Take time to invest in yourself on the job. Always look for opertunities to learn new skills and knowledge (training, projects that are not directly related to your current job, software systems).

Then if you really want to become that star this is what you need:
1) A skill/knowledge that is rare.
2) A skill/knowledge that is in demand.
3) A skill/knowledge that is the future.

For example, become the freaking EXPERT on that new software system, new legislation or a new product.

You’ll make yourself very valuable for your company, hard to replace and thus in a good position to negotiate salary, trainings or careerpaths.

And that’s the fallacy. Nobody would tell Lebron James that he could only play 20 minutes / game b/c they also needed him to coach. Yet IT companies happily do this all of the time

Finally, I agree that the pay structure in most IT shops is broken…Oh well…when I run my own company…

You and me both.
(Fortunately, my boss just hired a “manager” who does indeed manage work items, but doesn’t cost significantly more than the developers. So these mythical managers do exist

At the risk of getting us kicked off the comments list for drifting off topic…

What you point out is without a differentiator, jobs become a commodity. The IT sector is a great example. You can hire a support hack from India to do my hard skills for significantly less than what I am paid (and even less from China). However, what I can have (for right now) is the ability to translate geek speak to a language that CFOs, Sales Executive, and other “shirts” can understand so they make informed (meaning the right) decisions.

Just so I am clear, these soft skills would be meaningless if could not tell the difference between a gigapixal and a kilobit. But compare me with someone who has better technical knowledge and know how, but can not communicate this to the decision makers (or in the case of a programmer, can not design a program for real world use), and the value added by soft skills becomes clear.

I do agree that rewarding the brown nosers (meaning disingenuous, no character) is poison to the company. A big difference between paying a competent (not great) programmer well because he brings some other [soft] value to the organization versus a competent programmer who kisses up.

Finally, I agree that the pay structure in most IT shops is broken. Traditionally, part of being boss means higher pay. Take a good tech with no soft skills, make them a manager, watch them fail. Unfortunately, they hit a ceiling and the only way to pay them more is make them management. This is a situation where someone who is less skilled technically, but posses soft skills could do well at potentially less pay then the stars and franchise players. The role becomes less of a “boss” and more one of facilitator and project manager. Oh well…when I run my own company…

It’s funny b/c I too work in IT and find that IT has one of the largest divides between the stars and the non-stars. Joel Spolsky put this number somewhere in the 10x region in his book. As a person who’s done job interviews, I’ve met candidates who can do in an hour what other candidates can’t do in a week (all asking for the same salary).

What you’re describing is a classic IT problem. But there’s a similar payout issue there. An all-star “soft skills” person will still bang out twice as many requirements in half the time (again, I’m speaking from experience). You still haven’t resolved the issue of who should be getting paid more.

If your all-star programmers are making less than the “average” soft skills guys, they’re not going to hang around very long. The programmers will just be poached by other companies that can pay them more where “all-start” soft skills guys can keep the pipes filled with work.

But let’s flip this around. If the divide between the best and worst is small, then yes the soft skills are very important. However, you also have a very different problem. If your job can’t be done any faster (or slower), it’s quite likely that your job has very low long-term security.

Jobs with low efficiency factors quickly become “commodity” jobs. How do you ask for a good raise if you can’t generate any more money for the company? And if the company is giving you a raise how many times can this happen if they can’t make any more money off your time?

Obviously, this whole concept breaks with government, where none of these free market concepts really apply. But I think the point is clear. The #1 investment held by basically everybody between 20 and 60 is their job. If your job cannot be done twice as fast then it’s just going to be outsourced to the lowest skilled bidder. If you’re living in North America, you’re not the lowest bidder (see call centres).

So again, if you have a job where “soft skills” are more important than some revenue-driven metric, be very aware of your future. Either the company won’t be competitive b/c of lack of talent or the job will be shipped somewhere else b/c of lack of productivity gains. It’s really kind of a no-win.

@GatesVP, Gleiby: I used the term brown nose because, especially in the case that was in the forefront of my mind, that was exactly what it was. Kissing ass, telling a particular manage he was awesome when he was clearly put in that role so that he could do the least damage (why was he there? Nepotism, ask anyone and they’ll tell you that.). However, with that example as my guiding light, I may have overemphasized brownnosing.

The key to his statement is:

“This is especially true in industries where the spread between a strong performer and a weak performer is very small.”

Most of us would agree if performance were exactly the same, more opportunities would be available to the most likable person (I do not like the term “brown nose,” it connotates a disingenuous person, which is undesirable).

I work in information technology and see almost daily people who have great technical skills, but the benefit is offset by a lack of “soft skills.” Sometimes someone with less technical skill but more “people smarts” is required to complete the mission.

This is the sign of a common but dysfunctional workplace:
In the workplace? It’s more “relationship based” and people who can brown nose and be “well-liked” can often shoot ahead.

Ironically, it really goes back to your desire to be a manager. Managers (contrary to popular disbelief) are cost centers and not revenue generators. Good companies pay their all-stars and do everything to allow those all-stars to continue to perform.

If your company is promoting the brown-nosers rather than paying the all-stars, your company is going to lose. If a company only offers the best pay to managers, then everyone wants to be a manager. If everyone is a manager, who the heck is going to do the work?

Let’s flip it around. Now that you’ve seen brown-nosers get promoted and stars get passed up for raises, do you want to be a star? Probably not. Of course, the problem is, that great companies are made profitable by star employees (and better yet star teams). If your company doesn’t pay their stars, they will inevitably end up at a company that pays them more (and likely competes with you). Now your company has lost revenue generation, has a bunch of overpaid managers and they’re fighting increased competition from their best ex-employees.

Honestly, if your company appears to be “relationship-based”, I would just get out. If you’re serious about maximizing your personal revenues you avoid these companies like the plague. I made the switch and doubled my personal revenue (from 38k to 75k in less than 18 months).

Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that social skills are unimportant. Many a genius has been undone by their own lack of social skills. What I’m saying is that in the non-government world, the promotion of “brown-nosers” is the first sign of serious company (or at least departmental) sickness.

In the first few years out of college I blew through a lot of money doing the usual…eating out, bar tabs, shows, etc. I could have modified (not necessarily cut out) my spending and pursued something cool like scuba diving (which I did later).

For me, I think a lot of them could fit within a broader realization: Your real education begins, not ends, with graduation. (Another way of expressing this is “Know what you know but it is more important to know what you don’t know.”)

The overconfidence of youth can really bite you. It did me as it has many others.