Getting Credit: Performance vs. Success
Casting the widest net possible to maximise getting 'lucky'
In an ideal world, we just do a great job and someone recognises the full extent of it.
In reality, performance != success.
We usually experience this negatively; e.g. we put in the hard work but passed over for promotion—or we suggest an idea but someone else gets the credit 😡
Perhaps we also benefit from the reverse—achieve success without high performance—but probably don’t have the required self-awareness to notice it.
Understanding the relationship between performance and success will be one of the primary determinants of your career. If you are a leader—which requires some success—it is crucial that you comprehend the distinction well, as you will need your reports to get it too. Often, this job will fall to you.
The Calculus of Getting (Due) Credit
This is a rich subject, if you are the reading type. One recommendation would be The Formula by Albert-László Barabási. He posits that success is
a collective phenomenon based on the thoughts and praise of those around you
He defines the related terms as follows:
Performance: how well you do something
Success: how others respond to/recognise it
We tend to over-index on high performance; if we do great, we will achieve greatness. On the other hand, we know this to be not true—we all observe some version of competition (e.g. sports, entertainment, even war) and witness that, even though there seems to be a positive correlation between performance and success, high performance does not always translate to success.
So what does? One could argue it’s luck; some universal random number generator that decides who comes first and second in an impossibly close race. Given that we have no control over luck, we tend to under-index here.
Casting a Wide Net
It is likely true that we cannot influence luck. However, you are in total control of how often you put yourself in situations where luck can benefit you.
Analogies are many, but the most classic is probably needing to go out if you want to meet new people. You can choose to stay at home and someone, somehow can appear at your place, but it is more likely that if you go out, you’ll meet people. Merely going out is not a guarantee for success. But staying home by yourself probably is a guaranteed failure.
I firmly believe that I achieved most of the things I have because I applied to a lot things and I didn’t let failure—which also happened a lot—get me down.
This is for another post, but I maintain a certain double-think re: these type of situations: on one hand, I will get it for sure; on the other, why would I get it lol. This keeps me even-keeled; I don’t get high-highs but I don’t get low-lows either.
When I was doing my PhD, there was a call for a mobility (i.e. exchange) programme, and UC Berkeley was the newest addition to the list. Other PhDs I talked to all wanted to apply to other universities, because why would anyone pick them to go to Berkeley? I told them well, someone has to go, and it might as well be me (or you). I don’t know how many even applied, but I ended up being one of two who got to go to California☀️—probably thanks to those who didn’t bother casting any net.
Another thing to look out for—people, intentionally or not, try to keep you down. Resist & ignore such people.
Around the same time, Yale(?) had a call for pre-docs. Pre-docs are terrible things that shouldn’t exist. But I wanted to apply, because why not? I had the following exchange with my supervisor:
Supervisor: You know this is for Ivy League people, you won’t be competitive.
Me: So you are saying I shouldn’t apply?
S: No, no—you should, it’s just yada yada
Me: Noted. Can we apply now?
I didn’t get it🤷🏻♂️
I can multiple the examples, but you get the gist—apply for every grant, opportunity, exchange, job, promotion etc. You might just get it.
Gathering a Large Audience
One part of the equation is casting the widest net possible, so that you are maximising the number of interactions where you can get ‘lucky’. The other part is the primary determinant of success—community recognition.
Your performance needs visibility. This is why you need to expose others to your work. This is also why people who are close to the ultimate decision-makers tend to be more ‘successful’; sometimes without the performance to back it up.
As a leader, other leaders are your peers and the senior management is your VIPs. If you run your department in an insular fashion, don’t build bridges, and ignore the execs, you are sabotaging your high performance. In the context of Data, the classic example is the new Data leader who comes in and spends the first 18 months building infrastructure and got nothing to show for it in terms of business impact.👋
In tech, this gets a bad rap—politicking or playing politics/the game—but guess what, the game is played whether you choose to partake in it or not.
What’s worse (or great, depending on perspective) is that success begets success. Take any LinkedIn influencer—once they have a critical mass of followers, they start posting no-merit posts and get bazillion engagement. They are successful enough that they don’t need to create value to further their success; they can just post memes. And hey—good for them!
Your work is not going to market itself. You need to do the rounds yourself. You probably want to do this regularly; e.g. not one-off—otherwise people will forget that you exist, especially in big companies. If you are head/director level, it’s good to sync with execs on a monthly basis. This is also a great opportunity to understand what they think the business needs are, which you should always pay some attention to.
For your reports, casting a wide net is not letting go.
Someone passed over for promotion, even though they are by far the top performing member? Make a fuss. Escalate it your manager; if it doesn’t do it, escalate to your skip-manager or an exec. Pull HR in. Evoke company values that are brazenly ignored (by not rewarding the high performer).
Your team needs beefier laptops? Ask your manager.
Manager: Oh, if Data people needs max spec MacBook Pros, software developers should get the same, and that would be expensive, so no.
Me: Hmm, why do software engineers need max spec MBPs?
M: Ehm, equality (?!)
Call out that BS and get your Data people the RAM they need. Or, migrate to AWS and get everyone in the team MacBook Air😅