????本文與《創(chuàng)業(yè)者》雜志（Entrepreneur）合作。下文最初發(fā)表于Entrepreneur.com。

????傳統(tǒng)觀念認(rèn)為，招聘時(shí)應(yīng)該盡量挑選超級(jí)明星，即那些出類拔萃，讓普通人自愧不如的人。畢竟，由十位頂尖高手組成的團(tuán)隊(duì)，勝過由五位優(yōu)秀成員和五位一般成員組成的團(tuán)隊(duì)，這似乎是鐵定的事實(shí)。

????然而，雖然任何一家公司都必須擁有最頂級(jí)的人才，但《心理科學(xué)》（Psychological Science）最近發(fā)表的一項(xiàng)研究卻對這種觀點(diǎn)提出了一點(diǎn)不同的看法，研究顯示，從團(tuán)隊(duì)績效方面來看，任何一支團(tuán)隊(duì)可能存在一個(gè)人才飽和點(diǎn)。

????在一系列實(shí)驗(yàn)中，哥倫比亞大學(xué)（Columbia University）和其他機(jī)構(gòu)的研究人員，仔細(xì)審視了一番效力于美國職業(yè)籃球聯(lián)賽（National Basketball League）、英格蘭足球超級(jí)聯(lián)賽（Premier League）和美國職業(yè)棒球大聯(lián)盟（Major League Baseball）的職業(yè)運(yùn)動(dòng)員，并最終拆開了體育運(yùn)動(dòng)中天才球員和球隊(duì)績效之間的關(guān)系。為了鑒別精英球員，研究人員在每個(gè)聯(lián)賽中使用了一系列標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。例如，在NBA中，除了能否入選一年一度的全明星賽之外，研究人員還使用“預(yù)計(jì)額外勝場數(shù)”(EWA)對球員進(jìn)行排名，該數(shù)據(jù)被用于估算除了“替代球員”可以達(dá)到的勝利場數(shù)外，一名球員在整個(gè)賽季可以給團(tuán)隊(duì)額外帶來的勝利場數(shù)。而在英格蘭足球超級(jí)聯(lián)賽，研究人員則是通過交叉參照國家隊(duì)和皇家馬德里(Real Madrid)和切爾西(Chelsea)等頂級(jí)俱樂部的球員名單，來鑒別精英球員——同時(shí)入選國家隊(duì)和頂級(jí)俱樂部的球員，將被視為超級(jí)明星。

????研究人員計(jì)算了三種運(yùn)動(dòng)中每一支球隊(duì)“精英”球員的比例，然后將該比率與球隊(duì)的總體表現(xiàn)進(jìn)行了對比（根據(jù)其勝負(fù)記錄）。

????不同運(yùn)動(dòng)的結(jié)果不同。在棒球中，優(yōu)秀隊(duì)員的數(shù)量越多，球隊(duì)表現(xiàn)更佳：隨著球隊(duì)中精英球員的比例提高，球隊(duì)表現(xiàn)會(huì)持續(xù)改善。

????但籃球和足球并不存在這種穩(wěn)定的向上趨勢。相反，研究人員發(fā)現(xiàn)，增加優(yōu)秀球員最初對球隊(duì)表現(xiàn)有益，但卻存在一個(gè)飽和點(diǎn)。一旦球隊(duì)精英球員與其他球員的比例超過2:1，回報(bào)會(huì)開始減少。不僅如此，精英球員比例最高的籃球和足球隊(duì)，平均勝率低于球員水平高低混合的球隊(duì)。

????研究人員將這種差異歸因于棒球與足球和籃球在比賽方式方面的區(qū)別。他們寫道：“此前的研究顯示，相比足球與籃球，棒球涉及團(tuán)隊(duì)成員之間的任務(wù)依賴性更少?！?/p>

????換言之，籃球和足球才是典型的團(tuán)隊(duì)運(yùn)動(dòng)，球隊(duì)的成功取決于球員能否跟其他隊(duì)友凝聚成一股合力，而棒球則更多地取決于個(gè)人的表現(xiàn)。

????研究人員解釋道：“我們的研究披露了一個(gè)令人失望的事實(shí)，即由超級(jí)明星組成的團(tuán)隊(duì)往往無法實(shí)現(xiàn)預(yù)期。”雖然他們的研究對象是體育團(tuán)隊(duì)，但這項(xiàng)調(diào)查結(jié)果可以延伸至任何一個(gè)需要作為整體運(yùn)行的組織?；蛘?，正如研究人員所說：

????“就像一群特別能下蛋的母雞因爭奪雞籠統(tǒng)治權(quán)而導(dǎo)致雞蛋總產(chǎn)量日漸減少，小雞的死亡率不斷增加一樣，人才太多的團(tuán)隊(duì)似乎也無法把注意力放在協(xié)同工作方面，整天只顧著尋思如何把別人踩在腳下，讓自己成為團(tuán)隊(duì)中的頭面人物?！?/p>

????換言之，由于高效員工競相爭奪自身的團(tuán)隊(duì)地位，擁有太多優(yōu)秀員工反而可能會(huì)影響團(tuán)隊(duì)績效。相反，研究人員建議，團(tuán)隊(duì)組織者應(yīng)該考慮為抱有雄心、出類拔萃的團(tuán)隊(duì)成員，搭配一定比例的合格員工。

????這些研究總結(jié)道：“在許多情況下，擁有太多優(yōu)秀人才可能是一支團(tuán)隊(duì)最終失敗的根源?！?/p>

????這項(xiàng)研究曾在8月份被《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》（The New York Times）率先報(bào)道，本周被《科學(xué)美國人》（Scientific American）再次刊登。（財(cái)富中文網(wǎng)）

????譯者：劉進(jìn)龍/汪皓

????This post is in partnership with Entrepreneur. The article below was originally published at Entrepreneur.com.

????When hiring employees, conventional wisdom dictates that one should always try and select the superstars, those men and women who excel at their job so thoroughly they put the average human to shame. After all, the assumption that a corporate team packed with ten peak performers will outperform a unit that consists of five excellent achievers and five merely good ones seems like a safe bet.

????But while top-tier talent is clearly a must-have for any business, a recent study published in Psychological Science adds a shade of nuance to the talent equation by suggesting that when it comes to team performance, there may be a talent-saturation point.

????In a series of experiments, researchers at Columbia University and other institutions picked apart the relationship between talent and team performance in sports by examining professional athletes playing in the National Basketball League, Premier League and Major League Baseball. To identify elite players, the researchers used a set of criteria in each league – in the NBA, for example, players were ranked via their Estimated Wins Added, a statistic used to approximate the number of victories a player adds to a team’s season total above what a ‘replacement player’ would produce, along with whether or not they were selected for the league’s annual All-Star tournament. Meanwhile, in the Premier League, elite players were chosen by cross-referencing national teams with powerhouse club teams, such as Real Madrid and Chelsea; those who appeared on both lists were considered superstar talent.

????For all three sports, the researchers calculated the percentage of ‘elite’ players’ on each team, and then compared that number to the team’s overall performance (measured by its win-loss record).

????The results varied by sport. In baseball, the more talent the better: Team performance continued to improve as the percentage of elite players on a team climbed.

????But in basketball and soccer, this steady upward trend didn’t hold – instead, the researchers found that while the addition of talent was initially beneficial to a team’s performance, there was a saturation point. Once a team’s ratio of elite players to non-elite ones surpassed approximately 2:1, returns began to diminish. Not only that, but basketball and soccer teams with the highest percentage of top athletes had, on average, worse win-loss records than teams with a more mixed roster.

????The study’s authors chalk this difference up to the inherent difference in baseball’s style of play versus soccer and basketball’s: “Prior research suggests that baseball involves much less task interdependence among team members, compared with football and basketball,” they wrote.

????In other words, basketball and soccer are quintessential team sports, where success depends on players’ ability to work as a cohesive unit, while baseball is more about individual performances.

????“Our findings reflect the disappointing fact that teams of superstars often fail to live up to expectations,” the authors explain. They’re talking about sports teams, but their finding can be extrapolated to include any unit that needs to function as a well-integrated whole. Or, as the researchers explain it:

????“Just as a colony of high performance chickens competing for dominance suffers decrements in overall egg production and increases in bird mortality, teams with too much talent appear to divert attention away from coordination as team members peck at each other in their attempts to establish intragroup standing.”

????In other words, too many top-tier employees can cause a team’s performance to suffer as high-performance individuals jockey for position within the group. Instead, the authors advise, team-builders should consider pairing high-flying over-achievers with a solid percentage of competent, if not exceptional, workers.

????“In many cases, too much talent can be the seed of failure,” the study concludes.

????The study was first written about in August by The New York Times and surfaced again in Scientific American this week.