[elevatortrim]

I think when you are new with good ideas, you are judged against average. If you are above average, you are listened to.

As years pass, you are judged against the standard you set, and if you do not keep raising this standard, you start being seen as average, even if you are performing the same when you joined.

I've seen this play out many, many times.

When an incompetent person is hired, even if issues are acknowledged, if they somehow stay, the expectations from them will be set to their level. The feedback will stop as if you complain about same issues or same person's work every time, people will start seeing this as a you problem. Everyone quietly avoids this, so the person stays.

When a competent person is hired, it plays out the same. After 3/5/10 years, you are getting the same recognition and rewards as the incompetent person as long as you both maintain your competency.

However, I've seen (very few) people who consistently raised their own standards and improved their impact and they've climbed quickly.

I've seen people lowering their own standards and they were quickly flagged as under-performers, even if their reduced impact was still above average.

[eithed]

I agree with this summary to a degree. Additional problem arises when you simply cannot raise the standard as you lack political influence to do so. As it is said in the article - sometimes companies are comfortable with status quo, irregardless of the problems, whether they are technical or not. Another issue stems when product, rather than looking at tech as a partner in pursuit of common goal starts to see it as an underling.