Career Success -- A Lot of Luck?

[Loren Pechtel]

It is interesting. I think anyone that has worked in a corporate environment has asked themselves "How the fuck did that incompetent dipshit rise to the top?" There are a lot of things at play in success. Timing (luck?) and cronyism has a lot of bearing. Sucking up to the boss helps for sure.

Definitely. Diplomacy is far more valuable at climbing the ladder than for doing the job one climbed to.

I think luck plays a big factor at the top as you need both skill and opportunity. However, closer to the middle of the range there are many opportunities, I think luck plays only a small role (other than luck that messes with you directly. Medical issues can derail a career no matter what your skill.)

 

[BH]

Dear Mr. Petchel,

Let's say you are turned down for a promotion. The reason given does not make sense to you. However, you think it over a few days. How could you tell it was a smoke blow reason to cover they just didn't want to give it to you but you could have done it and how can you tell you actually were perhaps deficient and need not need to get that promotion?

 

[RVonse]

He got lucky by investing in some major commercial real estate projects in Manhattan in the late 70's/early 80's, right before a significant real estate price boom in that market.

A monkey putting money into any commercial real estate project at the time would've made plenty of money.

Surely many other people did the same thing and made bank. But why do we only know of Donald Trump? Could you name another real estate developer without searching the internet?

Trump got a head start with daddy's money and real estate development connections and was extremely aggressive with use of debt. Leverage works well when asset prices are rising. Trump benefited greatly from the NYC 80's real estate boom. Since the early 90's, he's basically made no money (and may have even lost some). He would've done far better just putting his money in an index fund since then.

We know about him so well because of his obsessive and narcissistic need to market himself (self promotion).

A monkey would not have been willing to take the risk that Trump did though. In that regard, the ascension of Trump's wealth very closely mirrors that of Howard Hughes. Both individuals were born into modest means, both individuals bet the farm leveraging all of their inherited wealth, finally becoming insanely wealthy. In Hughes case, he leveraged all he had to purchase airplanes for TWA and could have easily lost it all. Come to think of it, I can't think of any pussies who have become billionaires. Look at Elon Musk right now risking huge amounts of his liquidity on each rocket launch.

So anyway, Trump may not be that much more intelligent but he does possess the willingness to TAKE ON RISK. And that is very important because it is leadership and vision that few people possess IMO.

 

[dismal]

I believe it was his advice on how to make it as a writer.

But, in a way you're illustrating my point. You could ask: "gee, diz, you're a highly successful titan of industry in the corporate world - what advice would you have to a kid who wants to follow in your footsteps". Then I'd tell you more or less what I've already told you. Get a degree from a decent school in a major someone would want to hire. Learn how to talk, dress, and act like other corporate people. You'd be on your way.

Instead, you just want to dick around on the internet and call people who have presented themselves to the market in a way that results in success "lucky".

Dismal has a point. You may know less or be less capable than others but if you have the image some people will fawn over you. Everyone gripes about smokeblowers and bullshitters. But I read once that people who smokeblow and bullshit are not really good at seeing when other people do it to them. Life isn't fair and when dealing with the psychology of other people you better be prepared to be underwhelmed and disappointed with the people you often have as supervisors.

One of the best advisers in my life told me to "dumb it down". Lots of business owners and higher managers do not want intelligent people working for them, just people who do what you are told. Being smart and showing it just alienates you to such people.

There are jobs where brains are rewarded and demanded as a must. All well and fine, but the bulk of jobs around here don't.

People want to hire someone who helps them get things done. Lots of companies I work with and for have had problem solving types who can't carry on a conversation without staring at their shoes. This can get you to a certain point. Even a pretty high point on some technical track if you're good. But at some point if you want to make it on the general ladder you need to show you can think a little bigger. At some point you have to make people think you can lead and manage people.

 

[Jon Osterman]

People want to hire someone who helps them get things done. Lots of companies I work with and for have had problem solving types who can't carry on a conversation without staring at their shoes. This can get you to a certain point. Even a pretty high point on some technical track if you're good. But at some point if you want to make it on the general ladder you need to show you can think a little bigger. At some point you have to make people think you can lead and manage people.

The ability to bullshit is definitely one of the most valuable traits in the modern workplace. If you are honest about your talents and your achievements you will almost certainly do less well than your contemporaries. I often see people who are really rubbish at what they do get promotions or opportunities due to their ability to spin their failure into sounding like success.

I also see extremely talented individuals who add significant worth to the institution they work for (often to the extent that the projects would have failed if not for their input) be passed over for promotion and recognition simply because they are not forceful enough in shouting about their contribution. BTW, I think this is a significant contributor to the gender pay gap.

But in my opinion, the real "problem" is that managers are paid more than technical people. There is a perception that one should be promoted from technical roles into management roles. But why? They require very different skillsets and both are often essential to the functioning of a company, so why not regard them on an equivalent footing? Don't encourage outstanding technical people to apply for "promotion" to management positions they are unsuited for and will probably be unhappy doing just because they will get more money.

On the topic of luck, I would agree with the initial hypothesis that it is important. However, I think for most people, it sort of cancels out. If you have a long career, you have sufficient good luck and bad luck for them to normalise each other. Having said that, the people who are really successful are usually those who have stacked up the luck along the way.

 

[Playball40]

I've had this happen to me as well.

I believe it was his advice on how to make it as a writer.

But, in a way you're illustrating my point. You could ask: "gee, diz, you're a highly successful titan of industry in the corporate world - what advice would you have to a kid who wants to follow in your footsteps". Then I'd tell you more or less what I've already told you. Get a degree from a decent school in a major someone would want to hire. Learn how to talk, dress, and act like other corporate people. You'd be on your way.

Instead, you just want to dick around on the internet and call people who have presented themselves to the market in a way that results in success "lucky".

Dismal has a point. You may know less or be less capable than others but if you have the image some people will fawn over you. Everyone gripes about smokeblowers and bullshitters. But I read once that people who smokeblow and bullshit are not really good at seeing when other people do it to them. Life isn't fair and when dealing with the psychology of other people you better be prepared to be underwhelmed and disappointed with the people you often have as supervisors.

One of the best advisers in my life told me to "dumb it down". Lots of business owners and higher managers do not want intelligent people working for them, just people who do what you are told. Being smart and showing it just alienates you to such people.

There are jobs where brains are rewarded and demanded as a must. All well and fine, but the bulk of jobs around here don't.

 

[Playball40]

Self promotion is important. Trump is king at it.

People want to hire someone who helps them get things done. Lots of companies I work with and for have had problem solving types who can't carry on a conversation without staring at their shoes. This can get you to a certain point. Even a pretty high point on some technical track if you're good. But at some point if you want to make it on the general ladder you need to show you can think a little bigger. At some point you have to make people think you can lead and manage people.

The ability to bullshit is definitely one of the most valuable traits in the modern workplace. If you are honest about your talents and your achievements you will almost certainly do less well than your contemporaries. I often see people who are really rubbish at what they do get promotions or opportunities due to their ability to spin their failure into sounding like success.

I also see extremely talented individuals who add significant worth to the institution they work for (often to the extent that the projects would have failed if not for their input) be passed over for promotion and recognition simply because they are not forceful enough in shouting about their contribution. BTW, I think this is a significant contributor to the gender pay gap.

But in my opinion, the real "problem" is that managers are paid more than technical people. There is a perception that one should be promoted from technical roles into management roles. But why? They require very different skillsets and both are often essential to the functioning of a company, so why not regard them on an equivalent footing? Don't encourage outstanding technical people to apply for "promotion" to management positions they are unsuited for and will probably be unhappy doing just because they will get more money.

On the topic of luck, I would agree with the initial hypothesis that it is important. However, I think for most people, it sort of cancels out. If you have a long career, you have sufficient good luck and bad luck for them to normalise each other. Having said that, the people who are really successful are usually those who have stacked up the luck along the way.

 

[Bronzeage]

80% of success is showing up (in the right clothes, and being passable at the office cultural stuff). This will get an average person to at least the VP level.

This assumes you also mastered "showing up" in high school and college.

I would also add the ability to bullshit should never be underestimated. I can spot a bullshitter within 10 seconds but it would appear that my boss cannot.

An alternative explanation is, your ability to see the uses of a bullshitter are limited, while your boss's ability is not, and he that is why he's the boss and you are not.

 

[Horatio Parker]

I think bosses often don't know how their employees do their jobs. That makes them more susceptible to bullshit.

 

[ronburgundy]

80% of success is showing up (in the right clothes, and being passable at the office cultural stuff). This will get an average person to at least the VP level.

The majority of people do those things

Cite?

The burden is on you to cite evidence for your absurdly extremist claim that the 0.05% of workers who are "VPs" are the only workers who bother to even show up to work or wear minimally acceptable clothes.

 

[dismal]

I think bosses often don't know how their employees do their jobs. That makes them more susceptible to bullshit.

Have you ever been a boss before? I think you'd be surprised how easy it is to tell who's getting stuff done and who isn't.

Maybe once you're 2 or more levels away it's not but then you're relying more on your reports to know.

 

[ronburgundy]

I have a question. My degree is in history and political science. I did some grad work in history and also in education. I taught school a little while and then got back into business.

I understand my history degree wouldn't help that much but I have found lots of places will not hire me not because it is the wrong degree, but because it is a degree. Have been told it makes me overqualified. Why is this?

I am in good shape and have a good job right now and am happy. But I do not understand why the degree should hurt someone.

AFAICT "overqualified" means you're unlikely to stay around.

Yes, it can also create the impression you aren't focused and maybe don't really know what you want to do.

Once you've worked a few years in business those concerns tend to go away. But they can be an obstacle to a career change.
.

IOW, another in the trillions of ways that luck determines job outcomes. Very very few 18 year olds have enough experience to know what career they will want to pursue for the rest of their lives. Choice of major is massively detmermined by luck factors outside the students' control, including what H.S. and college teachers took an interest in them, what types of jobs the people in their family and extended social network have had, whether others they know have gone to college, what majors are considered as notable strengths of the college they wind up at for countless random reasons, etc..
Plus, their are infinite random factors that determine whether a person feels it is okay to change majors , in addition to non-random luck like having wealthier parents who can afford to support you in college for the extra year it would add to change majors.

All that doesn't include the fact that how an employer views such a degree is impacted by countless random factors that have no relevance to the applicants actual qualifications, longevity, etc.. For example, the employers own random experiences related to a particular degree (do they know someone with that degree?) will heavily impact how they view an applicant with that degree.

 

[laughing dog]

I think bosses often don't know how their employees do their jobs. That makes them more susceptible to bullshit.

Have you ever been a boss before? I think you'd be surprised how easy it is to tell who's getting stuff done and who isn't.

LOL - there is plenty of anecdotal evidence that too many bosses have a real problem in distinguishing who is getting the job done and who is not.

 

[Horatio Parker]

I think bosses often don't know how their employees do their jobs. That makes them more susceptible to bullshit.

Have you ever been a boss before? I think you'd be surprised how easy it is to tell who's getting stuff done and who isn't.

Maybe once you're 2 or more levels away it's not but then you're relying more on your reports to know.

Sure - if I know the work. If I don't, then I have to do the best I can, which makes me susceptible to bullshit.

 

[dismal]

Yes, it can also create the impression you aren't focused and maybe don't really know what you want to do.

Once you've worked a few years in business those concerns tend to go away. But they can be an obstacle to a career change.
.

IOW, another in the trillions of ways that luck determines job outcomes. Very very few 18 year olds have enough experience to know what career they will want to pursue for the rest of their lives. Choice of major is massively detmermined by luck factors outside the students' control, including what H.S. and college teachers took an interest in them, what types of jobs the people in their family and extended social network have had, whether others they know have gone to college, what majors are considered as notable strengths of the college they wind up at for countless random reasons, etc..
Plus, their are infinite random factors that determine whether a person feels it is okay to change majors , in addition to non-random luck like having wealthier parents who can afford to support you in college for the extra year it would add to change majors.

All that doesn't include the fact that how an employer views such a degree is impacted by countless random factors that have no relevance to the applicants actual qualifications, longevity, etc.. For example, the employers own random experiences related to a particular degree (do they know someone with that degree?) will heavily impact how they view an applicant with that degree.

This is all true, but it's not the same as saying success is all "luck". The odds of me ending up in the exact job I am in today is vanishingly small. A series of chances, steps, missteps, informed and ill-informed decisions by myself and others all contribuited to it. But then, the odds of me being born and alive at all are vanishingly small as well. But, what I did do was show up for high school, do decently well at it, go to a decent school, get a marketable degree, get a job, and show up for work with a reasonable positive attitude. I controlled these things. These things put me in a position to be successful.

I would liken it to a game of Texas Hold 'Em where you control your hole cards. If you go out and get yourself a pair of aces you're going to tend to win a lot more when the flop happens. Except maybe instead of 2 hole cards you can get between 0 and 4. If you get a degree at at Princeton or MIT that's an Ace. If you get a degree at Missouri or Indiana that's maybe a Ten. If you get an associates degree from Bumble County Community college that's like a 3. If your degree is in Electrical Engineering or Rocket Science that's an Ace. If it's in Accounting that's a Ten. If it's in Kinesiology you get a Deuce. If it's in Gender Studies or Marxist Theory you've got to give a card back. If you know how to present yourself well and communicate well that's an Ace. If you are inarticulate and have the fashion sense of a flood victim you get a Six. If you rail on the internet about how everyone successful is just lucky and don't bother to try you fold.

 

[braces_for_impact]

Yes, it can also create the impression you aren't focused and maybe don't really know what you want to do.

Once you've worked a few years in business those concerns tend to go away. But they can be an obstacle to a career change.
.

IOW, another in the trillions of ways that luck determines job outcomes. Very very few 18 year olds have enough experience to know what career they will want to pursue for the rest of their lives. Choice of major is massively detmermined by luck factors outside the students' control, including what H.S. and college teachers took an interest in them, what types of jobs the people in their family and extended social network have had, whether others they know have gone to college, what majors are considered as notable strengths of the college they wind up at for countless random reasons, etc..
Plus, their are infinite random factors that determine whether a person feels it is okay to change majors , in addition to non-random luck like having wealthier parents who can afford to support you in college for the extra year it would add to change majors.

All that doesn't include the fact that how an employer views such a degree is impacted by countless random factors that have no relevance to the applicants actual qualifications, longevity, etc.. For example, the employers own random experiences related to a particular degree (do they know someone with that degree?) will heavily impact how they view an applicant with that degree.

This is all true, but it's not the same as saying success is all "luck". The odds of me ending up in the exact job I am in today is vanishingly small. A series of chances, steps, missteps, informed and ill-informed decisions by myself and others all contribuited to it. But then, the odds of me being born and alive at all are vanishingly small as well. But, what I did do was show up for high school, do decently well at it, go to a decent school, get a marketable degree, get a job, and show up for work with a reasonable positive attitude. I controlled these things. These things put me in a position to be successful.

I would liken it to a game of Texas Hold 'Em where you control your hole cards. If you go out and get yourself a pair of aces you're going to tend to win a lot more when the flop happens. Except maybe instead of 2 hole cards you can get between 0 and 4. If you get a degree at at Princeton or MIT that's an Ace. If you get a degree at Missouri or Indiana that's maybe a Ten. If you get an associates degree from Bumble County Community college that's like a 3. If your degree is in Electrical Engineering or Rocket Science that's an Ace. If it's in Accounting that's a Ten. If it's in Kinesiology you get a Deuce. If it's in Gender Studies or Marxist Theory you've got to give a card back. If you know how to present yourself well and communicate well that's an Ace. If you are inarticulate and have the fashion sense of a flood victim you get a Six. If you rail on the internet about how everyone successful is just lucky and don't bother to try you fold.

Your game of Texas Hold'em might be applicable if certain people started with 20 cards, some with 10, and some have to beg for a few.

 

[dismal]

This is all true, but it's not the same as saying success is all "luck". The odds of me ending up in the exact job I am in today is vanishingly small. A series of chances, steps, missteps, informed and ill-informed decisions by myself and others all contribuited to it. But then, the odds of me being born and alive at all are vanishingly small as well. But, what I did do was show up for high school, do decently well at it, go to a decent school, get a marketable degree, get a job, and show up for work with a reasonable positive attitude. I controlled these things. These things put me in a position to be successful.

I would liken it to a game of Texas Hold 'Em where you control your hole cards. If you go out and get yourself a pair of aces you're going to tend to win a lot more when the flop happens. Except maybe instead of 2 hole cards you can get between 0 and 4. If you get a degree at at Princeton or MIT that's an Ace. If you get a degree at Missouri or Indiana that's maybe a Ten. If you get an associates degree from Bumble County Community college that's like a 3. If your degree is in Electrical Engineering or Rocket Science that's an Ace. If it's in Accounting that's a Ten. If it's in Kinesiology you get a Deuce. If it's in Gender Studies or Marxist Theory you've got to give a card back. If you know how to present yourself well and communicate well that's an Ace. If you are inarticulate and have the fashion sense of a flood victim you get a Six. If you rail on the internet about how everyone successful is just lucky and don't bother to try you fold.

Your game of Texas Hold'em might be applicable if certain people started with 20 cards, some with 10, and some have to beg for a few.

Look, I get that some people start off with more advantages than others. It does not need to be repeated in every post.

This is an entirely different point than claiming "success is just luck". You control an incredible amount of what does and doesn't make you successful in your life.

 

[ronburgundy]

This is all true, but it's not the same as saying success is all "luck".

No is saying that it "all luck", but rather arguing what the science in the OP link shows, which is that is mostly luck.

The odds of me ending up in the exact job I am in today is vanishingly small. A series of chances, steps, missteps, informed and ill-informed decisions by myself and others all contribuited to it. But then, the odds of me being born and alive at all are vanishingly small as well. But, what I did do was show up for high school, do decently well at it, go to a decent school, get a marketable degree, get a job, and show up for work with a reasonable positive attitude. I controlled these things. These things put me in a position to be successful.

Those things merely increased your probability for success. There is still massive variance in success among the people who did all those things. And showing up for high school accounts for very little. Other than the 10% of whites who don't graduate, most others show up almost all the time and at enough that it had little impact. There were maybe 1 or 2 kids in my classes who were regular no shows, yet the success of those who were always there is highly variable. And whether you show up to class matters a lot less when the quality of the education is low, which is another chance factor.

Plus, those actions you took are themselves impacted by countless chance events. How easy it is to show up to school every day is impacted by how far the school is, whether there is easy transportation (the easiest being kids whose parents give them a car), whether you must stay home with sick siblings because your parent can't afford to miss work, etc.. How well you do at school is also impacted by chance factors like having to work to help your family eat, how good your teachers are, classroom resources, what the other students are like, how much nutrition you get, how many homelife stressors there are. Take the exact same kid with the same will and desire to learn and vary these factors and you will change their educational success.

I would liken it to a game of Texas Hold 'Em where you control your hole cards. If you go out and get yourself a pair of aces you're going to tend to win a lot more when the flop happens. Except maybe instead of 2 hole cards you can get between 0 and 4. If you get a degree at at Princeton or MIT that's an Ace. If your degree is in Electrical Engineering or Rocket Science that's an Ace.

IOW, you think that anyone can simply go out "and get" a rocket science degree from MIT, without any chance factors playing a role in that. That is about as oblivious to reality as one can get.

 

[dismal]

Those things merely increased your probability for success.

Yeah, to about 100% - depending on how you define "success".

IOW, you think that anyone can simply go out "and get" a rocket science degree from MIT, without any chance factors playing a role in that.

Not everyone who could get a degree from MIT does get a degree from MIT. Those who do have better cards to play. If you lack the intellectual horsepower to get more than a marketing degree from Big State University, you still maximize your chance of success for by getting that marketing degree from Big State University instead of dropping out of high school to focus on sitting in your mother's basement and consuming drugs.

And, I must say, it's a bit surprising to find a bunch of leftists arguing that things like "graduating high school" and "getting a degree from a good college" have no bearing on someone's success. If it's all down to "luck" it seems to follow we should stop spending public money on sending kids to colleges. And high schools.

 

[rousseau]

I'd think that the genetics we're born with along with the income of the family we're born into would be quite predictive of future success.

The question then is 'should this be defined as luck'.

Some people with a more liberal orientation would say yes, but there are valid counter-arguments. Namely, the biological purpose of life is to propagate one's own genes and so the relevant fact isn't that the individual 'got lucky', it's that his/her family line is particularly successful at reproducing. In this view, why shouldn't members of a given family have the right to the wealth/resources that they've accumulated?

On the other hand, one could just as easily argue that this dynamic is what we should be leading society away from, and building policy that improves the overall experience of individuals, regardless of future outcomes. And so here the 'luck' argument holds more weight.

I'd think that's basically the dividing line between liberalism/conservatism. For me, personally, I fall somewhere in the middle of the two extremes.