We defined a “luck event” as one that meets three tests: First, you didn’t cause it; second, it has a significant potential consequence, good or bad; and third, it has an element of surprise, some aspect of the event is unpredictable before it happens. Using this definition, the evidence showed a lot of luck in the history of these companies. But— and this is the crucial point—we also found comparable amounts of luck in the control set of comparison cases we studied! The big winners did not generally get more good luck, less bad luck, bigger spikes of luck, or better-timed luck than their comparisons. What the best achieved, instead, was a higher return on luck. Hansen and I learned that the question is not whether you’ll get luck along the way—you certainly will get luck, both good luck and bad. The critical question is what you do with the luck that you get. I’ve come to believe that about 50 percent of great leadership is what you do with the unexpected.

Those who see life, business, and the pursuit of accomplishment as about finding that one big hit—the one big lucky break—fail to grasp how true greatness happens. No great company, no great career, no great body of work comes about by a single event, a single flip of the coin, a single hand played. Of course, persistence doesn’t guarantee success; and the best leaders understand that they may need to change strategies, plans, and methods on the long path to building a great company. But they also understand and live out this simple truth: Luck favors the persistent.

10X MULTIPLIER—RETURN ON LUCK

Finally, there’s an input that amplifies all the other principles in the framework: the principle of return on luck. Throughout all our research, a question gnawed at me: What’s the role of luck? Our research showed that the great companies were not generally luckier than the comparisons—they didn’t get more good luck, less bad luck, bigger spikes of luck, or better timing of luck. Instead, they got a higher return on luck, making more of their luck than others. The critical question is not, “Will you get luck?” but “What will you do with the luck that you get?” If you get a high return on a good-luck event, it can add a big boost of momentum to the flywheel. But if you’re ill-prepared to absorb a bad-luck event and fail to get a high return on your bad luck, it can stall or imperil the flywheel. About 50 percent of great leadership is what you do with the unexpected.

But there’s also a hopeful story to tell. Companies can sustain greatness for decades, even if only a few do so. What this means is that you never get to the “end” of The Map. You’re never done with the journey. You’re never done with the need for disciplined people who engage in disciplined thought and take disciplined action. You’re never done renewing the company so that it might be built to last. You’re never done preparing for bad luck and capitalizing on good luck, getting a higher return on luck than others. Greatness is an inherently dynamic process, not an end point.

The Map doesn’t guarantee a great outcome. But those who adhere to its principles—and who do so with joyful intensity—have much better odds of building a great company that can endure than those who don’t. Along the way, perhaps as more of a by-product than a goal, they just might find the daily happiness that comes from doing meaningful work with people they truly like and deeply respect. And it’s hard to have a better life than that.

Much the same will be true for the issues that I cover in this book. I’m not saying that we should be confident that value lock-in or major catastrophe will occur this century. What I am saying is that their chance of occurring is very real—certainly more than 1 percent, and certainly greater than many everyday risks, like dying in a car crash. When combined with how much is at stake, the expected value of trying to ensure a good future is enormous. When we’re applying the significance, persistence, and contingency framework, we should therefore be thinking about expected significance, expected persistence, and expected contingency.