T or F. To make it to the top is 50% what you accomplished, 30% playing the game, and 20% luck (right place right time)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:50% playing the game, 30% luck and 20% accomplishments.

+1

Producing a lot of very good work is sometimes counterproductive to getting ahead. Not always -- in corporate law, for instance, where your value to the firm is linked directly to your ability to bill hours and please clients, effort is much more important (though even there, you can have value as an associate but never move up if you don't develop the right relationships and also luck out somewhat on timing and opportunities). But in non-law, corporate careers, working smarter not harder, and knowing which wheels to grease is much more important than actual work output.

Agree completely. You could also get trapped as a subject matter expert or salesperson or other high level individual contributor because you’re very good and productive in that role and leadership wants you to stay put there.

[Anonymous]

Here are some other things that I’ve found matter more than I expected:

Having accomplishments in your field that are more varied than most

Being able to pick up on unspoken ground rules

Being externally idealistic and internally pragmatic

[Anonymous]

Being similar to other people in charge is still incredibly important. Gender, outside of work interests, academic background.

[Anonymous]

I'm retired, but when I started work in the 80s, the big deal was who raised the most for the United Way. Later on, I worked in a company where EVERYTHING was evaluated - how your wife presented herself at the annual picnic, how your kids were dressed, whether you played softball on their team, etc. it was nuts, but people who wanted to get ahead did it.

45 years later, most places you had better play golf and if the boss says the wall is black, it's black. Individualists need mot apply.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm retired, but when I started work in the 80s, the big deal was who raised the most for the United Way. Later on, I worked in a company where EVERYTHING was evaluated - how your wife presented herself at the annual picnic, how your kids were dressed, whether you played softball on their team, etc. it was nuts, but people who wanted to get ahead did it.

45 years later, most places you had better play golf and if the boss says the wall is black, it's black. Individualists need mot apply.

Since you’re from the dinosaur age I have to tell you - the world has changed old geezer and for the better, do us a favor, don’t give any advice to your granddaughters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm retired, but when I started work in the 80s, the big deal was who raised the most for the United Way. Later on, I worked in a company where EVERYTHING was evaluated - how your wife presented herself at the annual picnic, how your kids were dressed, whether you played softball on their team, etc. it was nuts, but people who wanted to get ahead did it.

45 years later, most places you had better play golf and if the boss says the wall is black, it's black. Individualists need mot apply.

Since you’re from the dinosaur age I have to tell you - the world has changed old geezer and for the better, do us a favor, don’t give any advice to your granddaughters.

+1. None of this is a thing anymore.

Or, for anyone remotely competent, this is not a thing. I'm sure some f-ups will nod in agreement at this stuff, but reality is that they're just looking for someone to blame for their own lack of success.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Disagree.

25% skill / talent
25% EQ
50% who you know or were born to.

This is such BS and an excuse for your own failures. Knowing people is a very, very limited impact on your career, at least relative to being good at your job or good at people stuff. At best, knowing people gets you in the door but doesn't ensure a career. After that, it's on you to make sure you meet the right people to ensure your success long term.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm retired, but when I started work in the 80s, the big deal was who raised the most for the United Way. Later on, I worked in a company where EVERYTHING was evaluated - how your wife presented herself at the annual picnic, how your kids were dressed, whether you played softball on their team, etc. it was nuts, but people who wanted to get ahead did it.

45 years later, most places you had better play golf and if the boss says the wall is black, it's black. Individualists need mot apply.

Since you’re from the dinosaur age I have to tell you - the world has changed old geezer and for the better, do us a favor, don’t give any advice to your granddaughters.

+1. None of this is a thing anymore.

Or, for anyone remotely competent, this is not a thing. I'm sure some f-ups will nod in agreement at this stuff, but reality is that they're just looking for someone to blame for their own lack of success.

Gender bias is still real. I may be a sample of one regarding my own career, but there are some funny promotion patterns going on in large departments where I have longitudinal knowledge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Disagree.

25% skill / talent
25% EQ
50% who you know or were born to.

This is such BS and an excuse for your own failures. Knowing people is a very, very limited impact on your career, at least relative to being good at your job or good at people stuff. At best, knowing people gets you in the door but doesn't ensure a career. After that, it's on you to make sure you meet the right people to ensure your success long term.

DP and I don't know if I would allocate it that way (I think it depends on the industry and the person) but I think who you know matters a lot more than you realize. I used to think the way you do -- that at the end of the day it comes down to whether or not you are good. Now I'm older and realize it's more complex.

I went to public schools all the way through college. Good schools, and I did very well. In graduate school I made a set of friends, many of whom had gone to private schools, including especially elite prep high schools. They also mostly went to private colleges, but it was the prep school thing that really stood out. Because here's the difference between going to one of those schools and going to, like me, just a solid suburban public high school: if you walk into a room of 100 decision-makers in in law, finance, and many corporate industries, at least some of them will have gone to one of those prep schools and none of them will have gone to my high school. Which means the person from one of those schools is going to have something in common with at least a few people in that room, whereas I will not. Now, I can work to develop other connections. I went to a very elite graduate school, I have good social skills, I know how to work connections. But I recognize that there is no way for me to have those kind of deep connections that people who come from similar families and went to similar schools will have. It's just the reality.

I wouldn't say it's held me back, exactly, but I can see how it eases things for my friends with that background. There is just a familiarity, comfort, and confidence that will never exist for me. I always have to prove myself. They will more often get the benefit of the doubt. It matters.

[Anonymous]

23% 42% 67%

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm retired, but when I started work in the 80s, the big deal was who raised the most for the United Way. Later on, I worked in a company where EVERYTHING was evaluated - how your wife presented herself at the annual picnic, how your kids were dressed, whether you played softball on their team, etc. it was nuts, but people who wanted to get ahead did it.

45 years later, most places you had better play golf and if the boss says the wall is black, it's black. Individualists need mot apply.

Since you’re from the dinosaur age I have to tell you - the world has changed old geezer and for the better, do us a favor, don’t give any advice to your granddaughters.

+1. None of this is a thing anymore.

Or, for anyone remotely competent, this is not a thing. I'm sure some f-ups will nod in agreement at this stuff, but reality is that they're just looking for someone to blame for their own lack of success.

The PP's assessment is accurate. To be successful, leadership needs to see you as compatible with their interests and views. There may be a little leeway, but you're either in the zone or not.

[Anonymous]

I say none of above. I am not accomplished, don’t play the game or have luck. what I am good at is interviewing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm retired, but when I started work in the 80s, the big deal was who raised the most for the United Way. Later on, I worked in a company where EVERYTHING was evaluated - how your wife presented herself at the annual picnic, how your kids were dressed, whether you played softball on their team, etc. it was nuts, but people who wanted to get ahead did it.

45 years later, most places you had better play golf and if the boss says the wall is black, it's black. Individualists need mot apply.

Since you’re from the dinosaur age I have to tell you - the world has changed old geezer and for the better, do us a favor, don’t give any advice to your granddaughters.

+1. None of this is a thing anymore.

Or, for anyone remotely competent, this is not a thing. I'm sure some f-ups will nod in agreement at this stuff, but reality is that they're just looking for someone to blame for their own lack of success.

The PP's assessment is accurate. To be successful, male leadership needs to see you as compatible with their interests and views. There may be a little leeway, but you're either in the zone or not.

FIFY

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:50% playing the game, 30% luck and 20% accomplishments.

+1

Producing a lot of very good work is sometimes counterproductive to getting ahead. Not always -- in corporate law, for instance, where your value to the firm is linked directly to your ability to bill hours and please clients, effort is much more important (though even there, you can have value as an associate but never move up if you don't develop the right relationships and also luck out somewhat on timing and opportunities). But in non-law, corporate careers, working smarter not harder, and knowing which wheels to grease is much more important than actual work output.

Agree completely. You could also get trapped as a subject matter expert or salesperson or other high level individual contributor because you’re very good and productive in that role and leadership wants you to stay put there.

This literally happened to me. Jokes on my employer though, I'm giving notice on Friday.

[Anonymous]

As someone who is worth >$15M before 40,

40% luck
40% accomplishments
20% playing the game

We’ve worked very hard, gone to the right schools, intentionally picked lucrative careers (think tech, finance, law), but sheer dumb luck really played a factor. A few anonymized examples

- getting on the PE wave of the late 00s
- pivotal, high profile roles that opened up just as we were looking to pivot
- sponsors who initially shared personal interests and therefore propelled careers

Do I enjoy every moment of my affluent lifestyle? Yes.

Do I also give back a lot because I know how differently things could have turned out? 100%