Why Outstanding Professionals Fail and Mediocre Ones Succeed
A bad system will beat a good person everytime
In the 1980s, the U.S. auto industry faced stiff competition from Toyota, which was producing high-quality cars at lower costs. How was it possible to do more and better while spending less?
Many American executives went to Japan to unravel the mystery of the Toyota Production System (TPS). But what they found was even more impressive: the Japanese had been influenced by the ideas of quality and management from an American, William Edwards Deming, a pioneer of systemic thinking, highly recognized in Japan and virtually ignored in the U.S.
Deming often said the following:
“A bad system will beat a good person every time.”
This means that the quality of your performance is heavily influenced by the system you are part of.
Throughout my career, I’ve not only seen how bad systems can harm good professionals but also how good systems can make average professionals appear like gurus. These individuals gain a reputation as experts and move between companies, always commanding attractive salaries.
In the next minutes, I’ll explain why success isn’t solely up to you and why understanding the dynamics of systems is important for your career.
Behind Success’s Glow
“We need to bring someone from the outside, someone who can help us,” said the CEO of the company I worked for years ago. A month later, John, our new director, celebrated for quadrupling the revenue at UNI — a fictitious name I’ve chosen for his previous company — arrived. Two years later, he was dismissed without having made any significant difference, and as far as I know, he never managed to replicate his past success.
John wasn’t a bad person, but rather a professional incompatible with the “superstar” status due to UNI’s success. Many of the ideas he tried to implement at our company had already been suggested by veteran employees. Interestingly, before John’s arrival, the CEO did not embrace the team’s ideas; after he came on board, he began to accept them. Why?
This phenomenon, popularly known as “a prophet is not recognized in his own land,” is supported by social psychology through the concept of “distance prophecy,” which indicates that we tend to give more credibility to advice coming from outside our immediate circle.
This occurs because novelty and social or professional distance give the outsider a perception of objectivity and expertise that we do not attribute to those who are close to us on a daily basis. The tendency to value external perspectives over internal ones reflects our desire for innovation and the belief that someone from the outside has unique insights, free from the biases and routines established internally.
Indeed, it was common to hear the CEO claim that our ideas were “contaminated” and that we needed the perspective of neutral individuals. However, the “distance prophecy” doesn’t fully explain why John was “the chosen one”; this can only be elucidated by another psychological phenomenon that’s very prevalent in our everyday lives: the Halo Effect.
This phenomenon occurs when the positive perception of one attribute (in John’s case, the success at UNI) positively influences the assessment of other characteristics or people associated with it. The success and reputation of the company John worked for created a “halo” of competence and effectiveness around him.
Even before we directly evaluated John’s work, we tended to see him as an exceptional professional, simply because of his association with a successful company. This illustrates how, unconsciously, we can transfer positive qualities from one context to a person, elevating their reputation based on associations, rather than on proven individual merits.
This principle is the same reason why celebrities are hired to advertise products unrelated to them. The aim is to transfer the public’s admiration for the celebrities to the products they endorse.
In the corporate world, this issue is compounded by an almost universal recruitment system that prioritizes “experience” or the “proven” track record of the candidate. But most of the time, “proven” is “invented”.
Studies show that lying is common in job interviews, by both candidates and interviewers. Candidates, aiming to appear more attractive and aligned with the job expectations, often resort to lying and other deceitful tactics, a phenomenon known as impression management. For instance, Weiss and Feldman (2006) observed that candidates lie both in written applications and during interviews, mainly to appear suitable for the job requirements.
The preference for “proven experience” benefits those who have been part of some notable success, as it’s not hard to position oneself as a central figure in such narratives.
I will delve into what a system is later, but for now, it’s worth noting that UNI has made a mark in Brazil by becoming a “unicorn,” a testament to its well-functioning system that benefits the organization and all its stakeholders, including employees.
However, when switching companies, John found himself in a situation comparable to “an arm trying to write without the body.”
Indeed, while a good system can elevate the status of an average professional, there’s also the flip side: how a system can effectively transform you into a professional that even you are ashamed of.
The Despicable Shift
Beyond Deming, Russell Ackoff also made significant contributions to the study of Systems Thinking. Below, I’m presenting his explanation on the topic, the best I’ve encountered to date:
First, what’s a system? A system is a whole that consists of parts, each of which can affect its behavior or its properties. You, for example, are a biological system called an organism, and you consist of the parts: your heart, your lungs, your stomach, pancreas, and so on, each of which can affect your behavior or your properties.
The second requirement is that each part of the system, when it affects the system, is dependent for its effect on some other part. In other words, the parts are interdependent. No part of a system or collection of parts of a system has an independent effect on it. Therefore, the way the heart affects you depends on what the lungs are doing, and the brain is doing. The parts are all interconnected. And therefore, a system is a whole that cannot be divided into independent parts.
Now, that has some very important implications that are generally overlooked. First, the essential or defining properties of any system are properties of the whole which none of its parts have. For example, a very elementary system you are familiar with is an automobile. The essential property of an automobile is it can carry you from one place to another. No part of an automobile can do that. The wheel can’t, the axle can’t, the seat can’t, the motor can’t… the motor can’t even carry itself from one place to another. But the automobile can.
You have certain characteristics, the most important of which is life. None of your parts live; you have life. You can write; your hand can’t write. That’s easy to demonstrate: cut it off, put it on the table, and watch what it does. Nothing. You can see; your eyes can’t see. You can think; your brain can’t think.
And therefore, when the system is taken apart, it loses its essential properties.
It’s useful to add that organizations are social systems, where professionals, departments, processes, software, among others, constitute their parts. The system’s efficiency depends on the harmonious interaction between these various parts. Even if one part plays a prominent role, its performance will be below expectations depending on its relationship with the other parts.
The Toyota Production System is called a “system” precisely because all its components need to interact with each other; if any element fails, the outcome can be compromised.
For instance, the Toyota Andon Cord was a device that allowed any employee on the assembly line to stop production if a defect was identified. The first attempts to implement a similar mechanism in U.S. companies failed because the idea of stopping production was inconceivable to managers. Therefore, one of the roles they played in the system — deciding what was or wasn’t acceptable — ended up resulting in a distinct system.
This illustrates the critical nature of understanding and respecting the interdependencies within a system. In the case of the Toyota Production System, the integration of tools like the Andon Cord into the workflow was not merely a procedural or technological addition but a fundamental shift towards a culture that prioritizes quality and collective responsibility. The failure to replicate this system in other contexts highlights the importance of not just the physical components of a system but also the values, attitudes, and behaviors that underpin it.
Returning to John’s case, he would only make a difference in my company if he did what is truly expected of a manager: to remodel the system to generate the desired effect —a truth Deming had been trying to teach us since the 1970s. However, he limited himself to politicking, a common practice among managers in most organizations. And here lies the surprise: this too is a system failure.
When a pattern repeats itself consistently, it indicates that the system has been designed, even if unconsciously, to produce such an outcome. The consistent transformation of good professionals into ineffective managers is also a system failure, a realization I can make based on my own experience.
When I worked at a strongly hierarchical company, I realized that, holding a management position, it was easy to receive credit for work that wasn’t actually mine. The various organizational layers made me an intermediary of information. Thus, when the team achieved a goal, I transmitted the good news and often received congratulations for a job well done. Even while emphasizing that the merit belonged to the team, I undeniably benefited from the halo effect, despite having contributed minimally to the success achieved.
Initially, this bothered me, but over time, I not only got used to it but began to appreciate the situation. After all, it represented low effort with high reward. Furthermore, upon joining the “managers’ club,” I noticed that this indifference was common. “That’s how it works,” a colleague said one day — meaning, this behavior was part of the system I had succumbed to. It’s worth noting that the actual results of the company fell short of what was desired.
A system that rewards the announcement of “deliveries” without considering the real contribution inevitably promotes the repetition of this behavior. Fighting against this dynamic is not easy; after all, we are human, and our brain seeks to save energy. That’s how I became, albeit for a brief period, the person I most despised: a despicable manager. Fortunately, this phase was short-lived, and I was aware that I did not want that for my life.
Years later, in other companies and, consequently, different systems, I evolved into a good manager. This leads me to believe that John’s success can be seen as the story of an average professional who stood out by being part of a good system, while my previous failure reflects the trajectory of a good professional in a flawed system. Unfortunately, the latter scenario is more common: the world is full of good people embedded in bad systems.
It’s as if you’re in a straitjacket within your company, and despite your best efforts, the results don’t show. As Deming would say:
“Hard work and best efforts will not by themselves dig us out of the pit.”
Organizations often realize something is amiss and seek solutions in initiatives aimed at organizational culture and leadership. However, these efforts frequently prove inadequate due to a lack of systemic understanding.
There Are no Heroes
In the contemporary world, the tendency to personify success in individuals is evident.
In the book “Think Again: The Power of Knowing What You Don’t Know,” Adam Grant discusses how the Engineering and Product team convinced Steve Jobs that Apple should enter the mobile phone market, an idea that Jobs initially thought was absurd. Steve Jobs, the visionary, was against the idea of what would become one of his greatest successes, the iPhone.
Thomas Edison is another case where individual celebration conceals a more complex truth. Often hailed as the inventor of the electric light bulb, this narrative oversimplifies reality. The development of the electric light bulb was actually a collective effort involving many scientists and inventors working on lighting technologies before and alongside Edison.
An even more striking example of collaboration often overshadowed by the fame of an individual is the relationship between Albert Einstein and his first wife, Mileva Marić.
While Einstein is universally recognized for his revolutionary theories that transformed physics, historical records and correspondence suggest that Marić played a significant role, especially regarding the complex mathematical calculations needed for the formulation of the theory of relativity. Despite controversies over the exact degree of her contribution, it’s undeniable that the intellectual partnership between Einstein and Marić was a crucial component in the development of some of Einstein’s most innovative ideas.
The human tendency to focus success on singular figures, to the detriment of recognizing the collective dynamics underlying great achievements, reflects deep psychological mechanisms. This simplification, although making complex events easier to understand and remember, often leads us to disregard the multiple essential contributions to progress and innovation.
The truth is that behind every “Eureka moment” there is a network of collaborative efforts, experimentation, and errors that are fundamental to the creative process. Isaac Newton, better than anyone, was able to recognize this when he said:
“If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.”
The preference for stories of personal overcoming and individual achievements highlights the idea that personal merit is the main driver of progress. However, success is often a mosaic, composed of numerous contributions that, together, create the complete picture of great achievements.
I started this article with the following phrase from Deming:
“A bad system will beat a good person every time.”
But now I must add that, in a similar vein:
“A good system sometimes creates false heroes.”
Prepared for Luck
It’s not uncommon to find successful entrepreneurs who came from humble beginnings. Stories about how they overcame adversity to achieve their goals are inspiring. However, I propose the idea that, in some cases, adversity may act more as an advantage than a disadvantage.
The premise that individuals from humble origins have “nothing to lose” and, therefore, a greater willingness to take risks plays a crucial role in their journey towards success. This willingness to take risks is often a significant competitive advantage in the business world, where innovation and the ability to navigate uncertainties are keys to success.
Daniel Kahneman, a psychologist and Nobel Prize winner, in his work on prospect theory, suggests that people are more inclined to take risks when they feel like they have less to lose. Thus, entrepreneurs from humble backgrounds may be more inclined to invest in innovative ideas or adopt disruptive business strategies, driven by the perception of having less to lose and more to gain.
On the other hand, individuals from more privileged backgrounds may exhibit a tendency to be more conservative in their business decisions. The “endowment effect” theory suggests that individuals with more resources or something valuable to lose tend to adopt more cautious approaches, to preserve their existing status and resources. This conservative mindset can limit the exploration of potentially lucrative opportunities, precisely because the fear of loss outweighs the desire for gain.
This dynamic illustrates how humble beginnings can transform into an advantage, not just by motivating individuals to work harder but also by encouraging a bolder and less risk-averse approach in the pursuit of success.
In the book “Outliers: The Story of Success,” Malcolm Gladwell presents an interesting example of how “disadvantage can become advantage” by telling the story of Joe Flom, the son of Jewish immigrants.
Flom grew up facing exclusion and prejudice, which at first glance placed him at a disadvantage in the job market. However, this marginalization led him to specialize in areas of law neglected by the large and traditional law firms, such as mergers and acquisitions, which at the time were seen as less prestigious.
Over time, these specialties became extremely profitable, especially due to the economic transformations that boosted the mergers and acquisitions market in the following decades. Essentially, changes in the market — or, more broadly, in the system — ended up benefiting Joe Flom in a significant way.
Throughout the book, Gladwell emphasizes the role of luck in people’s success.
One of the most fascinating examples he presents is the coincidence in the birth dates of professional hockey players: many were born in the first months of the year. In childhood, this became a competitive advantage, as they were the oldest in their group, and consequently, the tallest and strongest.
After being selected, in part, due to the “luck” of their birth dates, these young athletes were recruited into elite programs, where a small initial advantage — height and strength due to age — turned into an ever-increasing advantage, thanks to years of intensive training with top professionals. In other words, the hockey player selection system ended up favoring the older players.
It’s crucial to recognize that, although highly successful people often have had luck, they are also competent. Competence and talent are indispensable attributes, but they do not guarantee success on their own. They are necessary but not sufficient. For the successful, luck is the combination of opportunity with preparation.
What Can You Do?
Firstly, you must be prepared. Secondly, luck must find you. And this won’t happen if you stand still. Where should you look for luck?
In systems that do not restrict your talent but, on the contrary, allow it to flourish.
Remember, an organization is a system, but you need to understand how it really works and the only way to do that is by observing repeated behaviors. Don’t believe what they say, watch what they do.
Pay attention to the types of projects that gain attention and resources, notice the communication styles that are most effective, and understand the company’s unwritten rules about work-life balance. Assess the value placed on innovation versus tradition, and see how failures or mistakes are treated.
These observations can provide deeper insights into the organizational culture and whether it’s a conducive environment for your growth and happiness.
Specially, what kind of people are being promoted? How do successful people consistently behave? Observe their actions and ask yourself if you’re willing to do the same, even if it means getting more involved with politics. If the answer is yes, proceed with determination; otherwise, consider looking for another company that aligns more closely with your personal values.
This process of self-assessment will not only help you better understand where you fit within a system but also guide you to make more informed decisions about your career, based on what is most important to you: the integrity of your values or the adaptation to the norms of the environment to achieve success.
Hello, if you don’t already know, my name is Beck Novaes. Easy to remember, I think.
My mission is to challenge conventional wisdom based on my curiosity about human behavior.
If you’d like to reach out, follow me on Twitter. Also, consider subscribing to my newsletter for exclusive insights.
