If “staying active” is the key to a long life, Carl Icahn will probably live for years. At 77, the US investor is on a concerted activist campaign. He has tried (unsuccessfully) to disrupt Michael Dell’s buyout of the computer maker he founded, dined with Apple’s chief executive and pressed him to return cash to shareholders, and last week planted board members – including his son Brett – at Nuance, the Boston technology company that gives Apple’s Siri his/her voice.

如果“保持活跃”是长寿的关键，那么卡尔·伊卡恩(Carl Icahn)可能还会活很多年。这名现年77岁的美国投资家正在从事一场周密协调的维权运动。他曾试图（虽然没有成功）阻挠迈克尔·戴尔(Michael Dell)回购自己创立的电脑制造企业；他曾和苹果(Apple)首席执行官共同进餐，向其施压，要求苹果公司向股东发放红利；几周前，他还在Nuance安插董事成员，其中包括他的儿子布雷特(Brett)。Nuance是向苹果Siri提供声音的波士顿科技公司。

But despite proclaiming in Forbes magazine in June that “What I Do Is Good for America”, Mr Icahn will struggle to lose his “corporate raider” label. When he revealed his activist stance at Nuance, analysts wrote: “Let the fireworks begin.” Board members and senior managers’ first reaction to an approach from Mr Icahn – or any hedge fund – is to take cover.

尽管伊卡恩6月份在《福布斯》(Forbes)杂志中宣称“我的所作所为有利于美国”，但他很难摆脱“企业掠夺者”(corporate raider)的称号。当在Nuance公司摆出出他的维权姿态时，分析人士便这样写道：“开始放烟花吧。”对于伊卡恩（或者任何对冲基金）的手段，董事会成员和高管的第一反应，就是寻找掩体。

To say activism has a bad name among operating executives is not, however, true. It has many names. Mr Icahn’s is the quintessential American brand, marked by public fisticuffs and proxy battles. In the same style, Daniel Loeb of hedge fund Third Point did not write to Sotheby’s chief executive William Ruprecht this month to laud his management skills. But what if, instead of attacking Mr Ruprecht’s “extravagant” taste for “farm-to-table” organic delicacies, Mr Loeb was sitting at the table advising him to follow a different diet?

不过，要说维权主义在企业经营管理人员中享有恶名也不真实。维权主义有很多名字。伊卡恩对它的理解代表了典型的美国看法，其特点是公开争斗和代理战争。同样，对冲基金Third Point的丹尼尔·洛布(Daniel Loeb)本月致函苏富比(Sotheby's)首席执行官威廉·鲁普雷斯特(William Ruprecht)时，对其管理技能并没有什么赞扬的话。但是，如果洛布不去抨击鲁普雷斯特对那种“从农场直接到餐桌”之有机食品的“奢华”口味，而是坐在餐桌旁，建议鲁普雷斯特尝试一下不同的饮食，效果又会怎么样呢？

Until earlier this year, Mr Loeb was doing something similar as a director of Yahoo , proving that putting an engaged investor on the board can yield a positive outcome.

直到今年早些时候，洛布仍在做着类似于担任雅虎(Yahoo)董事的事情，以证明在董事会安插一位全身心投入的投资者能够产生积极结果。

It is human nature that if a stranger comes up behind you and points out, however politely, that you could be doing a better job, you will bristle. Executives have enough to worry about without having to wrestle with back-seat drivers. But as Peter Hill, chairman of Alent, the UK-listed performance materials group, points out: “Second-guessing and questioning the executive is what boards should be doing: for me, it is one of the key dynamics.”

如果陌生人在背后指手画脚，指出你本该把工作做得更好，不管他的态度多有礼貌，你都会怒火冲天，这是人的本性。即便不必和爱管闲事的人较劲，高管已经有很多事要烦的了。但是，就像在英国上市的性能材料集团Alent的董事会主席彼得·希尔(Peter Hill)所指出的那样：“批评和质疑高管是董事会应该做的事：对我来说，这是关键动力之一。”

Mr Hill was a director of Cookson, now called Vesuvius, when two activist funds took stakes. One, Cevian Capital, with 20 per cent, later nominated a director to the board. When Alent spun off from Vesuvius last year, Cevian took a board seat there, too. Mr Hill thinks there is room for “responsible activists”. Advocates see them as “anchor shareholders” – a concept common in northern Europe – who encourage long-range stewardship of companies. Even in the US, funds such as ValueAct, which has a seat on the Microsoft board, are carving out a different style of activism.

希尔是Cookson的一名董事，在两支维权基金控股后，Cookson改名Vesuvius。其中一支基金是Cevian Capital，控股20%，后来任命了一名董事进入董事会。去年Alent从Vesuvius剥离，Cevian也在Alent占据了一个董事会职位。希尔认为，不应剥夺“负责任的维权主义者”的空间。拥护者认为他们是“锚定股东”（这一概念在北欧司空见惯），“锚定股东”鼓励长期管理公司。即便在美国，在微软(Microsoft)董事会拥有一个席位的ValueAct等基金正在开创一种不同风格的维权主义。

The problem for companies deciding whether to let the barbarians into the boardroom is working out which sort is waiting at the gate. Dionysia Katelouzou of King’s College London has studied the battlefield outside the US and identified three categories of activism, from gentle to aggressive, and 13 subgroups of tactics, from “quiet persuasion” to full takeover.

企业在决定是否允许野蛮人进入董事会时，需要判断等在门口的是哪种野蛮人。英国伦敦国王学院(King’s College London)的迪奥尼西娅·卡特卢宗(Dionysia Katelouzou)研究了美国之外的“战场”，找出了从温和到激进的三类维权主义，并进一步划分为13个策略子类，从“悄悄劝说”到全面接管。

Seeking board representation counts as “aggressive”. But her conclusion is similar to that of an earlier paper about the US: many assumptions about hedge fund activists are myths. They are not necessarily short-termists (39 per cent of her sample held on for more than three years), they do not generally seek control, and their aggressiveness is often overstated because journalists would rather write about a punch-up than a love-in. (Many dislike being called hedge funds, too, but that is another story.)

寻求在董事会安插代表被列为“激进”维权主义。但她的结论与此前关于美国的一份论文相似：很多关于对冲基金维权人士的猜想都是虚构的。他们不一定是鼠目寸光之辈（她的样本中39%采样期超过3年），通常不寻求控制，其挑衅行为也往往被夸大其词，因为记者更愿意写文章报道打架，而不是友爱聚会。（许多维权投资机构也不喜欢被称为对冲基金，但跟本文讲的不是同一个问题。）

All investors act from self-interest. The question for the board is whether an activist’s interests are aligned with those of other shareholders, ensuring its director will speak for all investors, as non-executives should. Boards need to ask how such a director would behave if the activist’s strategy conflicted with the board’s collective will – in a bid, say. Finally, they need to know if they share the same definition of “long term”.

所有投资者都是自利的。如果维权人士的利益与其他股东的利益一致，那么就能保证维权董事像非执行董事应做的那样，为所有投资者说话。这种情况是否属实，对董事会而言是一个疑问。董事会应该问问，如果维权人士的战略与董事会的集体意愿冲突，例如在竞标中，维权董事会怎么做。最后，董事会必须弄清楚他们对“长期”的定义是否相同。

Executives often complain their institutional investors are uninformed, disengaged and swift to sell when the going gets tough. They should not ignore a knock on the door from investors that are well informed and committed.

高管往往抱怨他们的机构投资者无知，漫不经心，一旦聚到困难就迅速卖出。他们应该忽视见多识广又专注的投资者的敲门声。

Mr Icahn purrs about his altruistic and patriotic motives. Based on his record (which spans most categories of activism), it would obviously be rash for boards to assume he is now domesticated. But it would be equally odd for them to shut out all activists just because a few like to use their claws.

伊卡恩轻声讲述他的利他和爱国动机。从他的记录（涉足几乎所有的维权类别）来看，如果董事会认为他如今已经被驯化了，就显然太草率了。但如果仅仅因为少数维权人士喜欢挑刺，就把所有维权人士拒之门外，也是同样奇怪的。