每日听写 11.21

If appointing a manager just because he sticks his hand up and says he can read people is not a great selection strategy, what would be better?
如果“仅仅因为一个人举手说他会识人就任命他当管理者”不是一个很好的选择策略，那么什么策略会更好呢？
The researchers found that good managerial outcomes were associated with certain skills.
研究人员发现，良好的管理成果与某些技能相关。
One in particular stood out: people who did well on a test of economic IQ developed by researchers at Harvard called the "assignment game", in which you have to quickly spot patterns in the performance data of fictional workers and match them to the tasks they are best at.
其中一项技能尤其突出：哈佛大学研究人员设计了一项名为“分配游戏”的经济智商测试，在这个测试中，你必须快速发现虚拟工人的绩效数据中的规律，并将他们与其最擅长的任务相匹配，在这个游戏中表现出色就是突出技能。
(Anyone can play the game online: you end up with a percentile score and a mild headache.)
（任何人都可以在网上玩这个游戏：你最终会得到一个百分数的分数和轻微头痛。）
Since the assignment game is similar to the experiment in the study, you would expect people who were good at one to shine in the other.
由于分配游戏与研究中的实验相似，因此你会预期擅长其中一个的人在另一个中也表现出色。
But for David Deming, also of the Harvard Kennedy School and another of the paper's authors, that is precisely the point.
但对于哈佛大学肯尼迪学院的大卫·戴明来说（他是论文的另一个作者），这正是问题的关键所在。
Management tasks can be identified, codified and incorporated into selection processes: that is a better way of choosing bosses than drawing only on those who thrust themselves forward or looking at how people perform in other jobs.
管理任务可以被识别、编码并纳入选拔过程：相比于仅仅挑选那些毛遂自荐的人，或仅仅观察人们在非管理工作中的表现的办法，这是一种更好的挑选老板的方式。
There are echoes here of a paper by Alessandro Pluchino of the University of Catania and his co-authors, who found that it was better to promote people at random than based on how well they did their current role.
这呼应了卡塔尼亚大学的亚历山德罗·普鲁奇诺及其合著者的一篇论文，他们发现，随机晋升人员比根据他们目前的表现晋升更好。
That won an IgNobel in 2010.
这篇论文在2010年获得了搞笑诺贝尔奖。
Just because something is funny doesn't mean it should be dismissed.
某事有趣并不意味着这件事应该被一笑置之。