I absolutely agree with this. At the same time, you should attempt to downplay the fact that the current set of people you work with found you such a massive pain in the arse that they didn't want you to stay.
The guy's accomplishments look impressive. He should concentrate on those.
Right now I work in Germany, writing in C++, the language I have greatest expertise in (except maybe C, where my epertise is all in hobby projects).
My professional goal is to work in Australia, preferably in any langauge other than C++.
The vast majority of Trump voters are “traditional Republican” voters, at least in general elections. Many were folks who usually only turned out to vote in the general election, but not in the primary. In other words, they were expanding the pool of Republican primary voters, but not significantly expanding the pool of general election Republicans from “outise the party”.
As a tenured professor in a department looking exactly for this type of "Hacking Professor" I can tell you it may take a year to find talent. Positions in Europe might be even harder to fill. Advantage of our "biking distance from Amsterdam" culture is that anti-establishment mentality and non-conformist hear style of professors is acceptable. Quality research and teaching counts. We have an official CS class called "the Hacking Lab".
<shameless promotion> Any Associated or Assistant Professors out there with experimental background, please click: https://www.academictransfer.com/employer/TUD/vacancy/36681/...
Historians please weigh in: Is there any evidence that the Whigs also volunteered in their own destruction?
The Democrats themselves fell apart in 1860, splitting into Northern and Southern Democrats (running Douglas and Breckinridge, respectively). The split in the Democratic vote meant that Douglas (who was the second-highest popular vote getter) got the electoral votes of only one state, Missouri. This in turn meant that Abraham Lincoln, who wasn't even on the ballot in most Southern states, was able to carry the election, despite a popular vote count < 40% and net favorability ratings that were probably lower than Trump. This led directly to the Civil War.
Might sound corny but -there is no I in team -. Great leaders bring change by assembling great teams where everyone gets their time to shine and don't take the credit for it. Everyone wins.
While it is certainly distasteful when someone takes credit for something that they had no involvement in, I would argue that it's also possible to too far in the other direction. All too many programmers (myself included!) won't take credit for anything unless they did 100% of the work. Well, as I'm slowly learning, it is possible to be nuanced. It is possible to take partial credit and to understand that saying that you led an effort doesn't automatically mean that you did 100% of the work.
Part of being a leader is convincing other people to listen to you. A very good way of doing that is to be able to point to publicly recorded instances where you've taken leadership in the past and delivered good results. If you don't take credit as a leader, you'll very soon find yourself displaced (for better or worse) by someone who does.
Yes and no. Let's say your team has pulled off a major coup. As a (good) manager you very publicly say that all the credit belongs to the team. The team are happy and they love you. But the power players understand your real message.
The difference is on whether the set of people you work with is mutable or immutable. If it's immutable, you better preserve relationships, because you'll be working with them in the future, regardless of what happens, and you need them to implement your plans. But if it's mutable, then when people dislike you, just find new people. Stake out a territory in idea-space, and then just adjust the set of folks you hang out with until everyone agrees with you.
Voice or exit. If you want voice, you've got to speak to what the people around you will hear. If you're willing to exit (or going to anyway), you can say what you want and swap the people out until you find the set who hears you.
Interestingly, the current U.S. presidential race is a perfect example of this. Trump is following the people-are-mutable, if-they-don't-like-you-fuck-'em strategy. He's burning bridges with everyone who criticizes him. And he's probably doing this because it has worked for him in business - when he stiffs a contractor, sexually harasses an employee, or loses an investor's money, there is always somebody else willing to get in line behind them. Clinton, however, is the consummate relationship builder. She's carefully worked across the aisle through decades of experience in Washington, such that she's got all the really important people supporting her. Trump's strategy works great at rallies, where he can speak only to the people who agree with him, but fails across the entire electorate, where he has to deal with a pre-existing composition that isn't going anywhere.