Lucky or Able?: How We View the Success of Others

Source: Tara Winstead/Pexels

When we think of the most successful people in society, many consider them to be talented, brilliant, or conscientious; perhaps all three. But we rarely factor in luck.

Overall, we tend to ignore situational factors – whether they had connections or access to resources that others did not, whether they had “the right look,” or were of a particular gender. Instead, we weigh heavily on dispositional qualities – believing the successful to be exceptional, intelligent, diligent, savvy, shrewd, and, if nothing else, bold. However, this reliance on dispositional factors for what may be largely situational effects creates an illusion because success is fundamentally a by-product of ability and luck.

Assessing luck in success is important to understand what underpins and preserves disparities across diverse talent groups. Hamilton and Lordan (2023) explored how people view luck's role in others' success over a 50-year period. They identified many instances in which people were judged by external, situational dynamics and sociodemographic qualities beyond their control instead of internal, dispositional characteristics that uniquely speak to the strength of the individual.

This is especially problematic because those with the power to admit, recruit and promote—even those most experienced in the selection process—mistake luck for ability. This can lead to unmerited differences in rewards, such as pay, progression, and other occupational opportunities. It puts into question how opportunities broadly, as well as fame, honors, and fortunes are granted in society.

Let’s be clear: Many successful people are undeniably hardworking, educated, and talented, and these attributes constitute a level of skill that justifies their occupational standing. But many cannot deny their revered demographic or the favourable environmental milieu they were raised in, which set them on a path that was, perhaps, less problematic than others they may have competed against. It is, therefore, fair to say that their success was a combination of ability and luck, yet the notion of luck is often ignored.

In contrast, Hamilton and Lordan (2023) demonstrated that women and black professionals are more likely than their male and white counterparts to be viewed as lucky in their accomplishments rather than have it ascribed to their abilities. The authors highlight that being viewed as lucky rather than able translates into fewer opportunities, lower pay, and fewer promotions. Companies could therefore be disadvantaged by holding back some of their most talented employees.

Overall, certain characteristics (not all covered here) influence how we view people’s success. From age, class, gender, appearance, and personality to religion and physical ability, individual characteristics alter how we judge the success of others. This bias is only made stronger when someone sits at the intersection of two or more groups.

Gender is a prime example where we see differences in how luck is attributed to success. Historically, the concept of success has been epitomised through maleness. Because of this, a man’s success is typically attributed to ability, without considering luck, and men tend to be considered drivers of their own success. However, the success of a woman tends to be attributed to luck, with little regard given to ability, and they are more likely considered passive in their successes. What’s more, opinions of male success remain largely ability-based when the role is sex-typed – either masculine or feminine (for example, in the case of an economist or a nurse), but, sadly, this is not the case for women when the role is sex-typed masculine – in which case they are considered lucky.

Regarding class, despite the limited potential for social mobility, an individual’s social class is commonly tied to the social order they were born into. Benefits are conferred upon individuals from different classes differentially. This is problematic because the success that people experience can, therefore, be a function of the privileges that class affords or the constraints that it imposes (Burt, 2009). The question then becomes whether an individual made it to the top through merit or whether their access to resources propelled them to the top. Equally, whether an individual was held back or unseen because of a lack of resources.

These trends are also observed with other marginalised groups. The problem is that certain groups become disproportionately rewarded for what is thought to be ability without regard to the ease through which any earlier successes may have been afforded. By contrast, their counterparts may be considered unworthy of their positions, or their success is considered the exception, not the rule. This reduces the chances of equitable representation into positions of influence, visibility, wealth, and power.

Gender Essential Reads

Insights From Research of Teens Unhappy With Their Gender

Hostile and Benevolent Sexism: Two Sides of the Same Coin

Hamilton and Lordan’s (2023) review spans research conducted from 1970 to 2020. While there is a general indication of change, this may not be entirely a result of changed minds and reduced biases but rather a concealment of practices and views that are no longer socially acceptable.

Ultimately, ignoring the role of luck creates an atmosphere that systemically rewards privilege and marginalises certain groups — even if not deliberately or consciously invoked. Lordan and Hamiltion (2023) demonstrate that two such groups are black and women colleagues. Unsurprisingly, these two groups are also under-represented in societies' most powerful and highly paid professions.

The findings in Lordan and Hamilton (2023) raise the question about whether those deemed the most talented in society are merely the luckiest, while those excluded from high-status jobs are too regularly ascribed luck in error. It also contributes to the tenuous position that a sizable proportion of the workforce is denied opportunities because they have had a less auspicious path. The perception of the success of others and how it is attributed is, therefore, a fundamental occupational concern and a crucial inclusion and diversity leverage point.

With this in mind, there are seven ways that leaders can reduce these biases and level the playing field, remembering that individuals can be equally able and lucky. It doesn’t have to be a zero-sum game.

1. Recruit by task-based assessments. Role-based tasks should be included in the recruitment process to ensure that more objective candidacy decisions are made. Bonus points are given for recruitment rounds that assess tasks without knowing the candidate's identity, removing any unconscious tendencies to adjust grading up or down for specific groups. Therefore, recruiting is more on the ability to perform the job than fit and likeability.

2. Audit and make decision-makers accountable. Multiple decision-makers who offer diverse perspectives should be included in the recruitment and promotion process. Because these are high-stake outcomes, decision-makers should be held accountable by justifying their decisions in writing, in reverse order of seniority, to avoid the dynamic where "the flowers follow the sun."

3. Re-evaluate performance measures. Leaders should move toward consistent, achievable, and unambiguous performance criteria that are organisational-wide to help safeguard appraisal systems from perpetuating the marginalisation of distinct groups, particularly toward the upper end of the organisational hierarchy.

4. Change the status quo of hiring homogenous talent groups. Strive to increase the shares of individuals in occupations and industries who have historically been absent. This will, for example, help decouple gender congruency (e.g., where women become seen as CEOs and Secretaries in equal measures) to balance how successes are perceived.

5. Prioritise psychological safety. Performance tends to compound in a climate of psychological safety where mistakes are largely used as learning opportunities (Rowold et al., 2008). Efforts should be made to increase psychological safety in organisations, particularly for groups that may lack this because they are in environments where they are underrepresented.

6. Build empathy and team spirit. It is long known that building empathy between individuals can moderate perceptional errors, which is the inability to judge others accurately and without bias. Team alliances should be incentivised, where formally side-lined individuals are given a chance to take key roles instead of non-promotional tasks.

7. Nurture the well-being of decision-makers. Individuals with the power to afford or deny opportunities are human, too. They are more prone to attribution errors if they are stressed, exhausted, or inundated (Gilbert et al., 1988), so leaders are called to monitor workloads, encourage time autonomy, allow for flexible working practices, and avoid delegating tasks that are beyond an individual’s physical, intellectual, or technical capacity.

This post was adapted from a systematic review titled “Ability or luck: A systematic review of interpersonal attributions of success" (Hamilton & Lordan, 2023).