
Are you capable of being ruthless to get ahead? - maxklein
http://blog.cubeofm.com/are-you-capable-of-being-ruthless-to-get-ahea
======
pg
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.

~~~
edj
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.

Edit: typo.

~~~
ardit33
No no no,

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/...](http://www.amazon.com/Snakes-Suits-When-Psychopaths-
Work/dp/0060837721)

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.

~~~
eru
> 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).

~~~
Psyonic
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.

~~~
eru
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".

------
orangecat
A classic sociopath as defined by the Gervais Principle:
[http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-
principle-o...](http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-or-
the-office-according-to-the-office/)

~~~
aresant
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.

Absolutely, and 100% true in my experience.

~~~
arethuza
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.

~~~
barrkel
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.

------
FlemishBeeCycle
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.

~~~
westbywest
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.

------
staunch
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.

------
gizmo
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.

------
spolsky
I don't get it. What was the ruthless thing he did? Making friends?

~~~
jimbokun
I think the ruthless part was dumping his friendships with "the little people"
as soon as they were no longer aiding his advancement.

~~~
_delirium
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".

~~~
rabidgnat
"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."

------
hristov
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.

------
rythie
So at the end of this he runs a department, so he still a middle manager, how
depressing.

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.

------
michael_nielsen
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.

------
gills
Oh to be content climbing the ladders built by others.

~~~
staunch
My thoughts exactly. This guy isn't aiming high at all. My role models aren't
mid-level VPs.

~~~
trop
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."

------
adnam
Reads more like a fantasy than an account of actual events

~~~
microcentury
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.

------
strait
Basically, it sucks to work in an environment where impressions count more
than ability and feel-good vibes are more important than thoughtful analysis.

~~~
rick888
"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).

------
asolove
No, would rather do things.

------
joe_the_user
_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.

------
istari
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.

Steve Jobs is a Saul.

~~~
neilk
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.

~~~
indigoshift
"Steve Jobs is not a conformist."

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.

------
mattm
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.

~~~
maxklein
He was business development. I really don't know what they do, talk about
business stuff?

~~~
alaithea
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?

------
Murkin
Should read: "Are you capable of being a POLITICIAN to get ahead?"

Advancing the ladder not due to your abilities to be better than others but
rather by your ability to _appear_ to be so.

------
kez
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.

~~~
maxklein
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.

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.

------
beaker
Stalin? Ruthless.

Hitler? Ruthless.

Saul? Not so much.

------
bpyne
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.)

------
Psyonic
"And let's face it - have you seen many top management who look grubby? Being
well-groomed seems to be an essential attribute of leadership."

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

------
pingswept
That guy sounds like a total loser.

Sure, he's "successful," but in my book (which, admittedly, nobody reads):
loser.

------
roach
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?

------
jsz0
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.

------
maddalab
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?

~~~
olalonde
IMO, the article didn't have much substance but the debate in the comments is
pretty interesting to read.

------
Mz
If you mean "Can you make hard decisions?", sure I can. Does that mean I am
superficial, manipulative, and into playing people? No.

------
jawn
Don't hate the player, hate the game.

------
johnl
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.

------
milfot
i'd rather make something...

------
nlabs
Avoiding people like Saul is one reason to do a startup

------
ilkhd2
Great way to create many, many enemies.

Anyway, I suspect, sooner or later he'll show other negative traits.

------
ilkhd2
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.

