I'm the same age as Nix without a degree working in close to minimum wage. I'm reluctant to take a chance on moving away from where I've worked for the past 6 years, due to the fact that the last time I took a chance on a role it just so happened the manager that took me on was replaced a month after I started, and the new one just binned me off straight away. How is that not unlucky? Then the financial crisis hit, double unlucky... from there has just been a never ending trend of low paid jobs with terrible conditions (zero-hour contracts, unsociable shift work, abusive and rude customers etc), with a fear of ending down at the Jobcentre to sign on if that bad luck shows up again.
I know that if I took a chance to move jobs I could probably do a lot better, however it's the chance that things could be much worse that makes me debate it to the point I just carry on with what I do.
I am studying with the OU now though, making some attempt to improve what I am on paper.
But surely in your situation you have more to gain than to lose? If you are unhappy with the current situation then does it matter if moving turns out to be 'wrong'? If that happens then just move again and you lost nothing.
Or you can stay where things aren't right... for years... maybe forever.
Wrong. Landing an interview (HR doesn't give you the job, just dots the I's and crosses the T's) is based upon skill, not chance. If you respond to an available job interview, with a perfect CV, then you'll get an interview. You turn up to the interview, looking the business, sounding the business and expertly selling yourself and your skills, better than any of the other candidates then you'll get the job.
But surely in your situation you have more to gain than to lose? If you are unhappy with the current situation then does it matter if moving turns out to be 'wrong'? If that happens then just move again and you lost nothing.
Or you can stay where things aren't right... for years... maybe forever.
It's based on metrics. If you meet the metrics and apply that would be agency of course. However, there is an element of luck -- remember it's an employer's market -- with getting seen. In an over-applied job (which they will be if they're bottom of the ladder), HR are ruthless in the cut-offs. You could be binned for any reason and that could be chance. You could find someone in HR who's having a good day and (say you weren't the 'perfect' candidate) gives you a chance. Likewise you could find someone who's lazy or just stumped their toe and you'll end up in the bin because they simply cannot be bothered to go through all the applications and thus dump half.
You're right about experience which is agency, provided that you know what you want. If you're speculative, it's a little different. You can't prepare in advance for something that you don't know exists.
If you make it to interview, it's largely agency at that point (do your research and sell yourself) but it's also chance if there's a 'better' more suited candidate there, or if an interviewer takes a dislike to you because you remind them of an ex lover.
It's not all agency and this is what I've been trying to spell out over and over. Two sides. Same coin.
Surely none of that is luck though? I think you misinterpret the term chance. By someone dumping half of the CV's into a bin, (which is entirely unprofessional and not the sort of HR department I'd want to work with!), they might be doing you a favour? If you get your CV looked at and all the boxes are ticked then it's up to you to pass your interview and sell yourself.
I remember for my current job, my name got passed to them, I was then asked for my CV, I had a phone interview, then got invited to a formal interview where I had to give a presentation on a subject I knew very little about. After that, we had a more formal interview and my now manager tried to catch my out by putting me out of my comfort zone and tell a joke. Which I did, and got the job.
I like to think it's because my joke was so awesome, but it's not. I ticked all the boxes leading up to it and on the day performed well. The fact that I put my self out there (either tell something interesting about yourself, or a joke) was the final tick. I know of people who went for the same job (just not at the time time), which have haven't had an answer about something interesting about themselves, or couldn't give a joke. What I'm trying to get at, is once you have your CV in place and you then get the interview, you are then entirely based not upon luck, or chance, but upon skill. Skill at selling yourself and what you can bring to the company.
[FnG]magnolia;27217012 said:I'm not picking sides but Housey's views align most closely with my own.
I think there's a fine line between dismissing luck as unnecessary and blaming lack of luck for lack of success, and sometimes that tipping point comes when something actually does go your way that maybe you didn't expect because you were working your ass off on something else.
Thomas Jefferson said, “I'm a greater believer in luck, and I find the harder I work the more I have of it” and whilst it's a little trite of me to repeat someone else's soundbite, it's undeniably true.
Anyway, well done OP![]()
Another mid 40s person here and Housey is spot on.
Indeed, there is undeniably luck involved at all stages but you can do a lot to increase your chances of good luck, increase the payoff when you are lucky, minimize the chances of bad luck and minimize the costs of bad luck.
The most successful people I know personally all came from pretty benign backgrounds, mostly poor working class parents. They all share a set of personalities characteristics, traits and attitudes. I don't necessarily admire any of them, in fact many of them I really dislike, but they all clearly go to their position on their own accord. Be it shear determination, hard work, persistence, desire to succeed and fear of failure, willingness to take chances, confidence verging on arrogance, never letting failures drag them down but motivate them to try harder and suceeed.
You can certainly be unlucky or lucky but you can do a lot to change the odds or at least least exploit them as best as they can.
Nix said:Despite all the will in the world, things don't work out the way we need or want them to.
Whilst I agree with everything you've said, my contention all along has been this:
1. People seem to confuse chance and circumstance with agency. They are separate but they work together, as is the understanding that you can "make your own luck". As I've explained though, we can point ourselves in the right direction and try and steer the ship as best we can. It's not all chance at all, but it does play a vital role (as you've explained nicely)
2. The unpleasant undertone that if agency equals success, those that meet failure or otherwise are 'unlucky' evidently didn't apply agency and therefore deserve their lot. Life just isn't that simple.
I'm not arguing with anyone here at all that if you want something you need to go out there and get it and you can seriously help weigh things in your favour. My point is, sometimes it doesn't matter. Despite all the will in the world, things don't work out the way we need or want them to.
Lastly, I think a lot of those people agreeing with Housey outright are on the other-side of the career mess. At the bottom, you really do need some good fortune to land "that lucky break" so you can build that crucial experience. You may say to try interning, or unpaid instead but then, that's down to personal circumstance (if you're lucky or unlucky enough to afford to do that or not). When you've got some experience, or are on the 'inside', it's much easier to manoeuvre your way around similar roles and career progression. It's not so much chance as it is agency then. It's completely different when you're on the outside looking in.
I have a friend who's doing very well in his chosen career, but even by his own admission it was a stroke of good fortune to land the entry job that paved the way. I'm not saying he hasn't worked hard to get where he is, but it wrong to assume that those who haven't found progression haven't been working equally, or as may be the case, harder than those that were blessed.
Notice how our brain sometimes gets the arrow of causality backward. Assume that good qualities cause success; based on that assumption, even though it seems intuitively correct to think so, the fact that every intelligent, hardworking, persevering person becomes successful does not imply that every successful person is necessarily an intelligent, hardworking, persevering person (it is remarkable how such a primitive logical fallacy – affirming the consequent – can be made by otherwise very intelligent people, a point I discuss in this edition as the “two systems of reasons” problem).
There is a twist in research on success that has found its way into the bookstores under the banner of advice on: “These are the millionaires’ traits that you need to have if you want to be just like those successful people.” One of the authors of the misguided The Millionaire Next Door wrote another even more foolish book called The Millionaire Mind. He observes that in the representative cohort of more than a thousand millionaires whom he studied most did not exhibit high intelligence in their childhood and infers that it is not your endowment that makes you rich – but rather hard work. From this, one can naively infer that chance plays no part in success. My intuition is that if millionaires are close in attributes to the average population, then I would make the more disturbing interpretation that it is because luck played a part. Luck is democratic and hits everyone regardless of original skills. The author notices variations from the general population in a few traits like tenacity and hard work: another confusion of the necessary and the causal. That all millionaires were persistent, hardworking people does not make persistent hard workers become millionaires: Plenty of unsuccessful entrepreneurs were persistent, hardworking people. In a textbook case of naive empiricism, the author also looked for traits these millionaires had in common and figured out that they shared a taste for risk taking. Clearly risk taking is necessary for large success – but it is also necessary for failure. Had the author done the same study on bankrupt citizens he would certainly have found a predilection for risk taking.