> Now, we have assumed we are talking about great developers. I think you're the one making that assumption, not "we". I'm merely talking about the guys who ar

> Now, we have assumed we are talking about great developers. I think you're the one making that assumption, not "we". I'm merely talking about the guys who are seen as pros, but might just be "good" or "above average". They gain the benefit of accumulating a lot of knowledge and experience, while someone with more talent might have made better use of it. I also believe you're assuming a little much about organizations, especially in the direction "mediocre perceived as great". Often, it is also a great developer perceived as mediocre because they don't have the skills to sell themselves well. Considering many managers don't even have a technical background, let alone a developed one, and how many environments don't allow the great developer to shine without playing office politics, I highly question the idea of "organizations will find a way". Given what you said, despite the difference in perspective, what we are saying doesn't differ a lot. I just don't believe a developer who avoids politics and tends to hang around to do the dirty work in a large enterprise app can get very far, or at least leaves a lot up to fate (despite maybe having a ton of talent). Nor do I believe "plays office politics well" should be a requirement for someone to be seen as a great developer.