[aaplok]

Being obnoxious works well. Obnoxious people get elected to power. Obnoxious companies (and CEOs) generate hype that increases stock prices. Obnoxious youtubers call themselves influencers and make a good living out of it.

Or more charitably it is difficult to be successful without annoying many people.

[ranger_danger]

What I've seen lead to success:

* Arrogance

* Overconfidence

* Schmoozing with the right people

* Doing flashy work, whatever that means in a given situation

What I have seen lead to failure or, at best, being undervalued and ignored:

* Caring about teammates and your future self

* Caring about the end user and the business itself, when it conflicts with something sales, marketing, or a PM want

* Creating resilient, well-engineered systems

It's the same problem as anywhere else. Well-crafted systems are invisible and taken for granted. Saving the day by putting out a fire is applauded, even when you're the one who laid out the kindling and matches. Managers at all levels care about their own ego more than the company, product, or team.

Maybe I just spent too much time with ex-Microsoft hacks.

[otikik]

Overconfidence is a slow and insidious killer

[joquarky]

The 'con' in con-man is short for 'confidence'.

People mistake confidence for having good leadership skills.

[samiv]

Early on in my career I couldn't understand why it was always the worst and most incompetent people who got promoted.

Then I realized that it's not their incompetence that gets them promoted per se, it's that if they're employed while being utterly useless and incompetent they have SOMETHING else going on that keeps them employed.

And it's that something else (whether that is politics, brown nosing, nepotism, bullying) that also gets them promoted.

[LexiMax]

Someone I once knew put it in a slightly more charitable way.

"Having friends is a skill."

[thenthenthen]

This can applied to a lot of sectors, look at the arts and culture for example

[Bridged7756]

No, the first one thrives because they know how to play politics, the second one fails because they don't know how to play politics.

You described word for word the archetypical engineer, competent technically, incompetent politically. A liability to his team and superiors in a cut-throat corporate environment. That's why they fail, they can't be trusted to not screw their team over to do the right thing.

[zelphirkalt]

There is also the type of person, who just wants to do a good job and has passion for what they do well, but does not want to engage in silly political games. Just saying, it doesn't have to be incompetence at that.

[majorchord]

Complacency is complicity

https://tcpca.org/blog/2019/2/1/when-complacency-is-complici...

During the rise of the Third Reich, a German named Dietrich Bonhoeffer rejected the path of comfortable ignorance and valiantly chose instead to stand against the banality of evil in his land. May his words haunt the collective soul of our country:

“Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.”

[moffkalast]

Yep that sounds about right.

[collaborative]

No, you are right

[DontForgetMe]

If your definition of success includes - nay, depends on - arrogance, overconfidence, and style over substance, then it's fair to say that your definition of success differs greatly from many societies' norm.

Sure, capitalist, hyper-individualistic societies might say the most toxic, selfish companies are the most successful.

But in huge swathes of the world - I'm inclined to say most of the world - success is defined by quality, respect, the test of time, and how well one achieves one's stated objectives.

Even in UK, which is not exactly a socialist utopia, a business or company that is self-sustaining and well -regarded counts as way more successful than, say, Elon Musk or Dyson (since they sold out).

Your definition of success is like defining beauty as 'women with full lips and unlined' and wondering why so many of the most beautiful people you see have had surgery. And pushing for other definitions of beauty won't help, either. Most people define beauty as a spectrum or confluence of various factors which only tangentially relate to the 2 most obvious, currently fashionable factors like lips and wrinkles.

Or, more succinctly: if you define success as financial gain, you don't value moral factors. So of course your most esteemed companies won't either.

[BuyMyBitcoins]

There was some company a while back, I forget what they were called, but their claim to fame was a much higher click through rate on modal popups due to them “guilting” people with dynamic messages like “No, I don’t want to save up to 50%” or “I would rather let children starve than sign up for this newsletter”.

One, I can’t believe this worked. Two, some website owners were convinced that being patronizing towards visitors was worth the extra clicks.

[burningChrome]

Someone made a funny video about this approach with a guy at Petsmart and you hear the lady say, "Ok, just follow the prompts." and gets worse/funnier from there:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDUvykJVmMU

[ocdtrekkie]

Quite true. Sundar Pichai got his start on the path to fame at Google by getting the Google Toolbar install injected into things like the Adobe Acrobat and Adobe Flash installers. Look at him now.

[jonway]

Oh man I totally forgot about that Toolbar scourge back in the day day! These trash piles were all over and everyone’s mom that I knew had like 3 or 4.

[PaulHoule]

More like 12 or 15 and you were lucky to have an 800x600 screen and so they were looking through an 800x150 viewport.

[kstrauser]

Every year, the post-Thanksgiving ritual of deleting all of them from a relative’s PC, at their request because “it’s running slow”, knowing darn well they’d re-install them within the week.