹妙藥。查爾斯·王指出，輪選制雖然給董事會挖了一道“護城河”，但如果企業以此來隔絕所有合理的批評，則這種架構也會起負面效果。（而賦予了公司高管和創始人“超級投票權”的雙層股權結構則會帶來更大風險，參見側邊欄）。如果管理層的表現確實大家深感失望，那么非輪選制架構確實更便于股東對公司施壓，實現管理層的換血。

下面的三家公司都采用了輪選制架構，他們的運營非常穩健，而且基本都成功避免了上面所說的“護城河”心態。

很少有實體零售商在電商時代還能像Ulta Beauty這樣蓬勃發展。在輪選制董事會的支持下，該公司CEO瑪麗·狄龍瞄準了商業街等商場以外的購物場所，因為這些地方并不像傳統購物中心一樣面臨客流下降的問題。過去3年間，Ulta Beauty開設了313家新店，約占旗下門店總數的27%。它的店內購物體驗也是網店無可比擬的，比如顧客可以來店享受其獨家產品和“美容吧”等設施。奧本海默公司分析師魯比什·帕里克表示：“我們非?？春迷摴镜那熬??！彼硎?，雖然該公司股價去年上漲了67%，但其走勢還是符合其歷史平均水平的。

過去10年間，醫療保險公司Anthem將它的藥品福利管理服務（PBM）外包給了Express Scripts公司。這筆交易已于今年3月結束?，F在Anthem正在推出自己的PBM服務。這也是該公司戰略上的一次飛躍，該公司管理層認為，此舉帶來的利益將遠遠超過風險。巴克萊分析師史蒂文·瓦萊奎特認為，這一舉措將在未來3到5年內，給予Anthem每年10%至12%的收入增長空間。

IDEXX實驗室是一所行業領先的獸醫診斷機構。隨著人們越來越注重寵物健康，這家公司也受益頗豐。據Can-accord Genuity公司分析師馬克·馬薩羅稱，IDEXX實驗室的研發支出獨占整個動物健康診斷行業的80%，推動了“業內幾乎所有的創新”。該公司的顧客保留率接近99%。它的股票也價格不菲，過去三年間上漲了183%。不過馬薩羅表示，它的股票完全值這個價錢。

雙重股權困局

這些公司雖然可能擁有光明的未來，然而“雙重股權”結構賦予其創始人的絕對投票權，卻有可能上其他股東感到不安。

Facebook

創始人、CEO馬克·扎克伯格通過強大的B股控制著60%的股東投票權。這種控制權幫助Facebook承擔了盈利風險，同時在扎克伯格因數據安全和隱私問題受到抨擊時，也使他免于遭受了來自投資者的壓力。

雅詩蘭黛

蘭黛家族控制了87%的股東投票權。另外他們也表明了自己愿意信任像CEO法布里齊奧·弗雷達這樣強勢的領導者。但與此同時，蘭黛家族還占據了董事會的四分之一席位，公司的事誰說了算，再明顯不過了。

環球健康服務

環球健康服務公司是一家醫院運營商，它的A股和C股共計擁有87%的投票權，主要控制在其創始人、CEO艾倫·米勒及其家人手中。近些年，該股表現遠遜于標普500醫療指數。公司發展方向的任何調整都取決于米勒之手。（財富中文網）

本文的另一版本載于2019年5月刊的《財富》雜志。

作者：Ryan Derousseau

譯者：樸成奎

The eternal battle for control at public companies between executives and shareholders is one of the most important narratives in business. And on one front, shareholders have won decisively: They’ve sharply reduced the use of “staggered” boards of directors, which can help protect business leaders from the pressures of reform-minded investors.

But in winning the victory, did they lose the war? Seems so. Staggered boards may actually deliver better returns.

A staggered board is like the U.S. Senate: Directors are elected on a rotating basis, typically with one out of three facing election each year. A non-staggered board is more like the House: Every seat is up for grabs in each election. With a Senate-like structure, it takes two elections to replace a majority of the board—making it far more difficult for shareholders to oust directors and demand a shift in strategy.

In 2009, 41% of S&P 500 boards used such setups. Today, only 54 companies in that index, or 11%, have non-annual voting, according to FactSet. For that sea change, you can partly thank Enron and WorldCom. The corruption-driven collapses of those companies made corporate-governance reform a cause célèbre—and the perceived coziness of staggered boards made them an easy target. Research at the time also suggested that firms that reelected all directors annually were better performers. By the early 2010s, shareholder-rights advocates were lobbying against staggering, on the grounds that it hurt value by shielding bad managers. Their efforts helped persuade more than 100 companies to abandon the practice.

But in recent years, staggered-board companies have wound up outperforming their peers—and significantly at that. For the five years through March, S&P 500 companies that utilized non-annual voting registered an average total return of 125%; for the index as a whole, the figure was 52%.

These figures may represent what economists call “survivorship bias”: A company that’s reaping lousy returns with a staggered board is more likely to ditch it. Still, more nuanced studies also suggest that the structure can pay off. Researchers Martijn -Cremers, Lubomir Litov, and Simone Sepe looked at more than 3,000 companies that changed their boards from staggered to unstaggered or vice versa from 1978 to 2015. They found that those companies’ “firm values” increased by 3.2% to 6.1% under a staggered structure, as measured by Tobin’s Q, a metric that divides a company’s enterprise value by the value of its assets. Similarly, Harvard Business School professor Charles Wang and his coauthors evaluated companies headquartered in Massachusetts that were required to adopt staggered voting in 1990, owing to a change in state law. In the 15 years that followed, Wang found, their average Tobin’s Q value grew sharply.

What makes staggering a secret sauce? It appears to make it easier for good managers to innovate, free of outside pressure. Wang’s research found that businesses that spend heavily on R&D tend to perform better under alternating-election boards. “External influence is more likely bad for these types of innovative activities,” says Wang, because shareholders may lean on management for short-term results rather than giving an investment with a long time-horizon the support it needs. (Tellingly, of today’s staggered S&P 500 companies, 16 of 54 are in health care, including biotech and pharmaceuticals.)

It’s potentially a good sign that companies launching initial public offerings are increasingly likely to have staggered boards. In 2008, 38% of IPO companies had such structures; in 2016 that figure was 81%. (This year’s best-known IPO debutant so far, ride-share company Lyft, has a staggered board.)

Still, investors shouldn’t assume staggering is a panacea. Building a moat around the board, says Wang, can have negative consequences as well, if companies use staggering to insulate themselves from justified criticism. (Dual-class share structures, which give “super-voting” rights to executives and founders, present even greater risks; see sidebar.) An unstaggered board can make it easier for investors to press for change if management starts to drastically disappoint.

Here are three companies that are in the middle of solid runs under staggered boards—and have so far avoided the moat mentality.

Few brick-and-mortar retailers have thrived in the e-commerce era like Ulta Beauty (ulta, -0.44%). Backed by a staggered board, CEO Mary Dillon has targeted “off-mall” locations like strip malls, which haven’t lost traffic as traditional malls have. Ulta has opened 313 new locations over the past three years, about 27% of its store count. It also emphasizes in-store experiences that online rivals can’t match, including exclusive products and sit-down “beauty bars.” “We’re very bullish on the company’s prospects,” says Oppenheimer analyst Rupesh Parikh, who says the stock trades in line with historical averages, despite climbing 67% over the past year.

For the past decade, health insurer Anthem outsourced its pharmacy benefits management (PBM) services to Express Scripts. That deal ended in March, and now Anthem is launching its own PBM service, a long-term strategic leap with benefits that management believes will far outweigh the risks. Barclays analyst Steven Valiquette says the move will give Anthem room to grow revenues between 10% and 12% annually over the next three to five years.

IDEXX Laboratories, a leader in veterinary diagnostics, has benefited from our willingness to spend on our pets’ wellness. It also accounts for as much as 80% of the animal-health diagnostic market’s R&D spending, driving “almost all innovation in the industry,” says Mark Massaro, an analyst at Can-accord Genuity. The company boasts customer retention rates near 99%. Its stock is pricey, having jumped 183% over the past three years, but it deserves to trade at a premium, says Massaro.

Dual-Class Dilemma

These companies may have bright futures, but the voting control their “dual-class” stock gives to their founders can make other investors uneasy.

Facebook

Founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg controls about 60% of the shareholder vote through powerful B shares. That control has helped Facebook take profitable risks. It also insulates Zuckerberg from investor pressure as he battles questions about data security and privacy.

Estée Lauder

The Lauder -family controls 87% of shareholder voting power. They’ve shown a willingness to trust strong leaders like CEO Fabrizio Freda. But with family also accounting for 25% of the board, it’s clear where the final decisions lie.

Universal Health Services

The hospital operator’s A and C shares, which account for 87% of voting power, are largely controlled by founder and CEO Alan Miller and his family. The stock has sharply underperformed the S&P 500 Health Care Index in recent years; any big course correction is in Miller’s hands.

A version of this article appears in the May 2019 issue of Fortune with the headline “When a Shuffled Deck Means a Better Hand.”