????在危機中招募新任領導人的第一條原則：不要讓危機愈演愈烈。

????周二，克里斯丁?拉加德當選國際貨幣基金組織（International Monetary Fund）新一任總裁，接替5月18日辭職的多米尼克?斯特勞斯?卡恩。卡恩因涉嫌在美國紐約的酒店中性侵犯一位女服務生而面臨指控。

????如果等到斯特勞斯?卡恩的任期結束，拉加德是否仍然是該職位的最佳人選？這個問題完全不重要，重要的是：眼下，她確實是合適的人選。

????萊維克戰略溝通公司（Levick Strategic Communications）高級副總裁兼危機與訴訟事務部總監吉尼?格拉博夫斯基表示，在危機情況下，“有時候，公司不得不作出妥協——他們需要選擇特定的候選人以示對特定利益的讓步。”

????盡管任命拉加德不見得是一種妥協，但依然理由可以說明，她為什么符合IMF當前的要求。

????首先，IMF如果想任命首位女性總裁，這是最佳時機。格拉博夫斯基表示：“此次任命向外界傳遞了一個信息，即IMF并不是一個僅僅由男性主導的俱樂部；同時，IMF也已經意識到斯特勞斯?卡恩訴訟事件的嚴重性。”

????其次，IMF沒必要為選擇接班人一事大動干戈。從內部選擇一位新總裁，通過較小幅度的調整就能為組織帶來積極變化，這是IMF可以承受的。IMF也不需要進行徹底改革，因為此次危機僅限于管理團隊的一名成員而已。

????當然，情況并不總是如此。

????比如，去年八月份，馬克?赫德便是在一次較為嚴重的管理層危機中辭去惠普公司（Hewlett-Packard）CEO職位的。當時馬克?赫德面臨的性騷擾指控使公司董事會產生分裂，并引起了股東的不安。惠普公司迫切需要輸入新鮮血液，重新穩定局面。

????格拉博夫斯基表示，拉加德接管IMF與當年杰拉爾德?福特在理查德?尼克松被彈劾后接任美國總統一事異曲同工。“許多人推測，福特并不是總統的完美人選。”但美國公眾普遍認為他足夠誠實。“他可以當一名管家，而不是變革的推動者；這樣的角色正適合他來出演。”

????拉加德的角色也非常類似，因為IMF并不需要進行重組。但是，它確實需要一位領袖，擺脫斯特勞斯?卡恩所帶來的寡廉鮮恥的形象。

????不論卡恩曾帶領IMF獲得過怎樣的成功，他這次的行為都令人不齒；并且，對于身處危機中的IMF來說，這是非常危險的。事實上，在上個月此次指控浮出水面之前，卡恩便一直因為拈花惹草而臭名昭著。

????當然，總統繼任的程序與IMF執行委員會選擇拉加德的程序并不相同，而IMF的程序與惠普選擇下一任CEO的程序也存在差別。但是，這三件事均為危機中的無奈之舉，這是它們的相同之處。

????除了“管家”的職務之外，在危機中接過重擔的管理者，還需要理解數字化時代對領導力的要求。在過去，對于才干超群的優秀領導人，他們的越軌行為通常會得到寬恕。但現在已經截然不同。當下，公眾有足夠多的渠道了解管理者的公共和私人生活。

????格拉博夫斯基表示：“實際上，在這個透明的時代，只要愿意，任何人都能憑借互聯網進入你的董事會會議室。”當然，臥室也一樣可以照進不誤。

????（翻譯 劉進龍）

????The first rule of hiring a new leader during turmoil: do not make the crisis worse.

????Today, the International Monetary Fund selected Christine Lagarde as its next director to replace the disgraced Dominique Strauss-Kahn, who resigned on May 18 amid accusations that he sexually assaulted a maid in a New York hotel.

????It doesn't really matter whether Lagarde would be the best choice for the position had Strauss-Kahn's term come to a natural end: she's a good choice for right now.

????In a crisis, "Sometimes you're going to have to compromise -- you're going to choose the candidate as a concession to certain interests," says Gene Grabowski, senior vice president and chair of the crisis and litigation practice at Levick Strategic Communications.

????While Lagarde's appointment is not necessarily a concession, there are several reasons why she fits the bill.

????For one, there's no better time for the IMF to hire its first female director. Grabowski says: "It sends a message that the organization isn't just an old boy's club and is aware of the seriousness of the charges against Strauss-Kahn."

????Secondly, the IMF does not need to rock the boat too much. The organization can afford to hire someone internally who will spur positive but minor changes. It doesn't need an overhaul because this particular crisis was isolated to one member of the management team.

????That's not always the case.

????For example, Mark Hurd's resignation from his position as CEO of Hewlett-Packard (HPQ) last August happened in the midst of a larger management problem. The sexual harassment charges filed against Mark Hurd split the company's board and unsettled its shareholders. HP needed fresh blood to make things run smoothly again.

????But Lagarde taking over the IMF is comparable to when Gerald Ford stepped up after Richard Nixon was impeached, says Grabowski: "Ford, by most people's estimation, was not the perfect president," but he was perceived as honest. "That was his role, to be a steward, not a change agent."

????Lagarde's role is similar, in that the IMF doesn't need to restructure. It does, however, need a leader to represent a shift away from the kind of moral carelessness Strauss-Kahn had come to portray.

????Regardless of his success at leading the IMF, his behavior (he had been known as a notorious womanizer even before the charges surfaced last month) was off-putting at best and dangerous to the organization during times of crisis, like now.

????To be sure, the presidential succession process is different from the process that went into the IMF executive board's selection of Lagarde, which is, in turn, different from the way a company like HP chooses its next CEO. But it's the unique qualities of a crisis that unify them

????Along with stewardship, managers entering under crisis conditions must also understand the demands of leadership in the digital age. In the past, personal transgressions were forgivable for exceptionally talented leaders. That's not the case anymore and the public has significant access to managers' public and private lives.

????Grabowski says: "In this age of transparency and Internet empowerment, virtually anybody who wants to be can be in your board room." And in your bedroom, apparently.