PDF Summary:The Four, by Scott Galloway

Has Big Tech made our lives better or worse? In The Four, entrepreneur and marketing professor Scott Galloway takes a hard look at four technology companies that dominate the modern marketplace: Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google (the “Four”). He argues that the success of the Four has had a profound and decidedly negative impact on our society, affecting everything from our privacy and our opportunities for career advancement to our free-market economy and even the functioning of our democracy.

In our guide, we examine the Four’s outsized influence on our personal lives as well as on society at large. We contrast Galloway’s ideas with those of other experts on Big Tech and provide additional background information to contextualize Galloway’s opinions.

(continued)...

Negative Impact #3: Tax Avoidance

Furthermore, the Four actively avoid paying taxes. Galloway says the Four have the resources and political clout to take advantage of the complex tax code, finding legal loopholes that allow them to pay much less in taxes than other companies.

For example, Apple uses an accounting trick to hold $250 billion in tax havens overseas. While the average tax rate for S&P 500 companies between 2007 and 2015 was 27%, the Four paid significantly less than that: Amazon paid 13% of its profits, Apple 17%, Google 16%, and Facebook only 4%.

(Shortform note: Since The Four was published, governments have become increasingly critical of the Four’s tax avoidance tactics. A 2019 report found a gap of $155.3 billion between the expected taxes and the taxes actually paid by the Four, along with Netflix and Microsoft, over the preceding nine years. As of 2020, 137 countries were working with the European Union and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development to find a solution to the problem of how to more fairly tax Big Tech.)

Negative Impact #4: Elimination of Competition

Galloway reserves some of his harshest criticism for the Four’s efforts to eliminate their competition. While large, powerful companies always have a competitive edge, Galloway argues that the Four wield their size and power unfairly to purposefully eliminate competitors from the market. As we’ll explore in this section, they do this in three ways: by purchasing competitors; by forcing competitors out of business; and by engaging in underhanded tactics such as breaking promises, borrowing, and stealing.

Purchasing Competitors

The Four are so massive and have so much capital that they can simply acquire any competitor that poses a threat to them, at prices smaller companies could never afford. A striking example of this is Facebook’s purchase of WhatsApp, a five-year-old instant messenger company with only 50 employees, for $20 billion.

(Shortform note: While the WhatsApp acquisition is notable for the high purchase price, Big Tech does dozens of smaller deals to acquire competitors every year. These acquisitions often escape notice because financial markets and antitrust laws only require companies to report their largest deals. Regulators say that this tactic of purchasing smaller companies allows Big Tech to eliminate potential competitors before they have a chance to grow and present a real threat.)

Forcing Competitors Out of Business

The Four can also afford to lose money in the process of forcing their competitors out of business, argues Galloway. For example, Amazon sustained a net loss of $5 billion on shipping fees in 2015 to incrementally reduce shipping times, but this was still a win for the company because other retailers didn’t have the capital to compete. Customers looking for lightning-fast shipping times took their business to Amazon.

In addition, the Four use their money and power to prevent competitors from entering the market in the first place by constructing infrastructure so massive that smaller companies can’t compete. For example, Amazon owns a vast network of warehouses and delivery vehicles, Google has server farms, and Facebook laid cable across the Atlantic.

Predatory Pricing and Barriers to Entry

Lowering prices and sustaining losses to win over customers can be aspects of healthy competition, but setting prices low in an effort to eliminate competitors is considered predatory pricing, which is generally illegal. Similarly, while barriers to entry are legal, they can lead to an illegal monopoly. Indeed, the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust found in 2020 that the high cost of building Amazon’s extensive logistics network would make it extremely difficult for any new delivery company to enter the market and effectively compete with Amazon.

In the same report, lawmakers also noted another method Amazon employs to force competitors out of business: first weakening them by undercutting prices, and then purchasing them. The Everything Store describes Amazon’s use of this tactic with e-commerce competitors Zappos and Diapers.com, which sell shoes and childcare products, respectively. Amazon cut prices on shoes and childcare products until these companies were bleeding money. Once they were weak and devalued, Amazon swooped in to acquire them.

Breaking Promises, Borrowing, and Stealing

Galloway says that the Four have managed to grow quickly in part by engaging in questionable tactics such as breaking promises, as well as borrowing and even stealing ideas from other companies or from users themselves.

For example, both Facebook and Google promised not to share information across their various products (such as from Facebook to Instagram, from WhatsApp to Facebook, from Gmail to Google, and so on), but they went back on their promises.

(Shortform note: One insidious effect of Facebook and Google breaking this type of promise is that users are often unaware that it’s happening. For example, after promising to operate WhatsApp as a standalone product upon its acquisition in 2014, Facebook began accessing WhatsApp user information and metadata in 2016. At the time, Facebook allowed users to opt out of some of this data sharing, but gave them only 30 days to do so. Users who missed this window—or who’ve joined WhatsApp since then—have had their data shared with Facebook since 2016.)

According to Galloway, the Four have also borrowed and stolen ideas from other companies and from users:

• Facebook has stolen many features from Snapchat.
• Facebook gets users to generate its content, then it sells the content to advertisers, who then sell products to users. In short, users do the work to sell products to themselves.
• Third-party sellers can offer their products on Amazon, but if their product does well, Amazon makes its own version of the product. Unable to compete with Amazon, the original seller then goes out of business.
• Apple plays dirty against smaller competitors, such as Spotify. In 2016, Apple denied an update to the iOS Spotify app to promote its own music streaming app. Apple also imposes a 30% fee on Spotify when users sign up for Spotify on the app store.

Big Tech’s Intellectual Property Violations

Those who follow Big Tech have long noted tech companies’ proclivity for borrowing and stealing ideas from other companies. But to what extent are these actions considered illegal?

Under intellectual property law (which governs patents, copyrights, trademarks, and trade secrets), companies can borrow ideas from each other, but the way in which they execute these ideas is legally protected. For example, Google and Sonos can make similar Bluetooth speakers, but as the US International Trade Commission ruled in 2022, Google is prohibited from using the technology Sonos created for “multi-room audio,” which allows speakers in multiple rooms to synchronize to play music at the desired volume.

Critics of Big Tech argue that, even when government agencies and competing tech companies have the resources to challenge Big Tech’s intellectual property theft, large tech companies often see any legal judgments they’re required to pay as simply a cost of doing business. It’s less expensive for them to steal technology and risk paying for patent infringement than it is for them to license the technology from smaller companies in the first place. This has the added benefit, from Big Tech’s perspective, of limiting the growth of—and thus preventing threats from—smaller competitors.

Negative Impact #5: Contributing to the Decline of the Middle Class

People blame globalization and immigrants for the death of the middle class, says Galloway, but Big Tech is also responsible: The Four concentrate wealth in a small group of workers and investors and leave others behind. They create an elite tech workforce where there’s no place for the average worker.

For example, Facebook only employs about 25,000 people and pays them handsomely. In contrast, in the industrial age, companies like GM and IBM employed hundreds of thousands of workers and spread the wealth out more evenly.

(Shortform note: While Big Tech alone might not be responsible for the decline of the middle class, research supports Galloway’s more general conclusion that when the rich get richer, the middle class suffers—even if the size of the middle class remains the same. Studies show that when the gap between the wealthiest Americans and the middle class grows too large, the institutions required for a strong and stable middle class begin to deteriorate. The most affluent Americans often reduce their participation in public institutions and infrastructure that the middle class relies on—such as public schools, health insurance, security, transportation, and the energy grid—thus depriving these institutions of a key part of their financial base.)

Part 3: Limiting the Outsized Power of the Four

Galloway says that the Four’s unchecked size and power, along with their negative effects on the economy—job destruction, tax avoidance, privacy and national security issues, and efforts to eliminate competition—all make the case for treating the Four like monopolies and breaking them up to allow other companies the opportunity to compete.

He claims that one way to do this is by suing the Four in antitrust lawsuits alleging that they take advantage of their outsized market power to engage in illegal, anticompetitive practices. This could force them to sell off their subsidiaries, creating smaller companies.

Galloway contends that antitrust lawsuits can lead to strong markets, increased competition, and a larger middle class. For example, in 1998, the federal government sued Microsoft for anticompetitive practices because Microsoft was using Windows to improperly promote its own search engine (Internet Explorer) over Netscape’s search engine. The lawsuit resulted in a settlement agreement in which Microsoft agreed to curb its monopolistic practices, leading to increased competition and arguably allowing Google to enter the market.

(Shortform note: Some critics argue that the Microsoft settlement actually did little to curb the company’s monopolistic behavior. They contend that Microsoft continued to use its dominant market position to stifle competition and innovative technology, despite the fines and other penalties imposed on it by the government.)

Galloway concludes that breaking up Big Tech would allow new companies to enter the market and smaller and midsize companies to grow. It would create more jobs and shareholder value and would broaden the tax base.

Efforts to Break Up or Regulate Big Tech

Since The Four was published, the FTC has in fact filed an antitrust lawsuit against Facebook in an attempt to do exactly what Galloway advocates: Break the company up. The FTC alleges in its 2021 complaint that Facebook unlawfully acquired smaller competitors with the intent to crush them. The suit could force Facebook to sell off acquisitions like Instagram and WhatsApp.

In addition, US lawmakers have introduced first-of-its-kind legislation to regulate Big Tech. While it wouldn’t break up Big Tech companies, the 2022 bill—dubbed the American Innovation and Choice Act—would make it illegal for the Four and other large tech firms to give preferential treatment to their own products and services. It would prevent them from steering consumers to their in-house products instead of competitors’ offerings in any manner that could be seen as stifling competition.

For example, under the bill, Amazon could no longer feature its own brand at the top of product search results, and a Google search could no longer favor its own family of products like Google Places. Big Tech would also be prohibited from limiting their rivals’ access to their platforms, and companies like Apple and Google might not be able to pre-install their own apps on smartphones.

Part 4: Who Will Be the Next Tech Giant?

The Four have dominated the marketplace for years, but even in the absence of efforts to break them up, Galloway says the Four won’t always be on top. While Galloway believes it will be some time before the Four lose their position as leaders in the tech world, he says history demonstrates that even the most successful companies can’t stay on top forever.

Who will be the next trillion-dollar tech company? In this section, we’ll first explore the factors Galloway claims are necessary for a company to be the next tech giant. Then, we’ll look at some potential candidates for that position.

Factors Necessary to Be the Next Tech Giant

Galloway identifies eight factors that define the Four and are likely to be present in the next mega-successful company:

1) A unique product: The next tech giant must have a unique product. One way to make a product unique, notes Galloway, is to consider where technology can add value to the process of making, selling, and using the product. For example, Amazon products themselves may not be any different than other sellers’ products, but Amazon can get them to customers faster than anyone else. Another way to differentiate a product is by looking for ways to remove obstacles that make purchasing the product a pain, such as driving to the store and looking for parking.

2) The ability to attract cheap capital: The next trillion-dollar company must also have the ability to attract cheap capital by articulating a bold, easy-to-understand vision. Galloway says the Four succeeded in large part by doing exactly that, as discussed in Part 1.

3) Going global: Besides the obvious fact that a worldwide presence means a bigger market, global reach also allows a company to survive economic downturns in any one country.

4) Likability: Successful companies must be perceived to be good citizens by the government, the media, and watchdog groups. A good image can stave off regulatory intervention, as it managed to do for the Four in their early years.

5) Vertical integration: The Four each control various stages in their production and distribution process, which allows them to manage the customer experience. For example, in addition to manufacturing its products, Apple controls its distribution through its network of high-end retail stores. Similarly, any emerging tech giant must combine aspects of manufacturing or distribution to control the customer experience.

6) Artificial intelligence (AI): The Four all have technology that can learn from human input and use algorithms to control data. This is a must to make it in our rapidly changing economy. AI allows companies to monitor every aspect of our online behavior and target their marketing accordingly.

7) Career boost: The next tech giant must be perceived as offering a major career boost. Competition to get a job at the Four is fierce, and if you do so, you can climb the corporate ladder quickly.

8) Near a university: Any company that strives to dominate the market must be located near and have a symbiotic relationship with a top university, just as each of the Four draws talent from their respective neighbors Stanford, UC Berkeley, and the University of Washington.

Identifying the Next Tech Giant

Experts disagree on the characteristics necessary to become the next tech giant.

Maëlle Gavet, one of Time magazine’s top 25 female “techpreneurs” and the author of Trampled by Unicorns: Big Tech’s Empathy Problem and How to Fix It, argues that two of the factors identified by Galloway—cheap capital and likability as a way to avoid regulation—are no longer determinative in a changing marketplace.

Gavet says that governments and the public have become increasingly distrustful of Big Tech. They won’t tolerate the old model of reliance on cheap capital to drive rapid growth and facilitate predatory practices, such as keeping prices artificially low to undercut competitors. Instead, newer tech companies will need to grow more slowly and sustainably and realize fewer profits in order to be successful.

Gavet also claims that while likability itself remains important, the next Big Tech companies will need to emphasize social responsibility and empathy not as a way to avoid regulation, but partly to demonstrate their willingness to comply with ever-expanding regulation. In addition, she says the successful tech companies of the future will care more about the rights of gig workers, and abandon the targeted advertising model that has led to so many scandals and privacy violations. Other top tech executives agree with Gavet’s focus on empathy, noting that to be successful, tech companies must put themselves in their customers’ shoes and work to make their lives easier.

In addition, while more and more large tech companies are vertically integrating their businesses—often by using their vast reserves of capital to acquire smaller companies—some experts say that vertical integration in and of itself isn’t necessary for success. Whether vertical integration will help a company become the next tech giant depends on factors such as the state of the industry and whether it makes more sense for a company to own aspects of the manufacturing or distribution process or outsource them to another company that can do a better job.

Since Big Tech can’t exist without data, most commentators agree with Galloway that the next giant will need to be adept at using AI to collect, monetize, and apply data to their business. They also agree that global expansion is a requirement for becoming the next tech giant.

With respect to geography, studies show that the top tech companies hire from universities all across the country, not just from those located near the companies’ headquarters. For example, while Google (located in Mountain View, California) hires from many California colleges, both Columbia University (New York) and MIT (Massachusetts) are among its top five “feeder” schools. This suggests that if a company is big enough, it need not rely on nearby universities for talent—it can truly “go global” and attract top talent regardless of geography. Similarly, most Big Tech companies are perceived as providing a career boost as a byproduct of these companies’ success, not as a prerequisite for them being successful.

Potential Candidates to Be the Next Tech Giant

In light of the factors he identifies, Galloway examines various contenders to be the next tech giant. We’ll explore four of these companies here. Ultimately, Galloway doesn’t pick a “winner,” and he notes that the next tech giant could also be a complete unknown.

Candidate #1: Alibaba

Alibaba is a Chinese company that was the world’s largest retailer in 2016. It has half a billion active users. However, Alibaba has some drawbacks. In order to be a contender, says Galloway, it has to move beyond China and go global. It also lacks a visionary CEO or a simple story. Another major drawback is its enmeshment with the Chinese government, which has supported the company by, among other things, limiting the operations of Alibaba’s competitors in China. Western investors are reluctant to back a company that engages in such unfair practices.

(Shortform note: Since The Four was published, the Chinese government’s relationship with Alibaba has shifted. The government has attempted to limit the power of the company by imposing fines and regulations. Experts say this is the result of two factors: 1) Alibaba’s founder, Jack Ma, was openly critical of the Chinese government, and 2) the initial public offering (IPO) of Alibaba’s affiliate, Ant Financial Group, would have benefited a group of powerful investors and signaled that Alibaba can take actions that contradict government policy objectives. Nonetheless, as of 2022, Alibaba ranks as #11 among the world’s largest tech companies by market cap.)

Candidate #2: Tesla

Galloway credits Tesla with controlling the customer experience in a whole new way, from their owned dealerships to their regular software updates to their network of chargers. Tesla is also able to collect data on customers through the cars themselves. Another strength is its ability to combine luxury and environmental conscientiousness. A mark of its success as a luxury brand is the fact that in 2017 Tesla only sold 80,000 cars versus Ford’s 6.7 million, but Tesla surpassed Ford in market value. However, Tesla’s weaknesses are that it’s not global, and it doesn’t have a lot of customers compared to other car companies.

(Shortform note: Tesla has grown rapidly since The Four was published, and it is now a global company: As of 2022, it had six manufacturing facilities in three countries (the US, China, and Germany) and hundreds of stores and superchargers in approximately 40 countries. In 2022, it delivered approximately 936,000 vehicles. While the number of Tesla’s customers continues to pale in comparison to other car manufacturers, Tesla was nonetheless ranked the most valuable automotive brand as of 2022 and one of the top 15 brands across all industries in 2021.)

Candidate #3: Airbnb

Like ride-sharing company Uber, vacation rental company Airbnb relies on third parties to provide its “inventory”—in Airbnb’s case, homes and apartments for short-term rental. Both operate globally and enjoy access to cheap capital. But Galloway says Airbnb’s biggest weakness is its lack of vertical integration: It doesn’t own the housing, so it can’t control the customer experience.

(Shortform note: Another major weakness of Airbnb that Galloway doesn’t mention relates to its likability. Airbnb has long been criticized for driving up the price of rent and reducing the housing inventory in the neighborhoods where it operates. Studies confirm the accuracy of these claims. Because Airbnb rentals command such high prices, many property owners rent out housing to tourists full-time and live elsewhere, rather than renting their primary residence part-time. Consequently, locals have fewer rental options at higher prices, and may opt to leave the area entirely, resulting in neighborhoods with few local residents.)

Candidate #4: Microsoft

While Microsoft isn’t the powerhouse it once was, Galloway says that could change. The vast majority (89%) of desktop computers use Windows—although Galloway notes that mobile has surpassed desktop as the preferred method of computing. One strength of Microsoft is the acquisition of LinkedIn, which, unlike other social media companies, has three sources of ad revenue: regular advertising, recruiter fees for upgraded access to job candidates, and premium subscriptions for job hunters.

(Shortform note: Galloway’s prediction that Microsoft could be the next tech giant is his most accurate. While rankings fluctuate, most consistently place Microsoft in the top four global tech companies (usually at number two) as of 2022, with a market cap of approximately $1.68 trillion. LinkedIn’s revenues have increased rapidly since Microsoft acquired it. In 2021, it had revenues of $11.5 billion—an increase of 43.7% over the prior year. LinkedIn currently has 822 billion members.)

Part 5: How to Make It in the Cutthroat Economy Created by the Four

In addition to all the other ways in which they’ve impacted society, the Four have fundamentally altered the job market, says Galloway—and the era of Big Tech is here to stay, regardless of who the next tech giant is.

Not only have the Four contributed to job destruction and the decline of the middle class, but they’ve also created a highly-competitive environment in which average workers have a hard time competing and succeeding. You need to be exceptional to make it in the new digital world. In this section, we’ll first take a look at how you can develop the personal qualities that Galloway says are necessary for career success in the cutthroat economy created by the Four. Next, we’ll explore Galloway’s advice for landing a great career. Finally, we’ll examine his recommendations for getting ahead in your career.

Develop Personal Qualities That Foster Career Success

Galloway advocates developing four personal qualities in order to get and keep the best jobs:

1) Emotional maturity: You’ll need to be able to appropriately express and control your emotions to manage the constantly changing responsibilities of the digital age.

(Shortform note: Ironically, while emotional maturity would seem to be a baseline requirement for any employee, some tech leaders exhibit precisely the opposite behavior: impulsivity, demanding attention, name-calling and bullying, avoidance, and narcissism. For example, Steve Jobs was known for bullying and berating his employees. Likewise, Travis Kalanick knew about and arguably contributed to an environment of misogyny and sexual harassment at Uber. There is an ongoing debate about whether leaders such as these succeed because of or in spite of being so-called jerks. The consensus, however, is that some of their actions are abusive and illegal.)

2) Curiosity: In the tech era, everything moves at a rapid pace, and if you don’t embrace it, it will mow you over. Rather than resisting change, be curious about it. Part of curiosity is being proactive: For every four things you’re asked to do, says Galloway, come up with one idea or deliverable that wasn’t part of the assignment.

(Shortform note: Galloway suggests that curiosity is beneficial because it helps you embrace change, but curiosity can help you succeed in many other ways, too. Research shows that curiosity boosts memory, patience, and innovation, and makes you more open to hearing other people’s opinions.)

3) Ownership: Assume ultimate responsibility for every aspect of your work projects.

(Shortform note: While Galloway implies that ownership is within your control, research shows that employers also play a big role in fostering ownership in their employees. The concept of ownership comes from the term “psychological ownership,” which means the feeling of having a stake in your job or organization. Employees are more likely to feel psychological ownership if they learn about their organization and are given opportunities to contribute to their work creatively and make important decisions.)

4) Grit: The digital economy is competitive, and competing takes grit—the ability to persevere despite failures.

(Shortform note: In Grit, psychologist Angela Duckworth expands on the concept of grit. She contends that the most successful people embody traits of passion and perseverance, which she defines as resilience in the face of setbacks. But developing grit requires hard work, deliberate practice, and a purpose beyond self-interest. You’re more likely to stick with your goals, she says, if you’re pursuing them to increase the well-being of others.)

Land a Great Career

Galloway also offers advice on specific actions you can take to increase your odds of landing a great job:

• Go to college. Galloway says that college grads make ten times more over their lifetimes than people with only a high school diploma. He advocates going to a “name-brand” college because the prestige opens so many doors.
• Move to a city. More than 80% of the world’s GDP is generated in cities, and tech companies are increasingly located in large urban areas.
• Focus on your talents. “Follow your passion” is common career advice, but Galloway advises that rather than follow your passion, you should follow your talent. Figure out what you’re good at and become great at it.
• Go corporate. Creative, “sexy” careers often pay very little and are highly competitive, notes Galloway. More “boring,” corporate jobs offer high pay and stability.
• Consider your career trajectory. Choose employers or departments based on opportunities for promotion.
• Get equity. When you are negotiating your compensation, try to get shares in your employer.
• Consider entrepreneurship. Finally, if being an employee isn’t your cup of tea, consider whether being an entrepreneur might be a better fit for you.

Defining Career Success

Although he doesn’t say so explicitly, Galloway makes clear that his advice is geared toward those who are seeking the highest-paying, most prestigious jobs available.

But not everyone defines career success as high compensation, stability, and a series of promotions. Some measure it in less tangible ways, such as a degree of fulfillment or work-life balance. For example, acclaimed author Maya Angelou believed that career success was about enjoying what you do for a living. Basketball coach John Wooden said it was about doing your very best. And Zappos CEO Tony Hsieh (author of Delivering Happiness) believes that success is about living in accordance with your core values.

Depending on how you define career success, your methods for achieving it may differ from those recommended by Galloway. For example, if success to you means being in the trenches developing new tech products that will improve people’s lives, you may not want to accept a promotion that will mean you’ll primarily be a manager, rather than a creator. If you define career success as working just enough to support your love of hiking and camping, you’d probably rather work for a smaller outfit in the country than move to the city to have access to a higher-paying job.

Furthermore, Galloway’s advice suggests that the main alternative to being an employee is being an entrepreneur—however, this option requires a high level of self-discipline and a lifestyle that may not be feasible for many. Instead, those tired of working as employees might apply Galloway’s advice on talent development with the goal of finding a more autonomous way to be an employee.

In So Good They Can’t Ignore You, Cal Newport explains that developing your talents gives you “career capital,” or rare and valuable skills that you can use as leverage. A major perk of career capital is that oftentimes, you can “cash it in” for autonomy—the ability to control what you work on and how you work on it. In other words, with enough focus on developing your talents, you may be able to retain the stability of employment while enjoying many of the freedoms of entrepreneurship.

Advance in Your Career

Once you’ve managed to install yourself in a great career, Galloway recommends climbing further up the career ladder and getting ahead of the competition by doing the following:

• Don’t try to achieve balance. According to Galloway, you shouldn’t try to balance your work and personal lives. Work harder and faster than the people around you, particularly during the first five years of your career, when it matters most.
• Do PR for yourself. Advertise your accomplishments, both within your company and to a broader audience via social media. Doing good work that you don’t get credit for can lead to your career languishing.
• Ask for and give help. Galloway advises asking for help from people senior to you and providing assistance to people junior to you.
• Be loyal to people, not companies. No matter how benevolent they seem, companies aren’t people. Develop your relationships with people. People value loyalty and may reward you for it.
• Exercise. Galloway points out that the trait most common among CEOs is a regular exercise regimen. Staying in shape physically helps you get ahead mentally.
• Take a measured approach to success and failure. Don’t let success go to your head, and don’t let failure sink you. You will experience both, so learn to accept both and keep moving forward.
• Be a serial monogamist. Give your all to your employer for three to five years and learn everything you can, then start considering other options. If you get a job offer from another company, give your employer a chance to make a counteroffer.

(Shortform note: Galloway’s advice for career advancement echoes that of many other business leaders. But focusing primarily on how you can get ahead of everyone else may not be sufficient to succeed. Experts note that other skills, such as teamwork, collaboration, and fostering relationships with your coworkers and bosses are necessary to get ahead. For example, in The Speed of Trust, Stephen M.R. Covey argues that the key to career success is establishing trusting relationships with other people. Trust between employees fosters innovation, collaboration, and efficiency—which not only benefits them, but also their employer.)