從合格的候選人當中隨機抽選領導者的方法靠譜嗎
In Outliers, Malcolm Gladwell pointed to a study showing Canadian ice hockey players lucky enough to be born in the first half of the year thrived, because of a January 1 age cut-off for the league. But Jim Collins and Morten Hansen countered in Great by Choice that the Boston Bruins’ Ray Bourque turned into one of the all-time greats despite being born in December. He used the bad luck to make himself stronger, they wrote.
在《異類》(Outliers)一書中，馬爾科姆•格拉德韋爾(Malcolm Gladwell)提到一項研究，該研究表示，在加拿大冰球運動員中，有一些上半年出生的幸運兒，他們的事業蓬勃發展正得益於此，因爲北美冰球職業聯賽是以1月1日劃分年齡的。但吉姆•柯林斯(Jim Collins)與莫滕•漢森(Morten Hansen)在兩人合著的《選擇卓越》(Great by Choice)一書中卻提出了反例：即便出生於12月，波士頓棕熊隊(Boston Bruins)的雷•布爾克(Ray Bourque，上圖)，仍成爲了史上最偉大的球員之一。吉姆和莫滕寫到，正因出生日期不走運，才令雷•布爾克變得更強。
The hockey example crops up again in a new study of six decades of management research, which says misperceptions about luck are rife when assessing business, where there are few Bourques and success is often down to circumstance.
最近，在一篇關於60年管理學研究的論文中，這個冰球的例子再次出現。該論文稱，在評估商業時，人們往往對運氣懷有錯誤的看法；在商業領域，布爾克這樣的例子微乎其微，成功往往是境遇使然。
Chengwei Liu and Mark de Rond write that people persist in acclaiming lucky chief executives — and rewarding them excessively. CEOs who are merely in the wrong place at the wrong time are dismissed as losers.
論文作者劉正威和馬克•德龍德(Mark de Rond)寫道，人們往往對幸運的CEO不吝讚美，給他們太多獎賞。而另一些CEO卻僅僅因爲在錯誤的時機處在錯誤的位置，就被人們不屑地冠以失敗者之名。
They have a novel, if idealistic, plan to use luck as a leveller. To end inequality, cut executive pay and restore a sense of fairness, companies should pick their leaders at random from a pool of qualified candidates, as the Venetians once did.
他們有一個新穎（雖然也有些理想化）的計劃，將運氣用作校平器。爲了終結不平等、削減高管薪酬及重建公平感，公司應像曾經的威尼斯人(Venetians)那樣，從合格的候選人當中隨機抽選領導者。
I foresee a few problems with this approach. One is that it could block the rare Bourquesque management genius from office. Another, which the writers identify, is that staff nervousness about a randomly chosen boss could fuel a spiralling loss of confidence.
我預見這一舉措將產生一些問題。其一，它可能讓極少數像布爾克那樣的管理天才沒有機會選上。另外，兩位作者也指出，隨機抽選的老闆會令員工情緒緊張，從而信心驟降。
A lottocracy would struggle to shift most people’s fixation with the idea that corporate success is down to hard work and skill rather than chance. Professor Liu and Professor De Rond suggest that rather than urging managers to go from “good to great” (a jab at another Jim Collins bestseller), it would be more realistic if research taught them how to move “from incompetent to OK”.
大多數人認爲，職場中的成功取決於勤奮與能力，而不是運氣，抽選民主(lottocracy)將很難改變人們的這一固有觀念。劉正威和德龍德認爲，管理學研究與其激勵經理人從“優秀到卓越”（反駁吉姆•柯林斯的另一本暢銷書《從優秀到卓越》(Good to Great)），還不如教他們如何從“難以勝任到稱職”來得實際。
They are right that some recalibration is overdue. But good luck persuading the rest of the world.
兩位作者說得對，某些觀念早該有所轉變了。但要說服其他人相信可不是那麼容易的事情。我祝他們好運。
