美國商界可以填補特朗普的領導力真空

Are we entering a new era of the statesman chief executive? It’s a question worth asking after the disbanding of President Donald Trump’s two major business councils last week.

我們正在步入一個政治家CEO的新時代嗎？這是一個值得問的問題，尤其是在上週唐納德?特朗普(Donald Trump)總統的兩個主要商界顧問委員會解散之後。

Many of the chiefs involved, who harboured mixed feelings about engaging with the president, did so because they hoped to push through a business friendly agenda that included tax and educational reform as well as major infrastructure projects and stay in the good graces of the White House, historically a net positive for corporate prospects.

許多懷着複雜感情與特朗普打交道的首席執行官之所以參加這兩個委員會，是因爲他們希望推動通過一項包括稅改、教育改革以及重大基礎設施項目的商業友好型議程，同時博得白宮歡心——歷史上這樣做對企業前景只有好處。

What has become clear over the past few days is that being close to this “business friendly” president is not necessarily good for business.

過去幾天時間，顯而易見的是，靠近這位“對商業友好的”總統未必對企業有利。

Share prices have taken a hit from the White House chaos, and some corporate leaders have faced criticism from their own staff for getting involved in the White House and not speaking out earlier. Some are calling on the private sector to take up the mantle of American leadership.

白宮亂象導致股價受到衝擊，一些商界大佬因參加特朗普的顧問團且事先未作聲明而受到了自家員工的批評。一些人呼籲私營部門舉起美國領導力的大旗。

“This is a time in the history of our country when every business leader needs to demonstrate the moral courage to stand up for what this country is all about,” says Howard Schultz, who did not sit on either of the president’s business councils but did hold a company-wide meeting last week to address “fears, anxieties and concerns” about Mr Trump’s handling of Charlottesville.

“我們國家正處於這樣一個歷史時刻，每一位商界領袖都需要展現出道德勇氣，堅決捍衛這個國家的根本，”星巴克(Starbucks)首席執行官霍華德?舒爾茨(Howard Schultz)說。他沒有參加特朗普的這兩個商界顧問委員會，但上週召開了一次全公司範圍的會議，以應對特朗普處理夏洛茨維爾(Charlottesville)事件造成的“恐懼、焦慮和擔憂”。

“We all feel unsettled. I feel I have an even bigger responsibility as a business leader now to step into the political discussion,” says the head of Starbucks, who has been whispered about as a possible presidential candidate for 2020.

“我們都感到不安。我覺得，作爲一名商界領袖，我現在有更大的責任要介入政治討論，”舒爾茨說。有傳言稱他有可能在2020年競選總統。

He is not alone. Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan chief, was one of many executives to send a strongly worded memo to employees; he criticised the president’s handling of the “evil” perpetrated in Charlottesville, noting that “constructive economic and regulatory policies” were insufficient to get the country back on track given the “divisions in our country. It’s a leader’s role, in business or government, to bring people together, not tear them apart.”

這樣做的不只舒爾茨一人。摩根大通(JPMorgan)首席執行官傑米?戴蒙(Jamie Dimon)等許多高管向員工發出了措辭嚴厲的備忘錄。戴蒙批評了特朗普對夏洛茨維爾發生的“惡行”的處理方式，並指出，鑑於“我們國家的種種分歧”，“建設性的經濟和監管政策”不足以讓這個國家回到正軌。“在商界或者政府中，領袖的作用是把人們團結起來，而非將他們撕裂。”

Arne Sorensen of Marriott, which has run a pointed “golden rule” ad over the past few days, told me that a more political role for chief executives today is “unavoidable and essential. You can say it shouldn’t exist, or try to hide from it, but neither approach works. There is enormous anxiety right now among our guests, and our community all over the world. They want to hear a voice that is welcoming, and affirming.”

萬豪(Marriott)在過去幾天推出了一條針對性的“黃金法則”廣告。萬豪首席執行官蘇安勵(Arne Sorenson)對我說，首席執行官如今發揮更大的政治作用是“不可避免和不可或缺的。你可以說這種責任不應該存在，或者試圖迴避，但兩種方式都行不通。現在，我們的賓客以及世界各地的社區都存在巨大的焦慮。他們希望聽到一種歡迎和肯定的聲音。”

This means that they want to hear the best American values articulated. That is a role that business used to play. In the 1950s, ’60s and into the ’70s, as US businesses exported global capitalism, they were expected to export American ideas of liberal democracy and inclusiveness. Business leaders pushed through things like the Employment Act of 1946, and the Marshall Plan, which many Americans at the time were against.

這意味着他們希望聽到最優秀的美國價值觀得到明確表達。這正是商界過去所發揮的作用。上世紀50年代至70年代，隨着美國企業向全球輸出資本主義，它們被寄予輸出美國自由民主和包容理念的希望。商界領袖推動通過了《1946年就業法案》(Employment Act of 1946)和當時許多美國人反對的馬歇爾計劃(Marshall Plan)。

Not to be too romantic — their first priority was certainly to make a buck — but the best leaders were not just considered great businessmen, but great Americans; people who could move the needle on political and social agendas, as well as economic ones.

不要抱太多幻想——他們的首要任務當然是多賺錢——但最優秀的領導者不僅被認爲是偉大的商人，而且是偉大的美國人；是那些既能夠在政治和社會議程，也能在經濟議程上有所建樹的人。

Chief executives over the past decades have moved away from that role. The 1990s were defined in large part by self-interested “celebrity” corporate leaders. Following the 2008 financial crisis, many felt the safest bet was to keep their heads down and share prices high. The fact that economic globalisation has run so far ahead of political globalisation means that, in many ways, today’s chiefs are less ambassadors of “American” values than transnational leaders who have to adjust to what ever form of capitalism they find on the ground: from the laissez-faire Anglo-American styles to the more regulated European brand to the state models of many emerging markets.

過去幾十年，首席執行官們已遠離了這樣的角色。塑造上世紀90年代的主要是利己的“名人”企業領袖。2008年金融危機爆發後，許多首席執行官認爲最安全的做法是，個人保持低姿態，股價保持高企。經濟全球化發展的程度遠超政治全球化這一事實意味着，在許多方面，與跨國公司領袖相比，如今的首席執行官不再是“美國”價值觀的大使，而前者不得不適應他們實際面對的任何形式的資本主義：從自由放任主義的美國模式、更多監管的歐洲模式到許多新興市場的國家主導模式。

Yet in each of those milieus there is a role for corporate leaders who think about more than share prices. Indeed, a 2012 survey by the US consulting firm FTI found that, by a three-to-one margin, institutional investors want them to speak out on a broad variety of issues.

然而，在每一種模式下，那些不只關心股價的企業領袖都可以發揮作用。實際上，美國諮詢公司FTI 2012年的一項調查發現，四分之三的機構投資者希望首席執行官在各種各樣的問題上發表意見。

As Marc Benioff, head of Salesforce, put it: “CEOs have to be responsible for something more than their own profitability. You have to serve a broader group of stakeholders — from employees to the environment — and when politicians don’t get things right, corporate leaders have to act. That’s a big shift.”

正如Salesforce的掌門人馬克?貝尼奧夫(Marc Benioff)所言：“首席執行官們必須不僅僅對企業盈利能力負責。你必須服務於更廣泛的利益相關者羣體——從員工到環境——當政客們做得不對時，企業領袖必須有所行動。這是一個巨大轉變。”

It is one that is making a difference. Mr Benioff, for example, recently led a charge to change a proposed law in Indiana that would have discriminated against the LGBT community.

企業領袖的行動正在帶來變化。例如，貝尼奧夫最近領導了一場訴訟，要求修改印第安納州一項對LGBT羣體存在歧視的擬議法案。

“I called up Mike Pence, [then governor], reminded him that we were the biggest tech employer there and let him know that we couldn’t discriminate against our workforce.” The law was modified, as similar proposals in other states have been thanks to calls from chief executives.

“我打電話給（時任州長）邁克?彭斯(Mike Pence)，提醒他，我們是該州最大的科技僱主，讓他知道我們不能歧視自己的員工。”由於首席執行官們的呼籲，那部法案以及其他州類似的提案都得到了修改。

The business community is likewise moving ahead, with or without the White House, on issues such as climate change and immigration. In an era in which the richest 2,000 companies have more money (and arguably power) than two-thirds of countries, it is crucial that their actions balance the dearth of moral and economic leadership coming out of this White House.

無論白宮參與與否，商界都在推進氣候變化、移民等問題。在一個美國最富有的2000家企業擁有的財富（可以說還有權力）超過三分之二的國家的時代，用企業的行動來平衡白宮道德和經濟領導力的不足至關重要。