It’s Not About How Good You Are – It’s About How Much They Like You
It’s Not About How Good You Are – It’s About How Much They Like You
“Everyone sees what you appear to be, few experience what you really are.” – Niccolò Machiavelli
“Things do not pass for what they are, but for what they seem.” – Baltasar Gracián
It’s not always decisive how good you are at what you do, or what kind of person you are. Far more often, what’s decisive is – how much people like you. And how much they “see” you.
No, this is not a text about envy.
It’s not written from a place of bitterness or cynicism.
It’s not an attempt to challenge anyone’s knowledge, effort, or talent.
This is a text about how recognition works – in private life, in society, and (especially) in a career.
Because if we step back from the ideal picture of the world for a moment, we’ll see something uncomfortable, but true: some people don’t get more because they are the (best), but because they are closer, more familiar, or more emotionally acceptable to certain individuals or groups. Or to their boss.
Value and Perception Are Not the Same
There is a clear difference between what someone genuinely knows and can do, and how they are perceived.
In theory, that difference shouldn’t exist. In practice – it’s decisive.
Take this well-known example from everyday life:
Two people don’t contribute equally to a team. One is quiet, focused, works without any need to put themselves on display or complain… and gets more done. The other talks frequently, shares opinions, is present in informal conversations, spends smoke breaks with managers (and has a buddy-buddy relationship with them), constantly hovers around the boss and sighs about how exhausted they are from all the work (but somehow manages to stay on top of it all because, well, they’re a “force of nature”)… and gets less done. When the time comes for recognition or promotion – the second one is “more visible.”
Why does the preference go to the second person?
Not because he/she is better. But because he/she is more “familiar”… or, to put it another way, more “liked.”
Perception (unfortunately) very often beats facts.
Why the “More Liked” Get More
The reason isn’t always injustice (though, again, it usually is). The reason is – human psychology. And specifically, the slightly warped (or perhaps more accurately, distorted) part of it.
People:
– trust those they (better) know more
– more readily give opportunities to those with whom they’ve built some kind of relationship
– project (to a much greater extent) qualities and virtues onto a person they find likable
– confuse familiarity with competence
– prefer the (mental) comfort zone of people they already know over putting in the effort to get to know someone new
For example: In private life, advice we receive from someone close is often accepted without question – even when we know that person isn’t particularly knowledgeable. Advice from an expert who feels distant to us is often called into question. Your aunt knows better about fitness (even though she’s not a trainer) than someone who studied for it but whom you don’t personally know, right?
The reason is that the brain doesn’t always seek truth. More often it seeks a sense of security and familiarity. The brain likes familiar patterns and templates, and would rather take it easy than activate its neurons to learn something new (about someone) or attempt to objectively assess a situation.
How Excessive Glorification Takes Hold
At a certain point, a person stops being measured by what they do or how they behave, and starts being measured by what they represent.
If someone is:
– constantly present at certain events
– frequently mentioned (by a handful of people close to them)
– part of the “right circle” of people
they become more than the person they actually are – they become a narrative that “sells” well.
Someone might now say: “Wait, so you’re saying the person is faking it and “selling” that to others?”
There’s a high probability that’s exactly what’s happening.
Example from a social context: There is a person who frequently appears in public, comments on certain (or various) topics, positions themselves as a voice of reason. The depth of what they say is rarely verified, because “everyone knows they’re good/likable/dear/well-known.” Even if a more competent person came along and pointed out inaccuracies in their statements, they would get nowhere (in fact, they might sooner attract the anger/dislike of the group).
Why does this happen? Because in that moment:
– criticism (even when constructive) becomes a personal insult
– a question becomes a sign of envy (rather than a challenge to the credibility of the statement)
– doubt becomes an attack (rather than a search for the real truth)
It’s no longer the quality of that person being defended. It’s the status of that “liked” person being defended.
Connection and Bonding Aren’t the Problem. Replacing Values Is
It’s very important to clearly distinguish between the two.
Connection is legitimate. Visibility is indeed necessary. Relationships are part of our reality.
But the problem arises when:
– relationship replaces results
– recognizability replaces contribution
– likability replaces competence
Example from a career: Someone gets the opportunity for a project not because they have the most knowledge, but because they “communicate well with management.” In itself, that’s not wrong – but it becomes a problem when this pattern repeats itself, actual performance stagnates, and on top of that it leads to the demotivation of others in the environment (especially competent employees).
Then the system doesn’t reward value. It rewards agreeableness and sycophancy. And along the way, it feeds an illusion.
You know that feeling when your boss becomes a colleague everyone knows isn’t a quality worker, but hey, the colleagues or management like them? How should a person who genuinely tries to contribute feel? There’s a difference between people skills and competence.
The Quiet Frustration of “Good” People
(In the context of this text, when we say someone is “good,” we mean they are a quality and/or capable person)
There are people who:
– work thoroughly
– don’t impose themselves
– don’t want to “sell” themselves
– keep developing
– are humble
– believe that quality will be recognized
In other words, they have ambitions too.
And then they watch as:
– others advance faster
– the mediocre are declared exceptional
– the loud ones get labeled as experts
– those who “sigh from exhaustion and make a point of it” are suddenly seen as the hardest workers
In private life, it can look like this: Someone who is stable, reliable, present, and has great qualities goes unnoticed, while a person with strong charisma, a compelling “empty talk” and weak consistency gets more attention and admiration.
In a career: Results stay in the shadow, while the story gets the applause.
The most dangerous lie good people come to believe is that the world always operates on the principle of meritocracy. But reality is different.
Reality Without Bitterness
The world is not fair. We all know that and (largely reluctantly) accept it. But it is very consistent in its patterns.
Recognition is built on a combination of:
1. Real value
2. Relationships
3. Narrative
Ignoring any one of these three elements means playing the game at a disadvantage. A disadvantage that hits quality people.
Being good is the foundation. But being invisible is not a virtue.
It’s worth considering (as practice has confirmed) that if two people have the same or similar competencies (and even if there is a slightly more pronounced difference between them), it is somewhat expected that the more “visible” person will be chosen. That is also the reality of life.
And so remember: Visibility doesn’t guarantee success, but the absence of visibility almost certainly guarantees stagnation.
Closing Thought
It’s not only about how good, quality, and capable you are as a person.
But if you’re not already “liked” (that is, sufficiently visible) — it’s important that you understand why.
And if you are good – don’t expect anyone to notice just because it’s true.
Because the world doesn’t reward what is. It rewards what people want to believe.
Does that mean you should get discouraged and/or become just like “them”?
That is absolutely your choice, but if you recognized yourself in this text and felt a slight lump in your throat… even though I don’t know you, I get the impression you’re not the type of person who would give up their authenticity and “corrupt” themselves.
But I also believe you’re not the type of person who easily resigns themselves to fate or suppresses their ambition.
The world may not operate on pure meritocracy.
But it operates by the rules of perception.
If you are quality – learn to also be visible. Not to be liked by everyone, but so that your work carries the weight it deserves.
If you choose to remain invisible, that’s a choice. But don’t later call it injustice.
The world won’t come looking for you on its own. You have to learn to stand where you can be seen.
Because dignity without visibility often stays quiet. And silence, however noble, rarely gets a chance.
But also don’t forget: not everyone who is visible is a manipulator, nor do those who are “loud” all talk empty talk. Among them too there are quality people from whom a great deal can be learned.
Want Some Real Advice?
1. Don’t expect the work to speak for itself
There was a time when this was reality, when there were fewer people on the planet and technology was only in its infancy. That no longer exists today – it has become a myth.
Many people who today say they succeeded solely through hard work are keeping quiet about the influence of three important factors – circumstances, contacts, and luck. Just look at social media – how many hidden talents have you found being buried by the volume of other people’s content and algorithms. Let’s be real. Today, work (or a product) must be clearly and consistently:
– documented
– communicated
– connected to the interests of the people it’s directed at
2. Develop visibility as a professional skill
This doesn’t mean using visibility as a means of manipulation (or sycophancy), but rather as:
– reporting on results
– clearly connecting your work to goals (whether your own or the organization’s)
– presence in relevant conversations and relevant (digital) spaces
Visibility ≠ sycophancy (except for a certain profile of people with questionable values and beliefs)
Visibility = strategic communication of value
3. You don’t have to love power dynamics. But you have to understand them.
If you despise the game, you’ll never learn it.
And if you never learn it, you’ll always be outside of it.
Nothing stops you from learning the rules of the game and staying ethical and true to your convictions. That path is a bit harder (compared to those willing to play it the “dirty” way), but it doesn’t mean that with a different approach you won’t perhaps find an ethical way to adapt the “game” to your own needs.
4. If the system constantly rewards the wrong things – consider whether it’s the right system for you
Coming to terms with and reflecting on this requires a high level of emotional and intellectual maturity.
If a system doesn’t work for you, can you change it or at least adapt it to your needs?
No? Then consider whether it’s time to change the system (environment), or to create your own if the opportunity presents itself. Of course, it’s also important to objectively assess your situation – can you leave a bad system immediately without consequences, or is perhaps the temporary option to be patient for a while and take the first decent opportunity that comes along?
Authenticity without visibility is a quiet value.
Visibility without value is a short-term illusion.
Strength lies in the combination of both.
And if you’re reading this, there’s a good chance you’re capable of finding the right way.
