I don't exactly agree. I think good people who have made a name for themselves or done something of note in their field are hot commodities. It's perfectly normal to be good at your trade and not get a look-in.
I think that depends on what your interpretation of "making it" is.
There area millions of quiet, confident, competent people across industries. People who reliably turn out high-quality products and are well-paid for their work. They get on well with their colleagues and progress with their career at a decent pace. You just don't hear about this much. Doesn't this count as making it?
I'd say that the reason you hear more about people who are well-known is essentially just because they are well-known :)
The article gives example of Justin Bieber and Adele. For those two examples, there are hundreds who got where they are just because they knew someone important. Miley Cyrus, Jaden Smith, Charlie Sheen, Ben Stiller, Angelina Jolie, Paris Hilton. Actors/singers make very poor examples for this given that most of them mostly get to where they are by networking more than anything else.
Lets say there was an absolute master of his profession that nobody knows. Compare that to someone who knows enough to get by when it comes to his profession but knows most people there is to know in the industry. In general, which one is more likely to get hired? Who will have better references? Who is likely to know about vacancies before they are announced? Are companies willing to hire someone because he answered more question in a test even vs who did OK but has a lot of good references from respectable people, some of whom they personally know?
Someone who only cares about a better paying job should spend 90% of their time in networking and 10% on honing their profession because networking is all that matters. Someone who absolutely loves their work will happily do their share of work for a lower pay.
Same with artists; the ones who became famous or at least successful in their lifetime were good at making deals. And self-promotion. The ones who could not fit in socially, not so much.
You were very lucky. There are many cases where the people who do the most are not recognized or compensated. It's even seen as detrimental, sometimes.
I’d say most cases, in fact. Being able to standout is a skill.
Whether overnight success exists depends on the definition of "success". Becoming skilled can't happen overnight, but recognition does and, since most people are not independently wealthy and have to work, recognition sadly matters a lot more than skill, practically speaking.
Growth in one's skill level is gradual and relatively steady, but the selection process for the "stars" is full of dumb luck, black swan events, ridiculous inefficiencies and, often, catastrophic failures (e.g. Mark Zuckerberg, the guy who stole the right idea from the right people in the right place at the right time).
The relationship between skill and recognition is complex. Most writers and artists who become "established" devolve into mediocre hacks, because the cocktail parties take over the time they'd otherwise be using to improve their skill. On the other hand, what happens to the vast majority is that the utter lack of recognition, despite their talent, discourages them and they move on to other things. In truth, the "star" system that has infected most aspects of American life-- business, art, academia-- is one of the worst influences on quality imaginable, and much of why the product of humanities academia is utter jenkem. The 2007-08 financial clusterfuck is a result of many individuals' efforts to become "star" traders. Bankers are not stupid people who just happened to be broadsided by a black swan; they deliberately took extreme risks (often hidden behind models known since the '80s to be flawed or incomplete) with others' money, knowing that they'd become stars on the upside.
You don't need to become famous. People strongly value personal affectations over professional skill. Failure to acknowledge this is simply wishful thinking.
Consider that most of your indirect colleagues are not well-versed enough to know whether you're doing your job well or not in the first place.
Why are so many clowns in positions with high rank, and so many better-qualified people are further down the totem pole? Because people don't respond naturally to qualifications. They respond to getting their personal interests and desires satisfied.
If you present a credible professional front and you are well-liked, that's all that matters, and you will be well-connected and rewarded well outside of any rational proportion.
Disagree with "If I said that the top people in your field, at your experience level, are active participants professional societies, write popular blogs about your industry, get asked to write articles for magazines and regularly speak on conference panels, that's probably a reasonable estimation of what it means to be on top, right?"
That isn't a reasonable estimation of being on top. It's a reasonable estimate of someone who fits into that kind of [rather social] professional circle. Doesn't apply everywhere.
In any esoteric field, you find out who are the top people after you enter, and swim around for a while. The ones with the most exposure are just the ones with the most popular appeal.
I have a friend who is wicked smart. I asked him why he isn't full of ambition. He just doesn't give a frolicking fancy. He feels like he has what he needs. Who is just the opposite? Napoleon. Is there something going on here?
Maybe some top fellow will write about it in Psychology Today.
Most are sub-employed unless their talents are in an area with huge demand and money. Visible "success" often implies a large dose of politics and conformity, something that few of them really know how/want to do.
I think you are talking about the average Joe. The Parent Poster is talking about industry elites. Not everyone does awesome work that get word-of-mouth. This applies to any field (tech-centric, medical, accounting or what-ever).
Credentials don't mean too terribly much unless you're looking at a star who has hit multiple home runs. Sure, their advice is great because you know there is some well-earned experience in it, but that doesn't automatically make everyone else useless. I don't like separating people between winners and losers. There is so much valuable insight to gain from people who haven't succeeded yet and those who have flat-out failed, if you only listen to winners, you're only getting part of the story.
My friend works at a bar so I go in there twice a week for lunch. I've been going for years so I've gotten to know most of the staff. When I ask them what their plans are for the future, no one says to be the best waiter around. These people get looked at as waiters, but that is not how they view themselves. They are in-transit, they are on their way.
When I look at someone like Sebastian, I see someone who is articulate, intelligent, and genuinely helpful to people around him. I like those qualities and that makes me at least willing to check out what he has to say. Other people have different priorities and that is fair. But I'd rather look at the person rather than just the body of work because behind every great success is someone who was a nobody, perhaps even your waiter.
That's a clear case of survivor bias. The only people we hear about are the ones who self-promote, so we naturally assume that everybody self-promotes.
The truth is that there's a ton of people out there putting out great work without making a fuss about it, and thus not getting the recognition they deserve.
I've noticed that the heavily influential people are so busy with what they do that they don't pay attention to their fame. They let other people (who, to put bluntly, often aren't as clever or intelligent) praise them later, often posthumously in a best-selling biography.
We all have a scarcity of time on this planet, and I'm convinced that it's the duty of the excellent to (to quote William and Theodore from the 80s movie) "be excellent".
If you're a mediocre musician whom only your friends and relatives come to hear, you'll get a lot of accolades. The problem is, you'll suspect they're insincere.
If you're a good plumber, you'll get a ton of genuine ones from people whose dire problems you've solved.
I had a doctor once who said he sold his house to a plumber, who was trading up.
reply