Much more likely that what you see as failure by certain criteria was an overall success by the criteria of the people who make decisions about hiring them "upwards".
Much more likely that what you see as failure by certain criteria was an overall success by the criteria of the people who make decisions about hiring them "upwards".
If running massive vanity projects for years, that get completely scrapped, while you get so far behind your competitors that you have to layoff half the org and then spend hundreds of millions to acquire those competitors is called success by some metrics, then I would say you’re prioritizing the wrong metrics.
If there aren't really any failure states for you on a personal level why even spend time planning?
You are not contradiction the parent commenter, you actually say the same. A key point was/is that they use the wrong criteria.
The parent commenter wrote
> it’s just perceived success
and the abstract from the paper says
> suggesting firms reward observed success without recognizing underlying risk tolerance