Narrow Results

The largely dominant meritocratic paradigm of highly competitive Western cultures is rooted on the belief that success is mainly due, if not exclusively, to personal qualities such as talent, intelligence, skills, smartness, efforts, willfulness, hard work or risk taking. Sometimes, we are willing to admit that a certain degree of luck could also play a role in achieving significant success. But, as a matter of fact, it is rather common to underestimate the importance of external forces in individual successful stories. It is very well known that intelligence (or, more in general, talent and personal qualities) exhibits a Gaussian distribution among the population, whereas the distribution of wealth — often considered as a proxy of success — follows typically a power law (Pareto law), with a large majority of poor people and a very small number of billionaires. Such a discrepancy between a Normal distribution of inputs, with a typical scale (the average talent or intelligence), and the scale-invariant distribution of outputs, suggests that some hidden ingredient is at work behind the scenes. In this paper, we suggest that such an ingredient is just randomness. In particular, our simple agent-based model shows that, if it is true that some degree of talent is necessary to be successful in life, almost never the most talented people reach the highest peaks of success, being overtaken by averagely talented but sensibly luckier individuals. As far as we know, this counterintuitive result — although implicitly suggested between the lines in a vast literature — is quantified here for the first time. It sheds new light on the effectiveness of assessing merit on the basis of the reached level of success and underlines the risks of distributing excessive honors or resources to people who, at the end of the day, could have been simply luckier than others. We also compare several policy hypotheses to show the most efficient strategies for public funding of research, aiming to improve meritocracy, diversity of ideas and innovation.

This paper further investigates the Talent versus Luck (TvL) model described by [Pluchino et al. Talent versus luck: The role of randomness in success and failure, Adv. Complex Syst.21 (2018) 1850014] which models the relationship between ‘talent’ and ‘luck’ on the impact of an individuals career. It is shown that the model is very sensitive to both random sampling and the choice of value for the input parameters. Running the model repeatedly with the same set of input parameters gives a range of output values of over 50% of the mean value. The sensitivity of the inputs of the model is analyzed using a variance-based approach based upon generating Sobol sequences of quasi-random numbers. When using the model to look at the talent associated with an individual who has the maximum capital over a model run it has been shown that the choice for the standard deviation of the talent distribution contributes to 67% of the model variability. When investigating the maximum amount of capital returned by the model the probability of a lucky event at any given epoch has the largest impact on the model, almost three times more than any other individual parameter. Consequently, during the analysis of the model results one must keep in mind the impact that only small changes in the input parameters can have on the model output.

A relatively small sample of experts ($N=60$) working within the quantitative financial area completed two questionnaires measuring their personality and values. This study set out to determine how personality and motivation/work values predict subjective work success and organizational fit using the High Potential Traits Inventory (HPTI) and the Work Value Questionnaire (WVQ). Compared to the population norms, the “Quants” were higher on Curiosity and Conscientiousness but lower on Tolerance of Ambiguity and Risk-Taking Approach. The “Quants” scored higher than population norms on one facet of intrinsic motivation and all three of the extrinsic motivation. The results demonstrated that Conscientiousness and Intrinsic Motivation were both significant predictors of subjective work success. The results are discussed in terms of how to select, manage and promote “Quants”. Implications and limitations are discussed.

Background: A Delphi consensus was conducted to formulate an expert opinion on the definition of in-vitro fertilization (IVF) success, to provide a reference basis for clinical practice.

Methods: Chinese experts in assisted reproductive technology (ART) were surveyed using the Delphi method. Based on the literature related to IVF success, eight experts developed a framework of statements and items. A questionnaire was then distributed to 23 experts to canvas their opinions on these statements. If consensus was not achieved, the statement was revised and revoted upon until a consensus was reached.

Results: Consensus was reached for 19 statements related to the definition of IVF success, the most relevant of which are summarized as follows: (1) Goal of IVF treatment ($n=1$ statement): to attain a healthy live birth in the shortest possible time and with the lowest possible risks; (2) Definition of IVF success ($n=13$ statements): effectiveness, safety, and efficiency of IVF treatment should be included in the definition of success, with the cumulative live birth rate per ovarian stimulation cycle within 2 years being a performance indicator (PI) of success, and IVF success should be measured from a patient-centered perspective, including the patient’s burden and satisfaction. (3) Assurance of IVF success ($n=3$ statements): to provide evidence-based treatment and avoid the introduction of IVF add-ons into routine clinical practice without any clear evidence of benefit, optimize treatment quality by establishing and monitoring key PIs, and improving quality control systems. (4) Hurdles of IVF success ($n=2$ statements): cycle cancellation before oocyte pickup and treatment discontinuation after failed cycles are hurdles of success to IVF.

Conclusions: Based on the Delphi method, the expert opinion on the definition of IVF success has been formed, which could complement guidelines and may help improve treatment outcomes.