Well it comes from a common idiom, though I'm not sure it's from confucius[0]. Basically, if you're working at a firm which doesn't specialize in networking, b

Well it comes from a common idiom, though I'm not sure it's from confucius[0]. Basically, if you're working at a firm which doesn't specialize in networking, but you really care about networking, you'll probably be the smartest person in the room with regards to that. In general it's when you're not learning from your coworkers, but also when you're not doing things that push forward your knowledge as well (hence the research caveat) or with lots of autonomy. That said, it depends on what your career goals are -- if you're dedicated to craftsmanship, then managing people isn't necessarily your interest. If you're interested in being a leader, then that is somewhat at odds with focusing only on craftsmanship, etc. > I find myself trending to learning more about people and teaching even though staying on the individual contributor track. It's not that there isn't more to learn but the development methods become well known. Another platitude/saying is that teaching is the best way to learn -- reaching mastery that enables you to teach is great, and if you like to teach then it's fantastic, but what lies beyond mastery is research, so it's more of a question of if you want to do that or not, or if you're at a local minima (or really a local knowledge boundary) in relation to your knowledge. If you think it's a local minima then maybe it's time to move to a company which does more of what you're interested in, if not, then you spend your time researching (and/or teaching others). [0]: https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7854941-if-you-are-the-smartest-person-in-the-room-then https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7854941-if-you-are-the-smar...