How To Rise Fast At Work: A True Story

One of my co-workers decided to go the project management route. Our boss at the time was very supportive, letting him help with the project management tasks for the current release while still doing some coding duties. This was probably 5 years ago. He took on project management for another product for a year and half. And then, what really made his reputation, a high visibility, high risk project, etc. etc. Now managing 40 people. If I had to hazard a guess, he's making double what he did as a coder and happier because he was <i>never</i> happy coding/fixing bugs. If you're not happy coding, maybe management is a better fit for you. Beware that many of those who leap the chasm to management don't make it and those who do have to pull themselves up to the edge of the cliff with their fingernails.<p>In general, the people I know who were coders who have risen up in the ranks (probably 2,3 levels above me) in management had a game plan. They knew what they were trying to accomplish. They had a very good mentor. And they've done it.

Perhaps I like being a coder/doer too much, but there's an assumption that the ideal to strive for is to move up the chain into management as quickly as possible. What fun is that?

This article is funny.<p>It seems like both candidates worked at an investment firm, but neither were promoted for anything related to doing what investment firms are supposed to do -- finding good opportunities to invest in.<p>The 'good' candidate merely figured out how to use excel better and become a manager. The other guy completed tasks and made friends with fellow analysts.<p>I have to say, I doubt this place was training their analysts to be good stock pickers and instead pumped out mediocre returns while gobbling up fees off of their clients/investors.

I've got a few points and opinions to throw out here.<p>Firstly, after reading a lot of comments here it seems that many people are talking about how NOT to get into management and stay with the job you love (particularly in reference to programming).<p>Though this sentiment relates to this article I also find it somewhat disconnected in the context of Mark and Ted's opinions of their roles. A lot of commenters clearly seem like they're already in established programming roles with a degree of authority they enjoy, whereas these two guys in the article aren't. They're new to their company, and are striving to get to a place where they're satisfied (quite the opposite situation from many of the commenters).<p>Next, the general message I gathered from this article is that being successful in an organisation is apparently about having an awareness of your surroundings and making small yet persistent changes without getting in the way of others. Doing the opposite, which in Ted's case was shameless self-promotion, working hard, working overtime and being highly-strung with a drive to get further is not the way to succeed.<p>Now I find this VERY debatable, because a lot of it is subjective to the organisation's culture. What's to say that in another organisation that values aggressive proactiveness Ted would've been promoted instead, while Mark would have taken another year or two to move up? You cannot teach people how to be successful in management based on one case-study. Furthermore, each staff had no idea of their performance until the actual bonus time and hence were kept in the dark. There's something wrong here if Ted was convinced he was on the right track. Isn't this what mid-year reviews are all about?<p>The key messages I can see here are to have an aim, observe and adapt. Mark had an aim, which was to somehow distinguish himself from the pack. He observed his environment and he adapted. Ted had an aim too (promotion + bonus), which he clearly observed because he seemed to have worked his butt off. Having failed to get his promotion he now has to adapt (move to a new company, change his ways, whatever).<p>The story isn't finished yet. A year later tables could turn. Mark could get comfortable with where he is and slip, while Ted could make it very big.

A quick point... Excel is a dangerous weapon because the vast majority of people, office drones included, don't know how to use it.<p>Really what it all comes down to is positioning yourself in a position where you aren't easily replaceable is really the "secret" to rising up on the corporate ladder. Networking and having good visibility into the company's overall workings and being a rockstar Excel jockey are really just two sides of the same coin.<p>From what I've seen, to rise above middle management you need both. A deep working knowledge of your tools and a good grasp of the big picture and all its moving pieces.<p>Also as other posters have mentioned some of the details in the story are suspect. Ordering supplies and lunch in IBD? Doesn't he have analysts to boss around and endless pitchbooks to compile?

<i>He began ordering lunch for the investment group's weekly meeting and making sure office supplies were ordered on time and in the right quantities. It was obvious he didn't mind pitching in where help was needed, and his supervisors began to notice his work ethic.</i><p>That's surprising. I would think that if someone did that at an investment bank, they'd get fired and replaced with an administrative assistant. Same work, less pay.<p>It also sounds like Ted made himself a real pest.

In my company, the unwritten rule is that incompetent managers usually take up the responsibility of ordering lunch and office supplies. Occasionally, some nonsensical "compliance" paper work is generated to produce the illusion of work.

Good article. Reminds me of the advice given by this Foerster guy. <a href="http://www.careeradvicebook.com/" rel="nofollow">http://www.careeradvicebook.com/</a> Almost exactly what he recommends.

If we all took the advice of this article, we'd manage ourselves right out of business.<p>In my experience rewarding the top performing "hamsters" nets greater retention and gains for the organizations productivity than a sole focus on rising managers.

Sound Pretty biased to the management side of the story. If Ted &#38; and mark were equally intelligent/smart, and knowing that ted worked hard to do better than his collegues , Soon he would have been the "go to member of his team". and mark would remain the networking guy.<p>Felt this article assumes Mark is double smart. i.e he can network, see &#38; improve what other departments are doing &#38; be the "go to member" of the team.

I'm a little disappointed that this type of "you too can make sacrifices and work hard...for America!" propaganda made it to the top of HN, and really disappointed that it wasn't due to irony....