<p><pre><code> the boring would do well to raise their profiles, whether by speaking up in meetings or talking up their accomplishments. If they bag bigger jobs they will anyway need to master show-offy things like glad-handing clients, chairing meetings and holding forth on strategy
</code></pre>
Feels like circular logic to some extent. Boring is good, just don't be so boring.<p>I agree with the implied idea that there is probably a cyclical demand for boring vs bombastic. Zero interest rates and lots of optimism favours loud, maybe obnoxious ideas. Fear and downsizing favors boring.<p>Looking at the article another way, it reminds me of the "why are all car dealers sleazy" discussions. It's because that's what the market optimizes for, and those that have tried differently have failed.<p>Don't hate the player, hate the game
<a href="https://archive.is/wiM4W" rel="nofollow">https://archive.is/wiM4W</a><p>A rather short and kind of disappointing article. This sums it up:<p>> Though Mr Judge’s analysis revealed emotional stability and general diligence were crucial to managerial effectiveness, extrovert qualities such as sociability were also telling factors.
This article makes some pretty definitive conclusions based on a 20 year old meta-analysis. It feels like the author wants to justify their anecdotes and not actually discover anything true.
Part of the complete package of competence is intentionally managing how competent other people perceive you to be. Probably a good default is to present close to your true competence, and have some flexibility on either side as the occasion suits.
The underdog quietly fixes the problems caused by the show boater. Show boater earns the promotion for ingenuity, not the implementation (which is only seen as working).<p>Most high profile case of this Jobs and Woz early days.