The problem with getting ahead via Machiavellian tactics is that it only works at toxic companies.
Every good company I've worked for has been a bad place for politics and Machiavellian personalities.
So if you're using politics and Machiavellian tactics you may get ahead at some company, but then you're going to be surrounded by people who are also toxic and Machiavellian. Perhaps more so than you. Playing politics is often a short-term win at the expensive of the long-term.
I think there are plenty of toxic companies around and your friend's gamble is just another strategy at succeeding in them. I sometimes too feel envious that I don't have the chops to do this job hopping game.
The question isn't what strategy works at miserable companies that expect 60+ hour work weeks: it is what strategy will get me well-paid at a job I actually want.
> The problem with getting ahead via Machiavellian tactics is that it only works at toxic companies
Right, so... every company.
It may be hard to see or realize this, but the higher you go up the corporate ladder, it's all politics. Maybe at the individual contributor level this isn't the case and it's a meritocracy, but at C-Suites? All politics.
Don't believe me? Look into the most desirable and successful CEOs. They stay at a company for maybe 5-6 years, make a lot of money for the company but run it into the ground, and then just jump ship. Not only does this work, but these are the most desirable and the highest paid CEOs.
Every good company I've worked for has been a bad place for politics and Machiavellian personalities.
So if you're using politics and Machiavellian tactics you may get ahead at some company, but then you're going to be surrounded by people who are also toxic and Machiavellian. Perhaps more so than you. Playing politics is often a short-term win at the expensive of the long-term.