是什麼能讓國家、企業長治久安？

最近在看《大秦帝國》電視連續劇。

電視劇拍的不錯，至少裡面添加的美人故事和瞎掰的軍事“戰例”，讓你覺得好像真的是那麼回事（不明白為什麼非得偏離歷史那麼遠？！）。

不過，就其還算有點點靠譜的歷史主線描述，看着看着，還是讓人越看越迷糊：

商鞅生活的時代在公元前三百餘年之前，也就是距離今天兩千三百來年之前。那時候，按照電視劇裡面的描述，人類所生活的，還是一個文明程度極低的野蠻時代（我相信是事實！）。可是，就是在那個“孺子不可教”的年代，商鞅還是敢於相信，並且就此採取行動：野蠻的民眾在合理、公平的法律、法制系統統治之下，會生活的更為幸福，國家也會因此而變的強大。雖然最終商鞅還是被因他而致富的民眾和得益的統治者們而五馬分屍，但是，他讓積弱的秦國變為強大並且最終統一中國，卻是不爭的事實。

想想在已經文明幾千年之後的今天執政者的固執：“中國民眾還沒有文明到可以享受民主的程度”（國家拒絕實行民主制度的最重要理由之一！）的成見，也不知道中華文明幾千年的演變，為什麼還是如此的讓人的思維停滯不前？

就此展開思考，當前中國的政治腐敗和幾千年靠嚴打，靠誅殺九族都無法杜絕的腐敗延續，為什麼在美國卻可以輕而易舉的搞定，面對如此明顯的定位“錯誤”，卻無人願意去正視。

再者，電視劇里一再強調的，“法治讓平庸的國君誤國程度有限，讓明君得以擁有稱霸的基礎”，很可能是現代人，藉機對美國式民主的優越性的描述，但是，法治結構和由此形成的民主“國民性”習慣，對於國家長期進步的良性意義，恐怕也沒有說錯。

雖然在那裡描述的法治，還只是基於非常有限的公平與合理，但是，至少它是基於帶來社會巨大的進步而言的。

在那個年代，能夠做到那樣，已經是很奇蹟了。

國家和企業的運行，有很多相似之處。

很多研究表明，美國成功的企業，其CEO對於公司的控制權力多為有限，改變的效果也多為短期。公司的長期發展，更多的是由公司的文化決定的。換言之，很多企業的領導者所能夠做的，更多的還是“無為而治”，順勢而為！

而所謂的公司文化，就相當於一個國家的制度（如果將國家比喻為一個企業的話），和在這種制度下生活的人們長期習慣了之後，所形成的“國民性”。

公司老總的力量，就是對企業文化形成的影響（長期而言）。這種影響很多時候在短期無法看出，就像是慢火煮青蛙的效果。華而不實的領導者，給企業帶來的災難，很多在短期難以看出，而等到發現問題時，多數已經病入膏肓，難以救藥。歷史上這樣的例子實在是太多。

而對於企業文化的打造和改良，不同時期的企業，在不同領導者的手下，就有着非常不同的方法，和就此獲得很不同的結果了。

蘋果的創始人喬布斯在世時，強調不要在乎市場已經存在的需求，看重的是基於自己領悟所獲得的創新產品的打造，由此才有了今天獨一無二、生機勃勃的蘋果生態系統的出現。

而多數的企業領導者，卻只是喜愛於滿足市場的需求，結果就有了大量的靠山寨維持生存的企業家。

下面是五家非常霸道的企業領導者的做法，他們因為擁有獨裁權力，才可以做到不怎麼在乎股東的看法，同時也不在乎顧客的意見。這種違背“顧客就是上帝”天條的做法，居然最終也做的相當不錯。

讀讀他們的故事，再就此胡思亂想一通，喝幾口老酒，醉一回，或許你會有不少的收穫。

5 CEOs who don't care what you think

5/27/14 | MarketWatch, By Jeff Reeves

Life can be hard for a big-time CEO.

They must keep shareholders happy in a choppy stock market while trying to find sustainable growth in a sluggishU.S.economy.

Of course, for $100 million or so in compensation and a golden parachute for good measure, I think I could handle it.

But beyond the warm bodies just taking up a leather chair in the C-suite, there is a breed of CEO out there who actually makes an impact. These leaders don't actually care about managing finances quarter to quarter, and don't sweat any of the current pressures on theU.S.economy.

That's partially because this kind of executive is a rare talent with a knack for building a world-class business no matter what.

But it's also because, frankly, they don't give a damn.

If you're a shareholder with one of these guys at the helm, then one of two things is going to happen: either this hard-charging CEO will lead the company (and by proxy, its investors) to big success through determination and focus ... or vanity and tunnel vision will ultimately lead to the company's undoing.

I'll let you be the judge of which way the chips will fall with the following five CEOs who, frankly, don't care what pundits like me or investors like you think about them.

Elon Musk -- Tesla

How do you know when an exec considers his shareholders a low priority? Calling the company's stock overvalued is probably a good sign.

That's exactly what Tesla (TSLA) CEO Elon Musk did in October 2013. His exact words: "The stock price that we have is more than we have any right to deserve."

And that was when Tesla was at, like, $170 or so. Traders should wonder what he thinks now that the stock is above $200.

Musk quite literally spent his last pennies at the end of 2008 building out SpaceX and Tesla, but while he's made a mammoth return on his investment, the money doesn't seem to matter.

"I will be the last one to sell shares," he was quoted as saying last year.

The risk for investors, of course, is that Elon Musk's fondness for Tesla could result in the kind of hubris or stubbornness that plagues successful entrepreneurs. Take, for example, the "Gigafactory" battery-manufacturing facility that has more than its share of doubters and detractors. Or the fact that Musk thinks the idea of using hydrogen fuel cells in cars is "so bullshit."

Whether or not Tesla succeeds, one thing is certain: Elon Musk isn't running his company to make his shareholders rich. He's doing it to roll out his entrepreneurial vision, without compromise.

Mark Zuckerberg -- Facebook

In the run-up to the 2012 IPO of Facebook (FB), wonderboy CEO Mark Zuckerberg was called out for his rather unique corporate structure.

As Slate put it at the time, "When it goes public, Facebook will be conducting an experiment in corporate dictatorship nearly without precedent for such a large and high-profile company."

Zuckerberg not only owns over a quarter of Facebook shares outright, but he also is vested with a special class of stock that gives his shares 10 times the voting rights of common stock. So Zuck controls more than half of the votes.

Beyond the structure, there's also a very conspicuous trend of Zuckerberg diluting the pants out of Facebook stock in the past several months in the name of future growth for his social media company.

In December, Facebook announced plans to float another 70 million shares to raise about $3.5 billion. Then Zuckerberg made big buyout moves that included mobile-messaging company WhatsApp and virtual-reality company Oculus, using mostly company stock. For instance, of the $2 billion bill for Oculus, only about $400 million was cash and the rest was the market value of 23.1 million shares.

When a CEO tells potential shareholders at IPO that his business "was not originally created to be a company" but to "accomplish a social mission," when that CEO has the majority of voting rights by himself and isn't afraid to throw company stock around to buy whatever he feels like, well, it's safe to say he cares about more than the day-to-day or even quarter-to-quarter trends on Wall Street.


Larry Page -- Google

Following the near-dictatorial power of Zuckerberg comes the oligarchy over atGoogle (GOOGL) with CEO Larry Page and his co-founder, Sergey Brin, running the show with majority voting rights.

As of April, Page and Brin together controlled 55.7% of voting rights thanks to the more powerful class of stock they hold, according to reports. But fearful even this grip won't be enough, the Google founders cleverly split the company's stock and established a new class C stock, one that carries no voting rights, and can be used for compensation and acquisitions.

In other words, the duo has put a floor on how low their voting rights can ever go, presuming they don't sell any substantive number of shares, of course.

What else would you expect from founders whose famous, rambling IPO letter trumpeted that "Google is not a conventional company" and that " the standard structure of public ownership may jeopardize the independence" of the fun Silicon Valley plaything they created?

Beyond both the past and present nose-thumbing at voting rights, there's also the fact that Google very much enjoys tossing money at pet projects that have little immediate value -- if they ever have any at all.

Ever heard about Project Loon, a network of balloons that fly around providing Internet access? Did you know Google bought eight robotics companies in 2013?

Granted, a $370 billion company with roughly $60 billion in cash and investments can afford to buy a few toys here and there that don't pan out, but even if shareholders objected, they can't do anything about it.

Howard Schultz -- Starbucks

Howard Schultz of Starbucks (SBUX) is a bit of an outlier on this list. For starters, he is not sitting atop a company he built from scratch; Starbucks was founded in 1971, and Schultz bought it in 1987. Other obvious differences are that Starbucks isn't a tech firm, and Schultz is twice as old as Mark Zuckerberg.

But I think Schultz deserves to be on this list, even if Starbucks does pay a dividend, one that Schultz himself helped roll out a few years back.

To me, the Starbucks dividend isn't a way to appease shareholders, but instead just one more way the CEO puts his employees first. Starbucksemployees are rewarded with stock equity, and I see the dividend as just one more perk for employees along with free coffee, tuition assistance and health insurance.

Schultz (and Starbucks) are committed to their workers -- and if shareholders want to complain about the cost of Starbucks' health care, they can shove it.

When it comes to standing up for the customers and employees of Starbucks, Schultz doesn't pull any punches -- as evidenced by his caustic response to a shareholder last year that he could go ahead and sell his shares if he doesn't like the company's support for gay marriage.

Besides, this is Howie's second go-around at the helm. And while the man didn't build Starbucks from day one, there's no disputing that the successful expansion of this iconic coffee brand happened because of him. He could have stayed out of the C-suite and rested on his laurels, but still returned to a struggling Starbucks in 2008 and righted the ship promptly and efficiently.

What does the guy have left to prove, to shareholders or anyone else?

Jeff Bezos -- Amazon

If Howard Schultz is a guy who puts employees before shareholders, then Jeff Bezos of Amazon (AMZN) is a CEO who cares more about his customers than the people holding stock.

Brad Stone of BusinessWeek recently interviewed hundreds of current and former employees for a book about Amazon and its secretive leader. One anecdote is very telling: Bezos has a public email address, jeff@amazon.com, and he personally reads customer complaints and forwards them to the appropriate parties ... with the expectation not just that the customer will be helped, but that he will be given an explanation of how the problem started in the first place.

But while he is a force behind the scenes at Amazon, Bezos shuns the spotlight and seems to care little about public perceptions. And it's not just him personally -- Amazon is run about as secretively as possible for a public company. Consider that some of the biggest things Amazon has going right now are its Kindle tablet business and its Prime subscription service, but neither are broken out on company reports, and investors have no hard numbers to go on.

It's also known that Amazon is unconcerned about short-term (and even medium-term) profits. This is evidenced by the fact that Amazon actually ran at a loss in fiscal 2012 and posted a meager $274 million net income on a staggering $74.5 billion in sales for fiscal 2013, all while the company plowed big bucks into expansion plans.

As with these other CEOs, history may ultimately prove Jeff Bezos right and Amazon may be a powerhouse for decades to come. But shareholders of Amazon better be 100% on board with the CEO's vision because he's not one to take investor opinions into account.