4 ms·

Fundamentally this individual took a risk and it worked out. There was an equal chance that the new product he was working on could have floundered and he might

Fundamentally this individual took a risk and it worked out. There was an equal chance that the new product he was working on could have floundered and he might not have gotten promoted. Survivorship bias is present here. Same as saying "I quit my job and started an amazing company and would never look back". The only useful piece of advice here is "take measured risks in your career and maybe some of them might pay off".

underwater 8y ago
The "risk" he was taking was slight. Given that his goal was to be promoted, the status quo — remaining a line manager on a struggling team — was a failure, rather than being neutral. Importantly, with the benefit of experience he's now in a position to identify that moving teams was less risky than he'd even assumed. This is not just survivor bias either — in management you aren't rewarded for keeping a floundering team afloat. You need to attach yourself to a team that is making your manager and their managers look good.
- gaius 8y ago
  You need to attach yourself to a team that is making your manager and their managers look good. Right, it’s the same business model as elite universities - find people who are likely to succeed anyway and take credit for their success. Except in the case of management, it’s exploitative of the Workers because the manager hoovers up the lions share of the financial rewards, not just a fuzzy boost to reputation and prestige.
james_s_tayler 8y ago
I took the point of the article to be that you are taking a risk by leaving and you are taking a risk by staying. Either of them might work out or they might not. In either case you can't read the future, but at least one of those cases is more in your control and so win or lose it's a better bet to make because it's more predictable in some ironic sense than the sure-fire power-vacuum that's going to come along and Hoover you up to the upper echelons. I think it's basically right.
scarface74 8y ago
In this case, the risk was the product would fail and more than likely he would be moved to another team or he could have easily gotten another job.
- kamaal 8y ago
  You'd be surprised how deep and ruthless organization politics can be in these cases. New Kid on the block? All the best. Stack ranking means you are by far the most easy person to be down ranked fired because you are new, fairly less important, you don't have friends in the hierarchy. All this while people want to rank their friends well and protect them. The only reason this person did well was because he got lucky. Most of the times people are not. I even know of people who make such jumps and get demoted. They go into a new structure and realize there is an entire ladder of people wanting to take your job with powerful friends up management. Most of the times you will be made to make way for them. If you are having a bad time, no risk is small. Every change can likely trigger a bigger catastrophe than the hell you are already sitting on. Risk taking works only when you are winning well luck wise in your career. For everybody else risks are basically exposing yourself to a fairly powerful gravity well without a harness.
  - scarface74 8y ago
    In this case though, if he was any good, the other option is to find another job at another company.
    - kamaal 8y ago
      The narrative is what has issues. Its more like saying- I did X and then my career flew from there. People confuse this with saying doing X causes success. In reality doing X was a small factor in making success happen. In terms of a risk management perspective, the old adage A bird in hand, is better than two in the bush is very sound advice to follow. Say his case would have gone the other way. Had he been demoted, it would have taken a few years to merely climb out of that mess. If you believe this kind of risk taking. It will makes sense to also toss a coin a few times and make that decision. After all if you have to leave it chance, might as well let it be a little pure.

underwater 8y ago

The "risk" he was taking was slight. Given that his goal was to be promoted, the status quo — remaining a line manager on a struggling team — was a failure, rather than being neutral. Importantly, with the benefit of experience he's now in a position to identify that moving teams was less risky than he'd even assumed. This is not just survivor bias either — in management you aren't rewarded for keeping a floundering team afloat. You need to attach yourself to a team that is making your manager and their managers look good.

gaius 8y ago
You need to attach yourself to a team that is making your manager and their managers look good. Right, it’s the same business model as elite universities - find people who are likely to succeed anyway and take credit for their success. Except in the case of management, it’s exploitative of the Workers because the manager hoovers up the lions share of the financial rewards, not just a fuzzy boost to reputation and prestige.

james_s_tayler 8y ago

I took the point of the article to be that you are taking a risk by leaving and you are taking a risk by staying. Either of them might work out or they might not. In either case you can't read the future, but at least one of those cases is more in your control and so win or lose it's a better bet to make because it's more predictable in some ironic sense than the sure-fire power-vacuum that's going to come along and Hoover you up to the upper echelons. I think it's basically right.

scarface74 8y ago

In this case, the risk was the product would fail and more than likely he would be moved to another team or he could have easily gotten another job.

kamaal 8y ago
You'd be surprised how deep and ruthless organization politics can be in these cases. New Kid on the block? All the best. Stack ranking means you are by far the most easy person to be down ranked fired because you are new, fairly less important, you don't have friends in the hierarchy. All this while people want to rank their friends well and protect them. The only reason this person did well was because he got lucky. Most of the times people are not. I even know of people who make such jumps and get demoted. They go into a new structure and realize there is an entire ladder of people wanting to take your job with powerful friends up management. Most of the times you will be made to make way for them. If you are having a bad time, no risk is small. Every change can likely trigger a bigger catastrophe than the hell you are already sitting on. Risk taking works only when you are winning well luck wise in your career. For everybody else risks are basically exposing yourself to a fairly powerful gravity well without a harness.
- scarface74 8y ago
  In this case though, if he was any good, the other option is to find another job at another company.
  - kamaal 8y ago
    The narrative is what has issues. Its more like saying- I did X and then my career flew from there. People confuse this with saying doing X causes success. In reality doing X was a small factor in making success happen. In terms of a risk management perspective, the old adage A bird in hand, is better than two in the bush is very sound advice to follow. Say his case would have gone the other way. Had he been demoted, it would have taken a few years to merely climb out of that mess. If you believe this kind of risk taking. It will makes sense to also toss a coin a few times and make that decision. After all if you have to leave it chance, might as well let it be a little pure.