????時(shí)機(jī)就是一切。如果你愿意，請(qǐng)?jiān)囅胍幌峦ㄓ闷嚬荆℅eneral Motors）首席執(zhí)行官瑪麗?巴拉最近所經(jīng)歷的一切。就在不到一個(gè)月的時(shí)間里，她就從業(yè)界先鋒變成了眾矢之的。這一部分要?dú)w咎于通用汽車的問(wèn)題，一部分是由于她前任的錯(cuò)——但顯然和她本人無(wú)關(guān)。

????巴拉花了整整33年，一路披荊斬棘，才登上通用汽車的權(quán)力巔峰，在今年1月15號(hào)正式成為首席執(zhí)行官，成為所有人的偶像。但她上任還不到一個(gè)月，通用汽車就因?yàn)橹氯怂烂?、現(xiàn)在已經(jīng)臭名遠(yuǎn)揚(yáng)的點(diǎn)火開(kāi)關(guān)缺陷大規(guī)模召回。巴拉再也不會(huì)因她的堅(jiān)韌不拔和勇于突破玻璃天花板而廣受贊譽(yù)了，現(xiàn)在她就是各界攻擊的靶子，不斷地在電視轉(zhuǎn)播的國(guó)會(huì)聽(tīng)證會(huì)、媒體質(zhì)詢會(huì)和難以計(jì)數(shù)的各種論壇上飽受抨擊。

????一般來(lái)說(shuō)，我并不怎么同情首席執(zhí)行官們，他們肩負(fù)重任，卻也拿著天價(jià)高薪。當(dāng)然，公司陷入麻煩的時(shí)候，他們也得挺身而出。如果你拿著八位數(shù)的高薪，同時(shí)因?yàn)楣纠锉姸嘞聦俚墓ぷ鞫玫酱蠊P好處，那你因?yàn)橄聦俜稿e(cuò)而代人受過(guò)也實(shí)屬公平合理，哪怕你對(duì)這些問(wèn)題實(shí)際上毫不知情。這種狂轟濫炸總得有個(gè)盡頭，首席執(zhí)行官的辦公室就正好是它瞄準(zhǔn)的好靶子。

????不過(guò)，盡管痛貶巴拉能讓那些嗜血的華盛頓政客滿意，也能搞得滿城風(fēng)雨、輿論嘩然，但這么做卻著實(shí)荒唐。如果點(diǎn)火開(kāi)關(guān)召回事件發(fā)生在去年，而不是巴拉今年上任后不到一個(gè)月，那么2010年成為通用汽車首席執(zhí)行官的丹?阿克森現(xiàn)在就應(yīng)該在國(guó)會(huì)這場(chǎng)美式審判秀上接受質(zhì)詢。如果通用汽車或美國(guó)國(guó)家公路交通安全管理局（National Highway Traffic Safety Administration）或是這兩者都反應(yīng)迅捷、精明強(qiáng)干，那可能就該輪到阿克森的前任埃德?惠塔克里來(lái)受這份活罪了。

????我完全明白為什么要把火力集中到有頭有臉的個(gè)人、而不是把它分散到一個(gè)龐大的、非個(gè)人化的公司身上的道理。畢竟，三十多年前當(dāng)我在《福布斯》雜志（Forbes）【別跟我現(xiàn)在供職的《財(cái)富》雜志（Fortune）弄混了】效力時(shí)就學(xué)會(huì)了把公司和個(gè)人劃等號(hào)的本事，此后還一直賴此謀生。

????不過(guò)就算你真打算因?yàn)楣镜膯?wèn)題而抨擊某個(gè)個(gè)體，也應(yīng)該找對(duì)人，而不是對(duì)準(zhǔn)問(wèn)題浮出水面時(shí)剛好成為首席執(zhí)行官的那個(gè)人。

????可能國(guó)會(huì)應(yīng)該傳喚的是里克?瓦格納，即2000年6月開(kāi)始擔(dān)任通用汽車首席執(zhí)行官，也就是2009年政府出手救助公司免于破產(chǎn)時(shí)被迫下臺(tái)的那位。點(diǎn)火開(kāi)關(guān)問(wèn)題好像在他掌權(quán)期間就已初露端倪，而且一直沒(méi)人理會(huì)，但我敢說(shuō)瓦格納（我對(duì)此人了解不深，但卻頗有好感）對(duì)此也知之甚少，甚至完全不知情。不過(guò)畢竟那時(shí)候是他大權(quán)在握。

????或者也應(yīng)該傳喚聯(lián)邦政府安排的那兩位首席執(zhí)行官：埃德?惠塔克里（2009年12月到2010年9月）或阿克森（2010年1月到2014年1月15日）。還有兩位在位時(shí)間很短的執(zhí)行官，但他們?cè)谌螘r(shí)間太短，輪不到對(duì)這個(gè)問(wèn)題承擔(dān)責(zé)任。

????誠(chéng)然——這真是媒體圈最滑頭的一個(gè)詞——巴拉現(xiàn)在所受的這種不公平抨擊跟當(dāng)年作為美國(guó)國(guó)際集團(tuán)（AIG）總裁的埃德?李迪所受的不公平待遇相比實(shí)在是小巫見(jiàn)大巫。巴拉畢竟長(zhǎng)期效力于通用汽車公司，還拿著大把年薪，而李迪當(dāng)年的年薪只有區(qū)區(qū)1美元，卻要處理一大堆跟他毫無(wú)關(guān)系的破事。

????我舉雙手贊成問(wèn)責(zé)。如果想讓巴拉第一個(gè)站出來(lái)，對(duì)眼下的混亂局面承擔(dān)責(zé)任，那么別客氣，也請(qǐng)把通用汽車2009年破產(chǎn)這件事當(dāng)作擋箭牌，讓這家公司擺脫跟大多數(shù)死亡索賠的干系。

????不過(guò)，如果我們真打算因?yàn)槟承┲卮笕说溚幢馐紫瘓?zhí)行官們，比如美國(guó)國(guó)際集團(tuán)草率魯莽的金融投機(jī)行為，或是通用汽車致人死地的點(diǎn)火開(kāi)關(guān)，那也應(yīng)該揪出那些問(wèn)題發(fā)生時(shí)在任的執(zhí)行官，而不是問(wèn)題曝光時(shí)正好上任的繼任者。(財(cái)富中文網(wǎng))

????譯者：清遠(yuǎn)

????

????Timing is everything. Consider, if you will, the story of Mary Barra, the first female chief executive of General Motors, who in less than a month went from pioneer to punching bag. For something that's clearly GM's fault, and some of her predecessors' fault -- but clearly not her fault.

????Barra, who spent 33 years clawing her way to the top of GM (GM), became its CEO on Jan. 15, making her an icon of sorts. But less than a month later, GM began recalling vehicles because of its deadly, now-infamous faulty ignition switch. Instead of being praised for perseverance and cracking the glass ceiling, Barra is now a target, getting beaten up on a regular basis in televised Congressional hearings, in media scrums, and in other forums too numerous to name.

????I don't normally sympathize very much with CEOs, who get paid amazing amounts of money to assume a lot of responsibility, including taking the heat when the company screws up. If you're getting eight-digit paychecks and thus benefiting from the work of everyone below you in the corporate hierarchy, it's only fair that you get whacked for the sins of your subordinates, even if you knew nothing about them. The buck is supposed to stop somewhere, and the CEO's office is the right place.

????But beating up on Barra, which satisfies the bloodlust of Washington pols and makes for good theater and massive buzz, is absurd. Had the ignition-switch recall happened last year instead of less than 30 days after Barra took office this year, Dan Akerson, who became GM's CEO in 2010, would have been the one called in front of Congress to be tortured in the U.S. version of a show trial. Had GM or the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration or both of them been quick and competent, it might have been Akerson's predecessor, Ed Whitacre, who was tortured.

????I totally get the point of focusing blame on an individual, who's identifiable, rather than diffusing it over a big, impersonal corporation. After all, that's the kind of thing I have been doing for a living ever since I learned the art of personalizing companies during my days at Forbes magazine (not to be confused with my current employer Fortune) more than 30 years ago.

????But if you're going to beat up on an individual for the failure of a company, you ought to beat up the right individual -- not the person who happens to be CEO when the problem surfaces.

????Maybe Congress should be calling Rick Wagoner, the company's CEO from June of 2000 until the government forced him out in 2009 as the price of rescuing the company's operations from collapse. The ignition problem seems to have started and been ignored sometime during his regime, even though I would be willing to bet that Wagoner (whom I know slightly, and kind of like) knew little or nothing about it. But he was in charge then.

????Or you could call either of the two CEOs the federal government installed: Ed Whitacre (Dec. 1, 2009 to Sept. 1, 2010) or the aforementioned Akerson (Sept. 1, 2010 to Jan. 15, 2014). There are two other short-timers, but they weren't around long enough to be held responsible.

????To be sure -- three of the most weaselly words in journalism -- the unfair beating that Barra is getting doesn't approach the unfairness of the way that Ed Liddy got as chairman of AIG. Barra, after all, is a GM lifer with a serious comp package, while Liddy was serving at $1 a year to preside over a mess he had nothing to do with.

????I'm all in favor of accountability. And if you want to hold Barra responsible for the mess of first admitting responsibility, then trying to use GM's 2009 bankruptcy to shield the company from most of the death claims, be my guest.

????But if we're going to beat up CEOs for disasters like AIG's reckless financial bets or GM's deadly ignition switches, let's beat up the people who were in charge when the mistakes were made. Not the people who happen to be in charge when the problems surface.