Are you capable of being ruthless to get ahead?
blog.cubeofm.com
blog.cubeofm.com
>1. Choose your friends
Seem like a good idea to pursue friends who are similarly ambitious, smart, diligent, etc.
PG touches on this in a few of his essays, e.g. in News From the Front: "The other students are the biggest advantage of going to an elite college; you learn more from them than the professors. But you should be able to reproduce this at most colleges if you make a conscious effort to find smart friends."
> 2. Make sure your outwards appearance is perfect
Seems prudent to dress well and it's definitely a good idea to exercise.
> 3. Invest in your location
Nothing wrong with having a well appointed apartment.
> 4. Approach people and tell them what to do
This is kind of over the top, and is contradicted by the paragraphs beneath it, which reveal that "Saul" approached people "either [to] build a relationship with them, or to do something for them."
This seems like excellent advice. How is it perverse to build relationship or do things for others? And how is it anything but admirable to do be the one initiating?
>5. Keep your head when everyone else is getting caught up in the rush. Encourage others to lose their heads
First part seems like a prudent idea. Second part sounds manipulative, though. On the other hand, encouraging coworkers to drink heavily is maybe a little too widespread to qualify as Machiavellian.
Edit: typo.
That guy looks like a textbook sociopath. You should read this to really understand on what's going on: http://www.amazon.com/Snakes-Suits-When-Psychopaths-Work/dp/...
People like him leave a scorched earth approach to anything, and at the end they end up being damaging to the companies where they work.
He doesn't make friends. He acts as a 'friend' to people to get ahead, while simultaneously backstabbing them.
We are not talking just simple "outdo the master" type of manoeuvrings. We are talking about lying, maliciously spreading rumors, destroying other people's careers, while keeping a "friendly and smiling face", and dropping people like a rock once done with them.
You will never understand what hit you, until it is too late.
Just beware.
I try to do this as a hobby. (Diplomacy..) But it would piss me off mightily at the work place (or anywhere outside the game).
Edit: 3rd option, and almost certainly right, is that Diplomacy is a game, which a quick googling revealed. My nerd-fu is weak! Sounds like you'd be good at Mafia/Werewolf.
Also a honest and straightforward approach often works best. Or more accurately --- in the vein of Machiavelli --- being known for an honest and straightforward approach, which is not the same thing.
P.S. Please pardon that I only wrote "the game". I am too much involved in "the hobby".
I can't make exact judgment about the guy from the article. But I'd judge the article itself to be something of a Rorschach test for reader. Sociopath or go-getter?
Well, you have just neatly described American Psycho...
Enjoyed how the author shows the dynamic at play between the "sociopath" (eg the business driver) and the "losers" (eg the salarymen that trade short term stability in for their pursuit of capitalism).
If you can find a field of "losers" - who are defined simply as those who produce, but are unwilling to risk failure for larger gain - you've got a sound business.
Absolutely, and 100% true in my experience.
Like orangecat(http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1184986) mentioned, they exhibit classic sociopathic behavior. To be fair, we all use people - you use friends for friendship, significant others for significant-othering. However, it is the complete lack of empathy from these sociopaths that makes their behavior abhorrent. Though we all use others, the implicit social contract that is normally entered keeps the exchange amiable.
By analogy, school bullies are very effective at teaching their fellow students the importance of resolve, self-defense, interpersonal dynamics, strength in character, etc. I don't see anyone congratulating bullies for their service to the community anytime soon, however.
My point is that if you do not have the talent it is absolutely pointless to try to do this and there aren't enough blogs in the world that will be able to teach you how to do it.
Of course, it is usually a good idea to try to improve one's social skills, but don't bother trying to learn to be manipulative, because if you weren't born a manipulative bastard, you will never learn.
And I have to say that even though people like him will always prosper in certain organisations, lately their fates are really declining in comparison with the truly talented. It used to be that the business word was dominated by a few fat and complacent companies where people could get ahead merely by being popular. But nowadays, business is getting ever more competitive and it is becoming ever more difficult for people to rise up merely because they are popular. It often becomes very clear who is not pulling their weight, even if they are popular.
So it is much better to spend your energy into learning to be good at what you do rather than being ruthless.
Is it ruthless or unethical to befriend people who affect your future? Of course not. Is it ruthless or unethical to lose touch with people? Nope, people lose touch with each other all the time; it's unavoidable. In this case, it's just that he gets promoted faster and makes new friends faster than what is considered appropriate.
Had he done the same thing but less efficiently it wouldn't be considered ruthless at all.
I think a number of people will not like that, but I of course recognize that people who want to move ahead quickly have to do this.
I've found that being friendly and helping people get things done is the way you move forward in an organization because those are the skills you need in management.
I'm not picking a side here, I'm just pointing out the operating mode that has resulted (in my observation) in at least one person getting ahead pretty quick.
"You need to have close friends that are at your stage in life and higher, and for that, you have to leave the ones that stayed behind back."
...is not the same as being friendly. It's actual sociopathy.
I heard a stat last year that said that most people make within +-10% of their 5 closest friends salaries. It makes sense when you think about it. If you're hanging out with people who work dead end jobs and simply get blasted every weekend your most likely going to be doing similar things. Likewise, if you hang out with people are always coming with ideas for companies and following through you'll likely be doing same thing.
The only reason "friendliness" works is because people think it's genuine, instead of a gimmick to get ahead.
Why do people have to pretend these guys have some kind of great virtue? They're getting what they want, no need to sugar coat their behavior and give them accolades they don't deserve. Call a spade a spade.
Or as my father put it, "The people you meet on the way up are the people you meet on the way down."
Honestly, if you don't have a list of these places in your back pocket (or your noggin), you're doing it wrong. Having your "regular" place is incredibly valuable when you're trying to make a good impression on new people - not only does is communicate a sense of worth (you know the chef?!) but also because it's a known quantity (you know you can get a table, you know the menu so nobody will be left out awkwardly, etc).
Did he create anything? Did he invent anything?
He doesn't seem like much of a role model to me.
If I met Saul at a party I'd find an excuse to exit the conversation.
Indeed, it sounds like it lead to the reality that he made few mistakes. And that reality is a good reality. Being cool under pressure isn't a fake skill but a real skill. I suppose you could be so cool you don't do anything but not panicking is indeed something that honestly qualifies someone for management.
I know from hard life experience that a lot of situations that seem like they need immediate action, don't. And moreover, someone who can look at such an attention-demanding situation calmly is immensely valuable.
Even if true, as others has commented, this is far from the most ruthless behaviour in a corporate environment. Taking credit for others' work, blaming your mistakes on other people, creating an impression of doing more than you are, undermining people who are your rivals indirectly and behind the scenes, grinding down the people below you as soon as you move up (and sometimes doing so in the name of 'helping' them and showing you can make the 'tough decisions')... These are commonplace where I work among a certain cadre of people, and I work in one of the more enlightened big companies.
Get used to it. This is just an aspect of human nature. This is why geeks are bad at marketing (including me, but I am getting better).
Many posts are rationalizing Saul away as just another douchebag who'll never rise above middle management. I think this is the wrong approach.
If we divide "ability" between technical and people skills(an oversimplification, but useful), Saul is one extreme and we, at HN, is the other. That instinctal disgust you feel at the base of your gut is self justification.
Saul's skills would be EXTREMELY useful in a startup, to promote, to sell, to evangalize, to do a hundred things. Remember that it takes 2 people to start an startup, a Saul and a Hacker.
Steve Jobs is a Saul.
Even before product placement, Jobs was very keen on real-life placement, getting his products in the hands of the "right" people, tastemakers, before anyone else. The Macintosh he was setting up for Sean would famously come out 2 months later. It was a sort of high-end salesmanship he never really stopped, at least when a new product was launching."
He does take the credit for the work of the less dominant, though.
That's true, but I think it's true because that's what his fanbase wants him to be.
I always got the impression that Steve was projecting his customers' projections of what they wanted to be themselves. He's cool, he's likeable, he's barefoot on stage. He makes flashy, shiny products and lives comfortably as a result.
I wonder how much of Apple's success is due to a younger crowd saying, "hell yeah! If Steve can do it, I can do it!" and then going out to buy Apple products in the subconscious hope that some of Steve's success will rub off on them.
Steve Jobs seems to me to be constantly saying, "hey, you hep cats! I'm livin' the dream, and you can, too! Buy an iPod to remind yourself of this fact!" It's an interesting combination of Cult of Personality and Sympathetic Magic.
However, Saul isn't the single one to blame. After all, he's only a player in the corporate game. He didn't make up the rules.
If only Saul's strategies (i.e. getting promoted on the basis of a friendship) didn't work in the real life, there would be less Sauls in this world.
Advancing the ladder not due to your abilities to be better than others but rather by your ability to _appear_ to be so.
This particular posting mentioned the author randomly meeting someone by a river (who's outlook changed the author's life). The post finished along the lines of "that day at the beach"...
I'm sure the sentiments are all still valid, but hard to swallow with those sorts of discrepancies.
There is the post you are talking about:
Compromise: http://blog.cubeofm.com/private/HhdtfcyFis
After rereading it, I did not want to publicize it. It's not a conspiracy, it's just my decision that every public facing article should be something consistent and relevant. Articles that I get to dislike after a while I make them private.
Hitler? Ruthless.
Saul? Not so much.
PG was right that this kind of personality flourishes in organizations in which social IQ, not ability to produce something, is the key to influence.
I took a General Psych. class around 2003. We covered this area. When psychologists talk about this personality type it's a broad range with the most anti-social end of the spectrum being serial killers. In one study referenced in the text, CEO's of large companies tend to be in the lower end of the spectrum. (Note: This is considered a topic in Abnormal Psych. "Normal" personality types do not fit in the spectrum at all BUT anyone can exhibit instances of anti-social behavior.)
As a matter of fact, I've seen multiple CEO's that looked a bit grubby. It's not unheard of, but I get what you mean.
Note: These CEO's were founders, so they didn't climb the ladder, they made it. Probably the significant difference
Sure, he's "successful," but in my book (which, admittedly, nobody reads): loser.
It is rather naive to think that you get ahead by just making friends with those on top. Almost certain you are giving them something in return for the favor, in most cases it is the hide (skin) of those you publicly claim as friends right now.
All said and done, why is this Hacker News worthy?
Anyway, I suspect, sooner or later he'll show other negative traits.