(Again, to review from the previous chapter, a “luck event” 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.) Any framework that didn’t account for unpredictable and unforeseen events would be incomplete, and I couldn’t be intellectually satisfied until we wrestled with the question of luck. The concept of return on luck accounts for the undeniable fact that luck happens (a lot) yet captures the essential truth that luck itself cannot cause greatness. Catastrophic bad luck can kill a potentially great company, but good luck cannot make a company great. Luck doesn’t build great companies that last; people do.

My work is part of a tradition in psychology that shows the power of people’s beliefs. These may be beliefs we’re aware of or unaware of, but they strongly affect what we want and whether we succeed in getting it. This tradition also shows how changing people’s beliefs - even the simplest beliefs - can have profound effects.

Biologist Rupert Sheldrake, in taking the ideas of physics into the biological and physiological realms, offers a strong case for considering seemingly random chance events as dependable energy manifestations.

The new physics indicates that tremendous energy resources lie within each of us and that we are united with energy patterns in the universe. Sheldrake proposes that there are morphogenic fields, or “invisible organizing structures that mold or shape things like crystals, plants, and animals, and [that] also have an organizing effect on behavior.” He posits that these fields contain influences from all of history and evolution. As such, they begin to explain the “lucky coincidences” that sometimes solve our problems.

The existence of luck also reminds us that our activities are less repeatable. Since change is inevitable, the question is: Do you act to stop it and try to protect yourself from it, or do you become the master of change by accepting it and being open to it? My view, of course, is that working with change is what creativity is about.

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.