[jazz9k]

While output may have been part of it. It's possible that by staying later (and working longer), they had better relationships with upper management.

"I used to get my work done on time and leave"

This sounds like you just wanted to get your work done and not foster any work relationships. This is fine, but you will not get promoted this way (as you've seen).

Moving up in a company is 30% work and 70% networking/being likelable/noticed.

I stopped that nonsense years ago. I work for myself now as a consultant. If I work more, I get paid more.

[Loughla]

I took a job with the state I live in recently because friends were promoted over competent employees (not even counting myself in that because they were just promoted to my level). New job is fully remote and has a clear path to advancement based on clear work based metrics.

While it may be true that it's pretty standard, I'm convinced that any organization that relies more on face time and friendships than on actual skill is absolutely toxic.

[jimbokun]

It’s also a workplace whose success is in the past and has started the glide down into lower profits, revenue and wages.

[darth_avocado]

You’re assuming a lot here. Getting your work done on time and leaving doesn’t equate to not being likable. If it was a popularity contest, I would’ve been around the same as the people who were pretend working, if not more. My partner and my director wrote me a recommendation letter before I left, which I wouldn’t attribute to something they’d do if I was a nobody.

There are other reasons why the bad behavior gets rewarded. If the management is incompetent, they genuinely focus on the optics and not on the actual work. And if they are competent, they understand that the people who stay behind unnecessarily or come over the weekends are more exploitable in the long run. And if the people in management are the kind of people who stay behind unnecessarily, having a team full of people who do the same, rewards them as well.

[watwut]

You just described a bad management - the one that favors butt in seat and rewards lack of outside life over actual benefits to company.

[reactordev]

Moving up is 100% being likeable.

[mjr00]

Yes, with the caveat that the 30% work allocation counts toward likability. You can be friendly, charming, well-spoken, fun, etc., but if you fail to deliver and make work for other people, cause your coworkers frustration, and make your manager look bad, you're not going to move up. You will be able to coast for a while though, as managers have a hard time firing people they personally like.

It's ultimately a combination. A pretty good software developer who is friendly and pleasant is, in most organizations, going to get promoted over the grumbling angry software developer who is brilliant but everyone hates talking to. A lot of this has to do with most work at more senior levels being communication.

[reactordev]

Your last statement is exactly right. Communication matters most when you're dealing with cross-org concerns and those that master it are usually the more friendly and pleasant ones. This is something I wish more people understood. I even sometimes fall into the latter even though I strive for the former.

[gajjanag]

> Communication matters most when you're dealing with cross-org concerns and those that master it are usually the more friendly and pleasant ones.

I don't agree with the second one, but agree with the first.

Throughout my corporate career so far, I have found plenty of hot air/pretty picture slide decks that exist solely for ladder climbers to climb. Said ladder climbers are usually all smiles in public and "friendly", but you have to watch out for knives behind your back.

[reactordev]

At that level it's all Hunger Games isn't it?

[darth_avocado]

Likability helps you move up, competency keeps you there. The role of Likability in moving up is overstated.

[reactordev]

Really? Because I've met a lot of incompetent "leaders" that failed upwards because of their likeability.