If one postulates that its hard to consistently achieve more than your skills allow, it follows that success must be a lagging indicator. Increasing your skills must happen prior to seeing the rewards from doing so.
This idea comes with a couple implications. First, it’s a good reason to be skeptical of people who’ve never been successful. If someone has never achieved, there’s little reason to take their success seriously. Second, one should be doubtful of overnight successes. If that type of success is able to be achieved rapidly, surely everyone would do it. Third, it means that building your skillset is the limiting factor in your success.
Track records mean a lot because it suggests reliability, reputation, and something to lose. In this sense, your track record is an asset, so defraying it is likely to undermine your ability to rise. This may be why nepotism to some extent works. If a high up person can vouch for someone, their neck is also on the chopping block.
The question then becomes how does one progressively overload their skill-sets in order to rise. Education may be one answer- it’s linear, and theoretically each level that one must go through winnows out participants. Another one is directly climbing the corporate hierarchy. Another strategy is obtaining certifications and moving across organizations to move up.
Isadore Johnson's Website 