This describes how someone got ahead within a big company. It's not surprising you have to do perverse things to win in an environment dominated by politics. But that is not the only playing field. The most successful startup founders all seem to be pretty genuine-- tough, definitely, but not jerks.
Is this guy's behavior really so perverse? Most of what he did, aside from dropping old friends once he was promoted above them, seems like good advice.
>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.
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.
The actual article is ambiguous. It really doesn't name any sociopathic behavior but kind of hints at it. Drop old friends and encourage others to drink to excess at company parties are the worst concrete behaviors I remember. But the article uses the adjective ruthless.
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?
It doesn't say he was a sociopath (although it sounds like he could have been, perhaps a narcissist), but if he had no core business acumen, no ability to grow the business and the staff, then he'd have to be really good at trashing those that did, or faking that he did.
> 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.
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).
Can you elaborate on what you mean? Are you referring to "the game" as in Neil Strauss (women), or something more akin to The Wire (making money in dirty ways)
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.
I know of Mafia/Werewolf, but they are too arbitrary for me. Diplomacy (the game, yes) puts some substance underneath the negotiations --- some alliances are easier to pull off and more natural than others, but they can all be made to work.
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".
Great link - I almost passed on this - definitely worth a read.
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.
I don't read it as "losers" being people who are risk adverse - more that they are incapable of playing the political games required to ascend to the ranks of the ruling sociopaths and are incapable of descending level of the clueless - who really don't know any better.
I don't think the "losers" are people who are risk adverse, or incapable of playing political games, but rather have compartmentalized their lives and don't live for their career. The "clueless" are people who would be better off as "losers" but think they're "sociopaths", but they really are incapable of playing the political games.
The question posed in the title differs somewhat from the behavior described. I've known people like that, and they are terrible people, and when I say "people" I'm using that generously - they're much closer to automatons. This one guy, if you talked to him about anything other than the acquisition of wealth or the acquisition of womens' lady bits - would give you a blank stare, take a second to reboot and then begin talking about one of the two aforementioned topics. They differ somewhat than the prototypical "cut-throat" business people. You know, those people who justify their behavior with faulty circular logic: you have to be ruthless in business, because business is ruthless. _Rarr, I'll eat your company_!
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.
I agree, and my opinion is that offering up Saul's behavior as a model worth following achieves some genuine progress towards making the world a crappier place.
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.
I'm impressed maxklein! You set out to write articles that would get attention and you're doing it repeatedly. I'm not sure you tap into the best part of us, but you definitely have good insight into what makes people tick. Upvoted.
People like that are either born with it or not. And you know if you are. I bet this guy was one of the most popular people in his high school or college. It is really a talent to be able to appear likeable to everyone and easily become "friends" with people (of course that does not really mean friends, just pretend friends).
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.
Ruthless? Maybe the guy was ruthless, but the fine article doesn't explain why. This guy just figured out the rules of the game, and gets promotion after promotion because of it.
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.
> "Saul also had a network of a few locations he frequented where he knew the people and the staff. At any social gathering, Saul would work to navigate the group to these 'safe' territories, where he would then be in control of the situation."
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).
Isn't always necessarily a good way to stay ahead, either, unless you never guess wrong. If one of those little people you fake-befriended and then got rid of ends up in a position where you need something from them in the future, you're screwed. A lot of people end up in random places you might not expect, and often remember how people treated them when they were "unimportant".
"If one of those little people you fake-befriended and then got rid of ends up in a position where you need something from them in the future, you're screwed."
Or as my father put it, "The people you meet on the way up are the people you meet on the way down."
In some environments, that's an expected and positive thing. My dad was in the Marines between '45 and '69 and when you made corporal or sergeant, you weren't allowed to go out drinking with the privates and PFC's anymore. In a hierarchical system you don't fraternize with the people below you. It only gets in the way when you have to try and lead them.
I think that what I would say was ruthless was the way the relationship building was done for the purpose of moving him ahead, and not for any genuine need for a relationship with other people.
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 read it as, nerds are bad at making friends and being friendly, so they write off friendliness as sociopathy.
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.
It's not neccessarily sociopathy, but points to a lesson the be aware of who you hang around with.
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.
We have to beware of things that "make sense," especially where cause and effect come in. To me it seems much more likely that people hang around more with people who are in similar circumstances. Since the people you spend the most time with become your best friends, it's no surprise that people will have similar incomes to their best friends.
Please. Some people care about their career more than they care about their relationships. How is this any more "sociopathic" than (for example) someone who neglects friends and family because they're working 16 hours a day?
There is no doubt that this guy would be good management material, considering that he knows how to get things done and knows how to be friendly with people in a manner that helps him out. But the point is: a lot of people who want to be in upper management are not willing to build their relationships with other people in the company based off a non-personal need. They want their friends to be real friends, and not just strategic short term allies.
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.
What's wrong with just calling it sociopathy? Using people as tools to get your way is the definition of sociopathy, regardless of whether they're being "friendly" or not.
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.
"He got friendly with the boss, and 6 months later, he was a manager. His old friends said that Saul would walk by them, chatting and laughing with the managers, and it would be like they never existed."
Yeah I didn't really see anything he did as particularly ruthless. I think of ruthlessness as more akin to making it to the top by destroying those ahead of you and keeping a short leash on those below you, perhaps utilizing deceit, betrayal, and duplicitous manipulation. Everyone seemed to at least have a favorable opinion of this guy which is not how most people tend to feel towards someone described as "ruthless".
Saul "got ahead" only for an extremely limited and artificial definition of "ahead". Did he achieve anything worthwhile? Doesn't sound like it. And the way he was living is soul-destroying.
As my friend's grandmother said, "They think they're so great, but they're just jumping through other people's hoops." Or as my father said, "Be careful how you treat people on your way up. You'll meet them again on your way down."
Whenever there was a panic or something that required swift action, Saul would always sit back and wait. He would not jump into the fray before he was sure what exactly was going on - which led to the impression that he rarely made mistakes.
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.
I thought that too, it doesn't have the ring of reality about it.
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.
Basically, it sucks to work in an environment where impressions count more than ability and feel-good vibes are more important than thoughtful analysis.
"Basically, it sucks to work in an environment where impressions count more than ability and feel-good vibes are more important than thoughtful analysis."
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).
I read the book "Never Eat Alone", basically a how to guide written by a Saul. Much of the advice is similiar.
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.
I don't agree. While he shows a similar, uh, detachment from others, Steve Jobs is not a conformist. He does not attempt to project an aura of conventional success. His home famously had no furniture, and Jobs sometimes showed up for his Atari job without shoes. Furthermore Stevehas real skill at picking technology winners, and weaving them into a strategy, championing them to others.
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.
"In Andy Warhol's "Diaries", he describes being at a Thanksgiving 1983 dinner party at Yoko Ono's apartment. Bowie and Madonna are also there. Warhol wanders to a bunch of people in Sean's room, where "some kid is setting up one of those Apple computers". The "kid" springs up to greet him, "Hi, I'm Steve Jobs."
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."
Very interesting story although I wonder how effective this would be outside of a large corporation. The author never said what Saul actually did or produced.
In my limited experience, in tech companies, they tend to work just above project managers and shape product development and direction, by interacting with clients and the industry at large. But this is still a rather vague idea of what they actually do all day. Isn't that like most developers' impressions of managerial jobs?
Ever since one of maxklein's posts came into Google Reader and promptly disappeared, I've been looking over his stuff with an eye of uncertainty.
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.
It didn't disappear - half of my posts are private and can be viewed by anyone who has the URL. I send them to people who send me emails or on twitter - sometimes they are a bit private for me to put out there and have people discussing them and so on.
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.
Saul is a classic Anti-Social Personality (sometimes referred to as socio-path). People are tools for achieving his personal goals. Anti-Social Personalities tend to have high social IQ's as evidenced by Saul's ability to pick out the "happening people" and know what makes them tick to get into their inner circle.
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.)
Does Saul recognize other Sauls and does he like and promote them? It seems like he would be threatened by those that know his game. Does this only work if your boss isn't already Saul?
I'm also missing the ruthless part of the story. Professional relationships are temporary. People get promoted or goto another company and things change. That's just how business works. Maybe you can make some real long lasting friends in the process but it shouldn't be required or expected of your co-workers. I also don't think people should be offended or take it personally. Lots of people like to keep their professional and private lives separate.
I think the title should be changed to "Are you capable of being a kiss ass to get ahead?" Or some variation of the same - douche bag/manipulative etc.
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?
I would say be "smart" ruthless, not "dumb" ruthless. That
guy would destroy a startup. A person who has more leadership skills will be able to get to the top without dumping on everyone along the way.
If we continue the analogy of "losers", I'd claim that you become loser, as soon as you are told "congratulations, you are hired". The quickest way to get on the top of business/corporate ladder is to become a business owner.
