????不是每位離職員工都有機(jī)會(huì)在《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》（New York Times）的社論版大談老東家，在高盛（Goldman Sachs）工作了12年的管理人士格雷格?史密斯上周三就利用這個(gè)機(jī)會(huì)痛斥了高盛的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)文化及其董事會(huì)。

????史密斯寫(xiě)道，個(gè)人能否升職取決于他們能給公司賺到多少錢(qián)，就算客戶(hù)利益受損也在所不惜。他聲稱(chēng)“（高盛）現(xiàn)任首席執(zhí)行官勞埃德?布蘭克費(fèi)恩和總裁蓋瑞?科恩任職期間喪失了對(duì)公司文化的控制”，“道德水準(zhǔn)的下降是高盛長(zhǎng)期生存能力面臨的最大挑戰(zhàn)。”他還寫(xiě)道：“我希望這件事可以為董事會(huì)敲響警鐘……重振企業(yè)文化，讓人們能有正當(dāng)?shù)睦碛衫^續(xù)留在高盛工作。”

????此事對(duì)高盛董事會(huì)確實(shí)堪稱(chēng)當(dāng)頭棒喝。

????人們不禁懷疑，到底多響亮的警報(bào)聲才能喚醒昏昏欲睡的高盛董事會(huì)。上上周，一位法官稱(chēng)，布蘭克費(fèi)恩顯然參與了說(shuō)服客戶(hù)埃爾帕索公司（El Paso Corporation）在一宗高盛具有利益沖突的交易中與其合作的事宜，消息迅速成為頭號(hào)新聞。在此之前，高盛報(bào)告稱(chēng)，美國(guó)證券交易委員會(huì)（SEC）正在調(diào)查其客戶(hù)披露問(wèn)題，這也是高盛的老問(wèn)題了。

????遠(yuǎn)離高盛震中的人已經(jīng)聽(tīng)到了警報(bào)聲，這一切發(fā)生時(shí)，高盛董事會(huì)在哪里呢？高盛拒絕就史密斯的文章發(fā)表評(píng)論，但告訴《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》，它不同意史密斯的觀點(diǎn)，聲稱(chēng)客戶(hù)的成功對(duì)高盛具有重要意義。

????布萊克費(fèi)恩和科恩在一份致員工的備忘錄中并沒(méi)有理會(huì)史密斯的批評(píng)，稱(chēng)他的意見(jiàn)并不能代表大多數(shù)員工的觀點(diǎn)。或許的確如此，但至少上周三晚間《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》的文章以及上周四早間彭博社（Bloomberg）的文章都在一定程度上駁斥了這種說(shuō)法。另外，還有另外一些利益相關(guān)者可能也贊同史密斯的觀點(diǎn)，這一點(diǎn)非常重要。

????喬治城大學(xué)（Georgetown University）法學(xué)教授拉斯?斯蒂文森上上周告訴我，投資銀行界的“自我認(rèn)知已發(fā)生了巨大變化”。過(guò)去，他們認(rèn)為自己要為產(chǎn)品擔(dān)保，作為“資本市場(chǎng)的看門(mén)人”，扮演有價(jià)值的社會(huì)角色。斯蒂文森稱(chēng)，如今這些價(jià)值觀都已經(jīng)喪失了。

????美國(guó)證交會(huì)對(duì)于布萊克費(fèi)恩和高盛董事會(huì)來(lái)說(shuō)重要嗎？布萊克費(fèi)恩和科恩沒(méi)有在致員工的備忘錄中提到最近的報(bào)道，也沒(méi)有提到與美國(guó)證交會(huì)的摩擦。上個(gè)月，證交會(huì)主席瑪麗?夏皮羅描述了對(duì)這類(lèi)公司持續(xù)執(zhí)法監(jiān)督的必要性——上周三，調(diào)查新聞網(wǎng)站Propublica回顧了過(guò)去12年高盛狀況頻出的監(jiān)管歷史。面對(duì)所有這些問(wèn)題，高盛董事會(huì)原本有幾次機(jī)會(huì)警醒過(guò)來(lái)，采取行動(dòng)。

????去年，外界紛紛質(zhì)疑高盛在這場(chǎng)金融危機(jī)中扮演的角色時(shí)，高盛董事會(huì)在審查公司業(yè)務(wù)實(shí)踐評(píng)估（Business Practice Review）時(shí)就錯(cuò)過(guò)了一個(gè)大好機(jī)會(huì)。這份區(qū)區(qū)67頁(yè)的文件充滿(mǎn)了陳詞濫調(diào)，但卻在解決員工面臨的道德難題上缺乏實(shí)質(zhì)性?xún)?nèi)容。上周三，高盛告訴《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》，客戶(hù)的成功對(duì)公司具有重要意義。但如果你賣(mài)的是自己都稱(chēng)之為“垃圾”的東西，買(mǎi)家和賣(mài)家誰(shuí)的利益到底哪個(gè)更重要不是明擺的事情嗎？

????Not every departing employee gets the chance to sound-off on a former employer in a New York Times op-ed, but Greg Smith, an executive who had worked at Goldman Sachs (GS) for 12 years, took that opportunity yesterday in a forceful indictment of Goldman's leadership culture and its board.

????Individuals are promoted based on the money they bring in even if clients are harmed, Smith wrote. Suggesting that "the current chief executive officer, Lloyd C. Blankfein, and the president, Gary D. Cohn, lost hold of the firm's culture on their watch" and that "this decline in the firm's moral fiber represents the single most serious threat to its long-run survival," he wrote: "I hope this can be a wake-up call to the board of directors … get the culture right again, so people want to work here for the right reasons."

????A wake-up call for the board, indeed.

????One wonders how much louder the alarm must ring before the drowsy Goldman board stirs. Last week, a judge's description of Blankfein's apparent role in persuading its client El Paso Corporation to work with Goldman in a conflicted situation was top news. The week before, Goldman reported that the SEC is looking into client disclosure issues, an alleged continuing problem at the firm.

????Others much further from Goldman's epicenter have heard the alarm, so where is the bank's board in all of this? Goldman Sachs declined to offer comment for this article but told the New York Times that the company disagreed with Smith and that clients' success does matter to Goldman.

????In a memo to employees, Blankfein and Cohn brushed off Smith's criticisms, saying his opinions did not represent general employee viewpoints. This may be so, although it was at least partially disputed in a New York Times article late yesterday and a Bloomberg article this morning. But there are other stakeholders who find Smith's descriptions apt, and that does matter.

????Georgetown University Law Professor Russ Stevenson told me last week that there has been a "dramatic change in self perception" among investment banks. They used to see themselves as vouching for their product, as acting as a "gatekeeper to the capital markets" and providing a valuable social role. That has been lost, Stevenson said.

????Is the SEC at all relevant to Blankfein and Goldman's board? Blankfein and Cohn did not mention the recent headlines or scrapes with the SEC in the memo to employees. Last month, SEC Chair Mary Schapiro described the need to continuously police these kinds of firms -- and yesterday, Propublica traced Goldman's troubled regulatory history over the last 12 years. With all of these troubling instances, the current board has had several opportunities to awaken and act.

????The board failed to seize a big opportunity last year when it oversaw the bank's Business Practice Review amid the fallout surrounding the company's role in the financial crisis. That inadequate 67-page document was big on platitudes but small on substance in addressing the ethical conundrums employees face. Goldman told the Times yesterday that client success mattered to the firm. But in the instance in which you are selling what you call junk, does only the seller's success matter and not the buyer's?