u/Vector_Strategist

See a lot of posts here about why arrogant a*holes keep getting promoted while better liked people are overlooked.

Seen it in real life far too many times. My simple advice to whoever listens: If you really want to progress, focus more on competence and being effective, FOLLOWED by being likeable. Don’t try to be likeable at the expense of being effective.

It’s simple. Leadership rewards people who can get the job done. They’re aware that along the way you may end up pissing off others, they’re OK with it. That’s the silent rule.

Lot of you would disagree, and it may not apply in certain scenarios. But majority of the time this is what happens.

Likeability rewards you in your personal life. But corporate is sadly not the case.

EDIT: Lot of you replying as if I’ve said don’t be likeable. Let me be clear - for someone trying to grow, I’ve said prioritize being competent before prioritizing being liked. I have not said “don’t be liked at all”.

Here is what I mean: majority of leaders who grow and are likeable (as many of you pointed out) - I bet they’re capable / competent too. Not just likeable. Exceptions exist.

Also, I understand this doesn’t apply in every scenario, it’s a generalization of my observation (or as someone called out “anecdata”)

I've sat in those meetings too.

Two hours. Carefully worded updates. Everyone nodding. Nobody saying the thing that actually needed to be said. Walking out feeling like nothing real just happened.

For a long time I thought certain companies just attracted a certain kind of person. People who preferred theater to substance.

I don't think that anymore.

Most people in those rooms aren't being deliberately fake. They've just learned, over time, what's safe to say out loud. Watch what happens in most orgs when someone delivers uncomfortable news early. Or says in a meeting what everyone is thinking but nobody will actually voice. There's usually a cost. Sometimes subtle, sometimes not. People notice. And they adjust.

I've been part of orgs that actually felt different. Not because they had better values printed on the wall or more authentic offsite conversations. The difference was simpler. Real information traveled fast and the people who made that happen got rewarded for it instead of quietly managed for it.

That takes longer to build than most leaders expect. People have been burned before. They've worked somewhere that talked a big game about honesty and then made someone pay the first time they actually tested it. So they wait. They watch. They figure out what's genuinely safe before they risk anything real.

I had to learn that lesson myself. Early in my career I thought creating that environment was about what I said to my team. It took me a while to understand it was entirely about what I did the first few times someone brought me something I didn't want to hear.

Those moments set the tone for everything that comes after.

Realized quick that jumping in doing the work myself was actually the laziest option.

Sounds counterintuitive. But coaching my team through something, explaining what good looks like, giving feedback that helps them grow, that's harder than just fixing it yourself. Jumping in and redoing the work feels productive - I am not sitting around waiting for the team to "get it" and produce something I'm happy with. It's not, as I've realized. It's just the path of least resistance dressed up as high standards. Good for my ego, bad for the team.

I had to learn that the hard way more than once.

Letting go led to anxiety for me. I was worried because how the team did reflected on how I looked in front of my leadership. My "brand" was at stake, how could I just let go of that control that I loved as an IC. It was hard and I thought the work wouldn't meet the same standards that I hold myself to. This was true, at least that's what I felt at the time. And I decided the best way was to demonstrate to the team how it's done. In all my glorious ego ridden effort, me jumping in to "help" the team took the opposite effect.

I realized they team had stopped bringing me problems proactively. Not because things were going well. Because they'd figured I was just going to take over anyway. Why stick their neck out when the answer was going to get redone regardless.

That's the last thing you want as a manager.

I have felt that way more than once.

The one that was especially challenging was in my first big role at Google. I had just stepped into a role that was central to a huge investment, and nothing like anything I’d done in the past. On paper things looked great. The scope and opportunity was something that many in my line of work dream of - setting up a completely new business unit from scratch.

Inside the first few weeks I was convinced I had no business being in the room. Not in a dramatic way, but more so a subtle, persistent feeling that people around me had clarity that I was trying to fake. I’d obsess over what I said in meetings, how they’d be perceived and whether it actually made any kind of sense at all. 

I was carrying what I thought was the weight of the world on my shoulders thinking that too much was at stake and I had to get it right. I hid behind elaborate plans, action items, and stuff that felt busy. But had no idea if we were making any progress. 

While I was hoping for a pep talk from just about anyone to help me, ultimately what helped was looking inward - I needed clarity over what I knew vs. where I needed help BEFORE anyone else could help me. Most of my anxiety was living in a state of unknown. Once I started being honest about what I knew and what I didn’t, most of the anxiety went away. Gave me a better sense of direction, and energy. 

I sought specific help from others, and to my surprise that made me look more “put together” than when I was trying to do it on my own. What?!! Apparently, by knowing where exactly I needed help (and where I didn’t) made me appear to be in control. That was quite eye opening to me. 

I've spoken with enough senior leaders now to know this feeling of being out of depth after a significant step up is almost universal. The ones who seem the most composed have just figured out how to navigate the uncertainty when they don’t have all the answers. 

Curious if ya’ll have advice or experiences to share on this. 

Realized quick that jumping in doing the work myself was actually the laziest option.

Sounds counterintuitive. But coaching my team through something, explaining what good looks like, giving feedback that helps them grow, that's harder than just fixing it yourself. Jumping in and redoing the work feels productive - I am not sitting around waiting for the team to "get it" and produce something I'm happy with. It's not, as I've realized. It's just the path of least resistance dressed up as high standards. Good for my ego, bad for the team.

I had to learn that the hard way more than once.

Letting go led to anxiety for me. I was worried because how the team did reflected on how I looked in front of my leadership. My "brand" was at stake, how could I just let go of that control that I loved as an IC. It was hard and I thought the work wouldn't meet the same standards that I hold myself to. This was true, at least that's what I felt at the time. And I decided the best way was to demonstrate to the team how it's done. In all my glorious ego ridden effort, me jumping in to "help" the team took the opposite effect.

I realized they team had stopped bringing me problems proactively. Not because things were going well. Because they'd figured I was just going to take over anyway. Why stick their neck out when the answer was going to get redone regardless.

That's the last thing you want as a manager.