I've been reading Machiavelli again recently and found a little section about how fortune favors ones who have the audacity to act upon opportunities often triumph over his more calculating peer. In your experience, do the calculating mastermind or thegressive colleagues get the promotion and last long enough to build a substantial position in the firm?
| +89 | GF doesn’t care about her looks | 57 | 48m | |
| +59 | Affair with my Associate… In Desperate Need for Advice | 23 | 22h | |
| +49 | How to sound more eloquent? | 17 | 10h | |
| +38 | 400k/year in HVAC sales? | 26 | 1d | |
| +33 | WSO Ranking On Resume??? | 8 | 1h | |
| +33 | Would you rather live alone in an outer borough or with roommates in Manhattan? | 23 | 2d | |
| +28 | Why do people listen to Jim Cramer Investing Advice? | 11 | 1h | |
| +27 | Carnivore Diet | 12 | 2h | |
| +26 | Is my boss gaslighting me? | 3 | 1d | |
| +23 | Chaotic Insane investment banker who passed away in the 90s or 2000s | 12 | 1d |
Career Resources
Get instant access to lessons taught by experienced private equity pros and bulge bracket investment bankers including financial statement modeling, DCF, M&A, LBO, Comps and Excel Modeling.
Looking forward to others’ answers.
Transactionally, a buyer or seller with the audacity to move quickly has an advantage (assuming “calculating” = plodding along). Assuming they meet the table stakes, they win no matter how repulsive they are.
Individually, audacity can be a disadvantage. I expect people to disagree with that, but many who have worked with a perpetually overly-aggressive colleague know sooner or later everyone near that person gets burned. They end up writing a check their ass can’t cash.
I think the degree of success each type of personality eventually reaps, has a lot to do with how the person's style of play fits within the overall hierarchy of a firm. If your work tends to be more "salesy" I would expect the aggressive (more forward) style to win out, while in a more analytical role level heads would generally prevail. obviously there are a lot of caveats to these assumptions. but both types of personalities can find success depending on the situation.
As a more aggressive competitor, my mistakes tend to be more frequent than my analytical counterparts, however my successes (and the insight I bring) allows me more recognition within my current role vs someone who does a million little things right but does nothing to stake their claim or actually get to the next level thought process wise. To put it bluntly, I may have more red ink on my slides, but when I'm on a call I get shit done and on a net basis, that works for me and my employer.
lol you make mistakes, loser
I agree with this completely; it all depends on the environment and there’s too much nuance to make a blanket statement . I work in corporate finance, and an overly aggressive personality would be poorly received in the office, without a doubt. In sales, I would imagine it’s the opposite.
Wouldn't this come down to perception, specifically that of those in position to make these types of decisions? I'd be really interested in how well the decision makers choices played out overtime with regards to style of the worker. After all, if management rewards high highs and low lows, then more people will move in that direction. Actually curious to know of examples of companies on each side.
Dick Fuld would be an example of an aggressive type getting to the top of the ladder. The personality of upper management is also a factor on who gets the promotion. It's hard to imagine James Gorman promoting someone who is super aggressive even if he can rake in billions for the firm.
Buffet vs Icahn is also intriguing.
It matters less which path through life you take, but rather how good you are at whichever life you choose.
terrible IP Man paraphrase
My $0.02 is that, as those above have stated, it depends on the situation and the degree for which a person is one way or the other.
On the extreme sides you have the super alpha male who kicks doors in and gets shit done, and the other side is the soft spoken super analytical guy who never gets his ideas out. Both are ineffective outside of a few roles: aggressive sales and lab research, respectively (there are others but you get the point).
However, on the basis of reward being correlated to risk, then the guy who is more aggressive will accomplish more. Though they might fail, they typically succeed more often than not. The very analytical person will get more things right in terms of volume, but typically not in terms of magnitude.
Most people remember the guy who hits a couple home runs more than the guy who hits singles every single time, even if his batting average is a lot higher.
I think more leadership positions (across all industries) are currently filled by those with more aggressive personalities. However, I believe a balance between careful analysis and big balls is ideal.
There's two bulls standing on top of a mountain. The younger one says to the older one: "Hey pop, let's say we run down there and fuck one of them cows." The older one says: "No son. Lets walk down and fuck 'em all."
What the fuck
Of course it is a blend and you need to be both. Some prey you need to chase down and kill, others you need to be still and lure them into your clutches. I've had deals fall in my lap after some aggressive jerk turned off the seller. Inherently people want to work with folks they can relate to. What Machiavelli will tell you is; when it's time to kill - Kill. Quickly, quietly and cleanly.
Delectus est similique numquam voluptatem. Suscipit fuga dolores error enim velit maxime. Maxime repellat ea voluptatum est dolore. Ad atque nobis molestias qui autem voluptates quia.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...