????高管的職業(yè)生涯到底有沒有終結(jié)的一天？抑或他們只是又換了新東家，重新披掛上陣？

????但有一點可以確定：如果高管或董事會成員打算退出——不論出于何種理由——他們通常不會被貼上“問題”成員的標(biāo)簽。實際上，他們的職業(yè)生涯只會受到極少的負(fù)面影響，通常都會再次出現(xiàn)在商界，重操舊業(yè)。

????最近，雅虎公司（Yahoo）CEO卡羅爾?巴茨，以及美國銀行（Bank of America）部門負(fù)責(zé)人薩利?克勞切克與喬?普萊斯等多位高管相繼離職，這系列變動這由得使人們心生疑問：這種循環(huán)是否還會繼續(xù)延續(xù)下去？

????相熟的商業(yè)大佬相互提攜、相互扶掖向來不是什么新鮮事。無論稱他們?yōu)楦吖茈A層，或是商界精英，數(shù)十年以來，一小撮企業(yè)高管們來來回回、跳來跳去，始終占據(jù)著報酬豐厚的崗位。

????各公司的董事會哥們義氣盛行，只管象征性地制定行政決策——除非出現(xiàn)問題，否則沒有人會過多地關(guān)注董事會，而外界則始終在揣測董事會內(nèi)的人際關(guān)系。是什么造成了這種現(xiàn)象？

熟人好辦事

????達(dá)特茅斯塔克商學(xué)院（Dartmouth's Tuck School of Business）教授悉尼?芬克斯坦解釋道：“這里面牽扯到方便程度的問題。填補董事會的一個空缺，通常會有五位專家級候選人物，而最終被選中的可能是來自同一鄉(xiāng)村俱樂部的會員。僅此而已?！?/p>

????芬克斯坦表示，高管與董事會成員要花大量時間在一起共事，因此，選擇熟悉的人更簡單一些。但芬克斯坦認(rèn)為，風(fēng)險在于（相對于公司利益），“董事們可能更關(guān)心友情和人情?！狈铱怂固怪小冻晒χ浮罚╓hy Smart Executives Fail）一書。

????斯坦福大學(xué)（Stanford）最近一項名為“紅字：公司經(jīng)營不善是否會牽連高層？”（Scarlet Letter: Are the CEOs and Directors of Failed Companies 'Tainted'?）的研究稱，在公司內(nèi)部的“搶椅子”游戲中，通常會為其他公司的高管和董事會成員留出機會，即便他們曾經(jīng)就職的公司已經(jīng)聲名狼藉。

????保險業(yè)巨頭美國國際集團（American International Group）的前任董事，包括美國自然歷史博物館（American Museum of Natural History）館長艾倫?富特和莫爾森公司（Molson Co.）前CEO馬紹爾?A?科恩等，均全身而退，轉(zhuǎn)而成為其他大型上市公司的董事會成員，其中不乏摩根大通（JP Morgan Chase）與在線經(jīng)紀(jì)商TD Ameritrade等公司。

????而貝爾斯登公司（Bear Stearns）、雷曼兄弟公司（Lehman Brothers）、美聯(lián)銀行（Wachovia Bank）和華盛頓互惠銀行（Washington Mutual）等雖已倒閉，但它們的董事卻搖身一變，成為威瑞森（Verizon）、陶氏化學(xué)（Dow Chemical）、惠普（Hewlett Packard）和耐克（Nike）等大型企業(yè)的董事。?

????Do executive careers die? Or do they just get recycled?

????One thing seems certain: When executives or board members head for the exit -- for whatever reason -- they often don't get tagged as tainted. In fact, they regularly pop up again on the corporate landscape in similar jobs with little apparent damage to their careers.

????A string of recent executive departures -- Yahoo (YHOO) CEO Carol Bartz to Bank of America's (BAC) division presidents Sallie Krawcheck and Joe Price, to name a few – raises the question of whether this cycle will continue.

????Rinsing and recycling familiar business leaders is far from new. Whether you call it the executive class or the corporate elite, a narrow band of execs have been hop-scotching to and from well-paid perches for decades.

????Boards replete with buddies rubberstamp executive decisions -- but no one pays attention until something goes wrong, and outsiders delve into board connections. What gives?

Familiar feels comfortable

????"There is a comfort level issue here," explains Sydney Finkelstein, professor at Dartmouth's Tuck School of Business. "You could find five experts for a board opening, and one's from the country club, and that's that."

????Finkelstein says that executives and board members have to spend a fair amount of time together, and it's easier with a known quantity. The risk, however, says Finkelstein, author of Why Smart Executives Fail, is that "directors might be more concerned about friendships and connections."

????In the game of corporate musical chairs, room is often made for even those from disgraced companies, according to a new Stanford study, called "Scarlet Letter: Are the CEOs and Directors of Failed Companies 'Tainted'?"

????Former directors of the insurance giant American International Group (AIG), like Ellen Futter, president of the American Museum of Natural History, and Marshall A. Cohen, former Molson Co. (TAP) CEO, for example, escaped unblemished and have migrated to the boards of other major public companies, including JP Morgan Chase (JPM) and TD Ameritrade (AMTD).

????Directors of defunct companies like Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Wachovia Bank and Washington Mutual have resurfaced on the boards of corporate behemoths like Verizon (VZ), Dow Chemical (DOW), Hewlett Packard (HPQ) and Nike (NKE).??