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《异类》(Outliers)一书中，马尔科姆•格拉德韦尔(Malcolm Gladwell)提到一项研究，该研究表示，在加拿大冰球运动员中，有一些上半年出生的幸运儿，他们的事业蓬勃发展正得益于此，因为北美冰球职业联赛是以1月1日划分年龄的。但吉姆•柯林斯(Jim Collins)与莫滕•汉森(Morten Hansen)在两人合著的《选择卓越》(Great by Choice)一书中却提出了反例：即便出生于12月，波士顿棕熊队(Boston Bruins)的雷•布尔克(Ray Bourque，上图)，仍成为了史上最伟大的球员之一。吉姆和莫滕写到，正因出生日期不走运，才令雷•布尔克变得更强。

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，在一篇关于60年管理学研究的论文中，这个冰球的例子再次出现。该论文称，在评估商业时，人们往往对运气怀有错误的看法；在商业领域，布尔克这样的例子微乎其微，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.

论文作者刘正威和马克•德龙德(Mark de Rond)写道，人们往往对幸运的CEO不吝赞美，给他们太多奖赏。而另一些CEO却仅仅因为在错误的时机处在错误的位置，就被人们不屑地冠以失败者之名。

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.

他们有一个新颖（虽然也有些理想化）的计划，将运气用作校平器。为了终结不平等、削减高管薪酬及重建公平感，公司应像曾经的威尼斯人(Venetians)那样，从合格的候选人当中随机抽选领导者。

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.

我预见这一举措将产生一些问题。其一，它可能让极少数像布尔克那样的管理天才没有机会选上。另外，两位作者也指出，随机抽选的老板会令员工情绪紧张，从而信心骤降。

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”.

大多数人认为，职场中的成功取决于勤奋与能力，而不是运气，抽选民主(lottocracy)将很难改变人们的这一固有观念。刘正威和德龙德认为，管理学研究与其激励经理人从“优秀到卓越”（反驳吉姆•柯林斯的另一本畅销书《从优秀到卓越》(Good to Great)），还不如教他们如何从“难以胜任到称职”来得实际。

They are right that some recalibration is overdue. But good luck persuading the rest of the world.

两位作者说得对，某些观念早该有所转变了。但要说服其他人相信可不是那么容易的事情。我祝他们好运。