????有許多大公司的知名CEO都是外國人，如雷諾日產(chǎn)集團（Nissan and Renault）的卡洛斯?戈恩、可口可樂公司（Coca-Cola）的穆泰康、百事可樂公司（PepsiCo）的盧英德和索尼公司（Sony）的霍華德?斯金格。

????與此同時，全球化進程雖然受到2008-09年的全球經(jīng)濟低迷影響，但此后勢頭又不斷增強。為運營規(guī)模龐大的全球業(yè)務(wù)，企業(yè)高管變身空中飛人頻繁往來世界各地已經(jīng)不足為奇。

????于是，全球CEO（通常被理解為來自公司總部所在國以外國家或有相當一部分職業(yè)生涯在海外度過的CEO）的概念便有理可循了。如今的企業(yè)需要管理人員具有高水平的海外專長，而過去并不需要這些。

????但是如果你認真研究2012年全球2500家最大的上市公司CEO的背景，對“全球CEO”的傳統(tǒng)概念會變得難以捉摸。在2012年新上任的300名CEO中，來自公司總部所在國以外國度的只占19%。我們研究發(fā)現(xiàn)，即使在全球前250家最大的上市公司（這些應(yīng)該算是最能稱得上全球化的公司），新上任CEO也只有25%來自海外。

????去年新上任外籍CEO的比例與過去四年的平均數(shù)十分相似，這表明，總體來說，全球CEO所占比例并未上升。另外，新上任的本土CEO也并不一定擁有豐富的海外經(jīng)歷。去年，擁有海外工作經(jīng)驗的新上任CEO只占45%，而在我們調(diào)查的全球前250家最大的上市公司中，擁有海外工作經(jīng)驗的新任CEO也僅占52%。

????相比歐洲，聘請外籍CEO的美國公司比例要少得多。譬如，在過去4年中，只有14%的美國公司聘請外籍CEO，而在西歐，這個比例高達30%。當然，不得不承認，歐洲公司大多數(shù)情況下都是從歐洲其他國家聘請的外籍CEO。在日本，只有1%的新任CEO來自國外。

????在不同行業(yè)，外籍CEO占比也存在差異。在過去4年中，電信和必需消費品上市公司聘請的CEO中有25%以上來自海外，相比之下，公用事業(yè)和IT行業(yè)的外籍CEO比例分別為12%和9%。大多數(shù)公用事業(yè)公司都具有區(qū)域性特征，所以外籍CEO占比不高是可以理解的，而IT行業(yè)從業(yè)人員比較年輕，相對來說，他們獲得海外工作經(jīng)歷的機會不多。

????由此可見，大部分CEO都是其公司所在國的本土人士，且大多數(shù)情況下，他們并沒有長時間的海外工作經(jīng)歷。在人們大談全球化和全球CEO的今天，這可能顯得令人意外。不過，我認為這也不算意外，原因如下：

????首先，大部分大公司的董事會算不上特別全球化，盡管可能會有幾個象征性的外籍董事。如果這種現(xiàn)狀發(fā)展到極致，就會導(dǎo)致“熟人腐敗”現(xiàn)象，也就是說，董事們會讓與他們氣味相投的人來擔(dān)任重要職位。如今，公司的董事會遠沒有它們的業(yè)務(wù)國際化，這也許可以解釋為什么它們的CEO沒那么全球化。

????Plenty of well-known CEOs have been brought in to run large companies based in countries outside their native lands. Carlos Ghosn at Nissan and Renault, Muhtar Kent at Coca-Cola (KO), Indra Nooyi at PepsiCo (PEP), and Howard Stringer at Sony (SNE) come to mind.

????Meanwhile, globalization continues to gain momentum following a slowdown after the 2008-09 worldwide economic downturn. The globetrotting corporate leader jetting from continent to continent to oversee vast business empires has become the expectation.

????The idea of the "global CEO" — usually understood as chief executives who either come from a country other than where their company is headquartered, or have spent a considerable amount of their careers working "overseas" — makes sense. Companies require a level of expertise outside their home territories that goes beyond what they have needed in the past.

????But if you look at the people who have become CEOs at the world's largest 2,500 public companies in 2012, the conventional notion of the global CEO is a myth. Among the incoming class of 300 new CEOs in 2012, just 19% were nationals of a country outside their company's headquarters. Even at the 250 largest companies in our study -- those most likely to be truly global -- only 25% of incoming CEOs came from another country.

????Last year's numbers on new-CEO nationality closely resemble the average over the past four years, suggesting that the overall percentage of "global chief executives" isn't on the rise. And these new, native CEOs are not necessarily globetrotters. Last year, just 45% of incoming CEOs had experience working in a region other than their companies' own; at the largest 250 companies in our study, the figure rose only to 52%.

????U.S. companies hire foreign CEOs far less often than European companies. Over the past four years, for instance, 14% of U.S.-based companies hired a foreigner, while fully 30% of Western European companies have done so. (Granted, European companies hired "foreigners" most often from other European countries.) In Japan, just 1% of new CEOs were foreign.

????CEO nationality differs among individual industries. Over the past four years, more than a quarter of new CEOs brought into companies in the telecom and consumer staples sectors globally were foreign-born, compared to just 12% of utilities CEOs and 9% of those in the IT industry. Most utilities are regionally focused, so the industry's low rate is understandable. As for IT companies, employees at these firms tend to be younger, and have had fewer opportunities for international experience.

????Most CEOs are natives of their companies' home countries, and they have not spent, for the most part, considerable lengths of time abroad. With all the talk about globalization and the worldly CEO, this may come as a surprise. But should it? I don't think so — for several reasons.

????For starters, boards at most large corporations are not especially global, despite the likely presence of a few token foreigners. At its most extreme, this can lead to what might be called "familiarity corruption," a kind of cronyism where directors turn to people like themselves to fill critical positions. Today, companies are more global than their boardrooms, and this may explain why they are more global than their CEOs.