讓專才和通才各得其所

Inexperience is the new qualification for high political office.

缺乏經驗似乎是政界高級職位的新資格要求。

In France, about half the new and diverse MPs for Emmanuel Macron’s En Marche party have never been elected before. In their favour: freshness, a willingness to challenge convention, and mixité, or “mixedness”. Against: naivety, a potential lack of discipline, reliance on outside advice.

在法國，在埃馬紐埃爾?馬克龍(Emmanuel Macron)的新政黨“前進”(En Marche)的多元化議員中，大概有一半人從來沒有當選過。他們的有利條件：新鮮、願意挑戰成規，以及混合(mixité)。他們的不利條件：天真、可能缺乏紀律、依賴外部建議。

“At times, it felt like being in an induction seminar at Renault,” grumbled one former French socialist MP, now part of En Marche, describing the weekend of workshops and presentations before their first parliamentary session last week.

“感覺往往像是在參加雷諾(Renault)的入職座談會，”一名原屬法國社會黨、如今轉投前進黨的議員抱怨道。他是在描述他們首次參加議會會議之前的週末討論會和講座。

What seems to work in politics, though, is viewed with suspicion in business. The appointment of a person with expertise from one domain to run a company or division in another is still considered hazardous. Deep knowledge remains a precondition for joining many corporate boards.

不過，在政治上似乎奏效的東西在商業中受到懷疑。任命在某個領域擁有專長的人執掌另一個領域的一家公司或部門，仍被認爲是危險的。深層知識仍是加入許多公司董事會的先決條件。

Yet, at the risk of endorsing politician Michael Gove’s daft dictum, ahead of the Brexit referendum, that Britain had “had enough of experts”, there is something to be said for knowing nothing. As think-tank Tomorrow’s Company puts it in a new report, “the board does not need experts on topics”.

然而，冒着爲政客邁克爾?戈夫(Michael Gove)在英國退歐公投之前的愚蠢言論（英國人“受夠專家了”）背書的風險，不懂專業並不等於一無是處。正如智庫Tomorrow’s Company在一份新報告中所言，“董事會裏不需要了解具體主題的專家”。

What is more, studies suggest a surfeit of specialists can be actively dangerous.

更有甚者，一些研究表明，專家過多可能反而是危險的。

One key to achieving the right mix of know-alls and know-nowts is distinguishing between expertise and experience. One rule of thumb: it is better to hire experienced non-experts than inexperienced specialists.

恰當搭配專才和通才的一個關鍵是區分專長與經驗。一條法則是：寧可聘用經驗豐富的非專家，也不要聘用經驗不足的專家。

Many pundits wondered, for instance, whether Carolyn McCall would be able to transfer skills learnt running the media group that owns the Guardian newspaper to easyJet. Yet she and the budget airline have thrived since she took the controls in 2010.

例如，許多評論人士曾懷疑，卡洛琳?麥克科爾(Carolyn McCall)能否將管理《衛報》(Guardian)所屬的媒體集團時學到的技能，轉移到易捷航空(easyJet)。不過，自從她2010年掌權以來，她本人和這家廉價航空公司都發展得順風順水。

Ms McCall may not be an expert aviatrix, but nobody is asking her to fly the aircraft. She has experience in building new routes to growth and recognising opportunities to improve customer service — which she has applied both at Guardian Media Group and easyJet. As it happens, Willie Walsh, Ms McCall’s counterpart at rival International Airlines Group, parent of British Airways and Iberia, is a qualified pilot. Clearly it is not an irrelevant skill. But neither is it essential — and easyJet’s shares have soared above IAG’s since 2010.

麥克科爾也許不是專家型女飛行員，但誰也不會要求她開飛機。她在開闢新的增長途徑和識別改進客戶服務的機遇方面很有經驗——她在衛報傳媒集團(Guardian Media Group)和易捷航空都運用了這些經驗。碰巧，英國航空(British Airways)和伊比利亞航空公司(Iberia)的母公司國際航空集團(IAG)的掌舵人威利?沃爾什(Willie Walsh)是一名合格的飛行員。很明顯，這並非一項不相干的技能。但這也並非必要技能——自2010年以來，易捷航空的股價漲幅遠高於國際航空集團。

What generalists lack in depth, they can make up in breadth. McKinsey analysed chief financial officers who had become chief executives, almost always through internal promotion.

通才缺乏深度，但他們可以用廣度來彌補。麥肯錫(McKinsey)對從首席財務官升任首席執行官（幾乎都是通過內部晉升）的人士進行了分析。

By definition, many lacked hands-on operational expertise. But the consultancy found they were better at developing detailed strategies, helped by their familiarity with their companies’ people and culture.

從定義上說，許多人缺乏第一手的運營方面專長。但這家諮詢公司發現，得益於對公司員工和文化的熟悉，他們在制定詳細戰略方面做得更好。

Where does this leave the technical experts? Recent research has shown that if they have too much power and influence, they can bring down the company.

技術專家在這方面表現得怎麼樣？近期研究證明，如果他們擁有太大權力和影響力，可能會令公司倒臺。

The academics Juan Almandoz and András Tilcsik examined boards at small US community banks. Confronted with uncertain or complex conditions, boards with a higher proportion of banking experts ran an increased risk of making poor decisions and even of failing outright.

學者胡安?阿爾曼多斯(Juan Almandoz)和安德拉什?蒂爾奇克(András Tilcsik)考察了美國小型社區銀行的董事會。在遭遇不確定或複雜的局面時，那些銀行業專家佔比更高的董事會做出糟糕決定、甚至徹底失敗的風險更高。

Boards overloaded with experts, though, tend to be overconfident. Protests are drowned out — if they are made at all. “Outsiders can ask the awkward questions,” points out Tomorrow’s Company, but only if there are enough of them to combat the insidious slide towards groupthink.

專家過多的董事會傾向於過於自信。抗議的聲音被淹沒——如果真有人抗議的話。Tomorrow’s Company指出，“外行可能會問令人尷尬的問題”，但只有在外行足夠多、可以避免不知不覺地滑向羣體思維的情況下才會這樣。