????高塔姆?穆昆達(dá)的新書《不可或缺：領(lǐng)袖的閃光時(shí)刻》（Indispensable: When Leaders Really Matter）試圖回答兩個(gè)令人困惑的問題：我們選擇哪個(gè)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人會有區(qū)別嗎？如果有區(qū)別，我們能夠做出理性的選擇嗎？在這本書中，哈佛商學(xué)院教授（Harvard Business School, HBS）穆昆達(dá)把缺乏相關(guān)經(jīng)驗(yàn)的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人稱作“初出茅廬的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人”。與老江湖相比，他們有可能帶來更大的改變。不過很難預(yù)測這種改變是好是壞。

????穆昆達(dá)對羅姆尼這位哈佛商學(xué)院的高材生看法如何？“羅姆尼的商業(yè)經(jīng)歷沒法讓我們了解他的執(zhí)政能力，而他在商界學(xué)到的東西也不見得有多大幫助?！蹦吕ミ_(dá)認(rèn)為，選羅姆尼當(dāng)總統(tǒng)將是一場“巨大的賭博”。（下文的采訪為精簡和清晰的考慮經(jīng)過了編輯。處理）

????什么原因促使你寫這本書？

????總的來說，研究學(xué)者得出的結(jié)論是領(lǐng)導(dǎo)能力并不那么重要。統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)上有些可靠的證據(jù)證明這個(gè)觀點(diǎn)，也有良好的理論解釋，很有說服力。但問題是學(xué)術(shù)界以外的人完全不相信這一點(diǎn)。就是沒人相信。每當(dāng)看到這種情況，我就知道有些看頭。就對世界的看法而言，這很可能是社會學(xué)家和社會學(xué)實(shí)踐者之間差距最大的一個(gè)領(lǐng)域。

????當(dāng)學(xué)者說領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人并不那么管用時(shí)，他們的意思是，如果我們不選這個(gè)人，換另一個(gè)只怕做法也差不多。然而學(xué)術(shù)界以外的人常常覺得領(lǐng)導(dǎo)和管理可以扭轉(zhuǎn)乾坤。所以領(lǐng)導(dǎo)和管理有用，但誰做領(lǐng)導(dǎo)或是管理者恐怕無甚區(qū)別，因?yàn)槿硕际强梢蕴鎿Q的。

????但我們都會想到不計(jì)其數(shù)的例子，證明領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人并不是可有可無。我想沒有人會相信，如果史蒂夫?喬布斯不做領(lǐng)導(dǎo)，蘋果公司（Apple）還能成為市值6,000億美元的龐然大物。

????高影響力的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人一定就是最佳選擇嗎？

????如果我們把領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人的影響力定義為做他人所不愿意做的事，這類決定會有什么后果呢？讓我們想象一下，人人都說某只股票會大跌，你卻逆流而上堅(jiān)持買入。多數(shù)人會說你瘋了。如果你判斷準(zhǔn)確，股價(jià)一沖上天，大家會覺得你是股神。但大多數(shù)時(shí)候，如果人人都和你說“天啊，這個(gè)想法太可怕了”，它往往確實(shí)是一個(gè)壞主意。

????影響力強(qiáng)大的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人的危險(xiǎn)恰恰就在于：他們會做他人所不愿意做的事。有時(shí)這種人確實(shí)出類拔萃，就像偉大的林肯總統(tǒng)。有時(shí)他們只是沃倫?哈?。绹?9任總統(tǒng)，因丑聞和失言而聞名——譯注）。

????怎樣才能找到影響力強(qiáng)大的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人？

????這就要談到老江湖和初出茅廬的差別了。看看通用電氣（GE）如何挑選領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人。公司從不找外人。候選人都從底層做起，經(jīng)過20到25年的考察評估，到了有能力競爭CEO的位置時(shí)，通用電氣已經(jīng)對他們的一切了如指掌。這些年來，他們的同事、上級、下屬都親眼目睹他們在順境逆境中的各種表現(xiàn)。到最后從5個(gè)候選人中挑選一個(gè)。所有的最終候選人都經(jīng)過同樣的流程考驗(yàn)，沒選上的能有多大差別呢？

????但我們選舉總統(tǒng)的方式并非如此。

????沒錯(cuò)。但在最高效和最無能的總統(tǒng)中，初出茅廬的類型都超出應(yīng)有的比例。

????羅姆尼也算初出茅廬嗎？

????對，他是典型的初出茅廬。和任何共和黨總統(tǒng)相比，他的相關(guān)經(jīng)驗(yàn)都更缺乏，和所有總統(tǒng)相比，也只有伍德羅?威爾遜更為青澀。格羅弗?克利夫蘭擔(dān)任低級公職的經(jīng)驗(yàn)比他略多一點(diǎn)，也是另外一個(gè)可比的對象。

????羅姆尼的商業(yè)經(jīng)歷多少有點(diǎn)用處吧？

????大量研究表明，某一領(lǐng)域的經(jīng)驗(yàn)并不能夠很好地用到其它方面。我們知道，明星經(jīng)理人換到另一家公司，往往就流于平庸了。即使是在同一行業(yè)中的跳槽也是如此。你可以想像一下從金融業(yè)到政界的跨度。

????Gautam Mukunda has written a new book that tries to answer two vexing questions: Does it matter which leaders we choose? And if so, can we make rational choices? InIndispensable: When Leaders Really Matter, the Harvard Business School professor argues that "unfiltered leaders" -- those who haven't had much relevant experience -- will likely have a greater impact than filtered leaders. What's harder to predict is whether that impact will be good or bad.

????Mukunda's take on the HBS grad who's currently running for president? "Romney's business experience tells us little about what he will do in office, and what he learned during it will be of little help to him." Electing Romney, Mukunda says, would be a "tremendous gamble." (The following interview was edited for space and clarity.)

????What inspired you to write this book?

????In general, academics who study leadership have concluded that it's just not that important. There's some good statistical evidence for that, there are good theoretical arguments, it's a persuasive set of beliefs. But the problem is that no one outside academia believes that for a second. Just no one. Whenever I see something like that, I assume that something interesting is going on. This is probably the single greatest variance in beliefs about the world between social scientists and practitioners.

????When academics say that leaders don't matter that much, what they're thinking is, okay, if that person had not been there, the person who would have had that job instead would have done roughly the same thing. Whereas people outside of academia tend to think that leadership and management matter a lot. So leadership and management can matter, even if leaders ormanagers might not, because they're replaceable.

????But we can all think of countless examples where individual leaders were not replaceable. I don't think there's anyone who thinks that if Steve Jobs had not run Apple, Apple (AAPL) would still be a $600 billion company.

????Are high-impact leaders always the best choice?

????If our definition of leader-impact is that this person does things that other people in the same situation would not do, what do we know about that kind of decision? Think about what happens when you buy a stock that everybody else says is going to tank. Most people will say you're crazy. If you're right, and it shoots through the ceiling, you're a genius. But most of the time when everybody is telling you, 'Gee this is an awful idea,' it is actually an awful idea.

????The peril of high-impact leaders is precisely this: They're the people who do the things that no one else would do. Sometimes they look great, and they're Abraham Lincoln. Sometimes they're awful, and they're Warren Harding.

????So how do we identify high-impact leaders?

????That's where the filtered/unfiltered idea comes in. Look at how GE chooses a leader. They don't hire outsiders. They bring in people at low levels and they spend 20, 25 years evaluating them. By the time someone is in contention to be CEO, GE (GE) knows everything there is to know about this person. All those years—with their peers, with their superiors, with their subordinates—watching them perform in every conceivable circumstance. At the end of the day, GE's got five finalists for the job, and they pick one. All of the finalists have been through this process. How different could the four who weren't chosen possibly be?

????But that's not how we choose presidents.

????Right. A disproportionate percentage of both the most effective and the least effective presidents have been unfiltered.

????Romney would be in that category?

????Yes. He is an extraordinarily unfiltered leader. He has less relevant experience than any Republican president has ever had before entering the Oval Office, and less than any president of any party except Woodrow Wilson. Grover Cleveland had slightly more experience in lower offices, he's the other comparison.

????Doesn't Romney's business experience count for something?

????We have a lot of research that tells us experience doesn't transfer from one context to another very well. We know that when you bring stars from one company to another, even in the same industry, they usually don't stay stars. That's true even when you're moving within an industry. So think about how much more true it's going to be when you're moving from finance to politics.