Inexperience is the new qualification for high political office.
缺乏经验似乎是政界高级职位的新资格要求。

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.
在法国，在埃马纽埃尔?马克龙(Emmanuel Macron)的新政党“前进”(En Marche)的多元化议员中，大概有一半人从来没有当选过。他们的有利条件：新鲜、愿意挑战成规，以及混合(mixité)。他们的不利条件：天真、可能缺乏纪律、依赖外部建议。

“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.
“感觉往往像是在参加雷诺(Renault)的入职座谈会，”一名原属法国社会党、如今转投前进党的议员抱怨道。他是在描述他们首次参加议会会议之前的周末讨论会和讲座。

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.
不过，在政治上似乎奏效的东西在商业中受到怀疑。任命在某个领域拥有专长的人执掌另一个领域的一家公司或部门，仍被认为是危险的。深层知识仍是加入许多公司董事会的先决条件。

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，冒着为政客迈克尔?戈夫(Michael Gove)在英国退欧公投之前的愚蠢言论（英国人“受够专家了”）背书的风险，不懂专业并不等于一无是处。正如智库Tomorrow’s Company在一份新报告中所言，“董事会里不需要了解具体主题的专家”。

What is more, studies suggest a surfeit of specialists can be actively dangerous.
更有甚者，一些研究表明，专家过多可能反而是危险的。

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.
恰当搭配专才和通才的一个关键是区分专长与经验。一条法则是：宁可聘用经验丰富的非专家，也不要聘用经验不足的专家。

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，许多评论人士曾怀疑，卡洛琳?麦克科尔(Carolyn McCall)能否将管理《卫报》(Guardian)所属的媒体集团时学到的技能，转移到易捷航空(easyJet)。不过，自从她2010年掌权以来，她本人和这家廉价航空公司都发展得顺风顺水。

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.
麦克科尔也许不是专家型女飞行员，但谁也不会要求她开飞机。她在开辟新的增长途径和识别改进客户服务的机遇方面很有经验——她在卫报传媒集团(Guardian Media Group)和易捷航空都运用了这些经验。碰巧，英国航空(British Airways)和伊比利亚航空公司(Iberia)的母公司国际航空集团(IAG)的掌舵人威利?沃尔什(Willie Walsh)是一名合格的飞行员。很明显，这并非一项不相干的技能。但这也并非必要技能——自2010年以来，易捷航空的股价涨幅远高于国际航空集团。

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，但他们可以用广度来弥补。麦肯锡(McKinsey)对从首席财务官升任首席执行官（几乎都是通过内部晋升）的人士进行了分析。

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.
从定义上说，许多人缺乏第一手的运营方面专长。但这家咨询公司发现，得益于对公司员工和文化的熟悉，他们在制定详细战略方面做得更好

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.
技术专家在这方面表现得怎么样？近期研究证明，如果他们拥有太大权力和影响力，可能会令公司倒台。

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.
学者胡安?阿尔曼多斯(Juan Almandoz)和安德拉什?蒂尔奇克(András Tilcsik)考察了美国小型社区银行的董事会。在遭遇不确定或复杂的局面时，那些银行业专家占比更高的董事会做出糟糕决定、甚至彻底失败的风险更高。

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.
专家过多的董事会倾向于过于自信。抗议的声音被淹没——如果真有人抗议的话。Tomorrow’s Company指出，“外行可能会问令人尴尬的问题”，但只有在外行足够多、可以避免不知不觉地滑向群体思维的情况下才会这样。