The author critically differentiates the two expressions. A historical analysis by Aristotle serves as a convincing and illuminating paradigm of the difference between chance and fortune. The terminologies fortune and chance, luck and misfortune are compared in daily or normal parlance and also in the business milieu. It is imperative that chance and fortune being evaluated in the business and the economic sector. This argument is coherent and explanatory though it is incapable of clearly defining and differentiating these expressions. The argument that fortune and chance can be controlled and comprehended is put forward. This was as suggested by Machiavelli. However, Machiavelli also agrees that half of what happens is unplanned. He categorically argues that, fortunes can be controlled and strategies must be developed to evade and elude chance. People of Latin origin view what is unexpected as fortune while the Anglo Saxon views it as chance. There is a clear differentiation of the applicability of these two terms based on the cultural difference.
Further, the Latin culture emphasize that destiny can be altered and deciphered while in the economic and administrative perspective, chance is indescribable, indeterminate and un-understandable. Again, the author indicates that, in business, people may be victims or beneficiaries of unknown circumstances with no apparent derivation. Irrespective of the meanings of fortune, lack, chance and misfortune, Business and organization suffer either a loss or a gain as a direct or indirect consequence of uncertainties. Both the Anglo-Saxon and the Latin fail to define measures that can control, describe or alter misfortune and chance (Derr, 1987). This argument is well supported in the economic and administrative sectors who perceive chance as inexplicable and undetermined but as having either positive or negative implication based on their nature. Latin's view chance as unfathomable and based on Gods logic while the Agro-Saxon view it as divine logic that is beyond human reason. Again, for Gods perceptive the two regions seem to categorize fortune and chance as unplumbed and beyond human indulgent. Nevertheless chance and misfortune may have beneficial and detrimental effects.
The author presents the effects of perceptions of chance and misfortune with respect to organizations. To do this, a critical appraisal of literature by Michel de Motaigne (Hollier, 1995), Becker (1994), Toffler (2000), is done. Michel de Motaigne attributes success in any field to fortune. The Latin's defend against uncertainty by refuting seduction related to fortunes while the capitalist administrative agenda is centered on precision and daringness. For the Latin, good and bad fortunes results to greater concerns on liability while the Anglo-Saxons mainly strategize against market fluctuations by enhancing their opportunities and threats towards the organization funds. The Latin's tend to reduce the distance between the desirable and the possible events while the Anglo-Saxon amalgamates both the probable and improbable events. The issues of cultural and location views towards chance and misfor