????真正的問(wèn)題是，客戶的成功究竟有多重要？它比公司短期利潤(rùn)還要重要嗎？

????弄清到底什么才能最大限度地創(chuàng)造客戶成功意味著高盛不僅要促成金融交易，也要給客戶最合適的建議，并以客戶的最大利益為落腳點(diǎn)行事。如果高盛打算公開(kāi)聲稱這就是其客戶關(guān)系的實(shí)質(zhì)，它一定要非常確定自己做到了言行一致。從高盛的監(jiān)管歷史看，很難想見(jiàn)該公司達(dá)到了這個(gè)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。而且，不幸的是，在此屆董事會(huì)任期內(nèi)，業(yè)務(wù)實(shí)踐評(píng)估并沒(méi)有表現(xiàn)出深刻的反思，也使得這一愿望更難獲得推進(jìn)。

????上周三，董事會(huì)又錯(cuò)過(guò)了另一個(gè)機(jī)會(huì)。它不該對(duì)史密斯的批評(píng)充耳不聞，而應(yīng)該敦促首席執(zhí)行官認(rèn)真嚴(yán)肅地對(duì)待這些指責(zé)。它應(yīng)該利用這一機(jī)會(huì)與員工和其他人溝通，表明董事會(huì)將行動(dòng)起來(lái)，了解應(yīng)該采取什么樣的措施，讓所有的員工和利益相關(guān)者相信高盛確實(shí)做到了言行一致。

????相反，董事會(huì)卻放任布萊克費(fèi)恩和科恩采取了這樣一種做法：將史密斯的批評(píng)視為失控的言論而置之不理。它很有可能會(huì)在未來(lái)堵住檢舉者的嘴。如果他們甚至敢于公然采取這樣的做法，私下里還會(huì)做出些什么呢？

????董事會(huì)應(yīng)該親自采取行動(dòng)。如果一家公司的首席執(zhí)行官在兩周時(shí)間內(nèi)接連被一位法官和一位前雇員公開(kāi)指責(zé)，表明情況已經(jīng)相當(dāng)嚴(yán)重。

????如果所有的當(dāng)事人都嘲笑史密斯太幼稚，所有人都應(yīng)該知道高盛本來(lái)就像史密斯描述的那樣惡劣不堪，這難道不值得警醒嗎？

????上個(gè)月，我和一些董事們聊了聊，他們效力的公司在50家左右。他們相信，監(jiān)督企業(yè)文化是董事會(huì)最重要的職責(zé)之一，還說(shuō)，這項(xiàng)職責(zé)包括糾正高管們?cè)趯?duì)待員工、聲譽(yù)和道德方面的短視行為。當(dāng)然，調(diào)整晉升和薪酬等用人體系也是糾正錯(cuò)誤文化的重要途徑。

????這些董事稱，好的董事會(huì)需要知道中低層員工的想法，了解那些敢于直言的員工，傾聽(tīng)他們的意見(jiàn)，不能因?yàn)榇舻锰枚床坏焦炯捌湮幕嬖诘膯?wèn)題。許多董事會(huì)都會(huì)創(chuàng)造機(jī)會(huì)在不同場(chǎng)合會(huì)見(jiàn)中低層員工。一位董事談到他的董事會(huì)的做法。當(dāng)時(shí)，董事會(huì)在會(huì)議前夜邀請(qǐng)了中層經(jīng)理出席董事會(huì)晚宴，而且首席執(zhí)行官及其他高管都不在場(chǎng)。結(jié)果，董事會(huì)發(fā)現(xiàn)，這是了解真實(shí)情況的一個(gè)絕佳途徑。

????布萊克費(fèi)恩已在高盛董事會(huì)服務(wù)九年，有些高盛董事的服務(wù)期也已經(jīng)長(zhǎng)達(dá)7-13年。這些人是不是待的時(shí)間太久了？麻木到犯困了？嗨，高盛董事會(huì)，你們還醒著嗎？

????本文作者埃莉諾?布洛斯罕是董事會(huì)咨詢機(jī)構(gòu)價(jià)值聯(lián)盟及公司治理連門（The Value Alliance and Corporate Governance Alliance，http://thevaluealliance.com/）的首席執(zhí)行官。

????How much, exactly, does client success matter is the real question. Does it matter more than short-term profits?

????Figuring out what would best create client success would mean that Goldman would not just be facilitating financial transactions, they would advise clients in what best suited them and act in their interest. If Goldman wants to say publicly that is the nature of its client relationships, it needs to be darn sure it plans to live up to the advertising. It is hard to see how the firm has been living up to that standard based on its regulatory history. And, unfortunately, on this board's watch, the business practice review was not sufficiently well thought-out to move that aspiration forward.

????The board missed another opportunity yesterday. Instead of brushing off Smith's comments, the board should have ensured that the CEO took the allegations seriously. It should have used this opportunity to communicate to employees and others that it would move to understand what actions would make all employees and stakeholders comfortable that Goldman's deeds match their words.

????Instead, the board allowed Blankfein and Cohn to take the tact most likely to shut down future whistleblowers: reject Smith's comments as out of hand. If they are willing to do this in public, what goes on behind closed doors?

????The board itself should be taking action. It's serious when your CEO has been publicly called out by both a judge and an employee in a two-week timeframe.

????And shouldn't it be a wake-up call when stakeholders mock the employee whistleblower for being na?ve, implying that everyone should know that Goldman is as bad as Smith made it sound?

????Last month, I spoke with directors who sit on the boards of approximately 50 different companies and who believe the board's role in overseeing the corporate culture is one of its most important jobs. That role includes responsibility for redirecting any senior management myopia toward its people, reputation, and ethics, directors say. Of course, righting HR systems of promotions and compensation are primary ways to correct cultural miscues.

????Good boards need to know what individuals think, down inside the hierarchy, and get the views of those who will speak up and aren't already so embedded they can't see the problems in the organization and its culture, these directors say. While many boards create opportunities to meet with lower level staff in a variety of settings, one director spoke about how his board invites middle managers to the board dinner, the night before the board meeting, without the senior executive team or CEO present. That board has found it a great way to get the real lay of the land.

????Blankfein has been on the Goldman board for nine years and some Goldman directors have served terms ranging from seven to 13 years. Are some too embedded? Where have their hearts and minds been? Hello, Goldman board. Are you awake?

????Eleanor Bloxham is CEO of The Value Alliance and Corporate Governance Alliance (http://thevaluealliance.com), a board advisory firm.