That's the paradox of security.
You can be a security superstar, or a total idiot, and you may achieve the same result!
I could imagine that there would be a Peter principle situation where a successful infosec professional is given progressively more difficult responsibilities as long as nothing bad happens. Is this not the case?
The opposite could come into play at some companies where people start questioning the expense of your salary since you're never having to deal with successful attacks. It's hard to talk up what didn't happen. Then you have people always putting out fires who look like they're "getting shit done."
It often seems like a myth when you hear about that phenomenon, but then I experienced this myself in a different role myself and became a believer.
It could still be the peter principle, and that you need to better communicate your unseen accomplishments. Maybe there should be a modified peter principle, where people rise according to their ability in the job and corporate politics.
Or promoted into management where they implode due to being introverts who can't politic well.
What happens if your security program is really really really effective?
Answer: Nothing