Hypothesis: the "people who get stuff done" are a subset of a larger group with the same personality and talents, but without as much luck. Those other people are known by unprintable names, because they have no great successes to make people ignore the fact that they're jerks.
People are endlessly fascinated with the piece of success that we might have some hope of exercising control over. It gives people something constructive to try to work on. This is generally better than hating your life and buying lottery tickets while not bothering to work towards anything. There are a great many things beyond our control. But we will never stop trying to figure out that one thing we can do by choic…
Except there's a lot more going on here and a lot more at stake. Beliefs about the world, specifically beliefs about, long story short, why bad things happen to good people, can dramatically affect policy decisions and what a given culture considers acceptable. Someone feeling good about themselves is absolutely not a good enough reason to mangle reality. And that seems to be all that this whole mess is about. You want to believe you are in control of your life so you bury everyone else with you when that's absolutely not what we need right now to actually understand why things happen.
Rejection of the influence of randomness means we do not examine or account for said randomness. It means we think safety nets are worthless. It means we vote against free healthcare. It means we leave people to fend for themselves because we convince ourselves that it logically makes sense. If people control everything and if their determination is all they need, then we do not need to help them.
For a large slew of events that can randomly hit a person, there is often a very non-random source. But we are so focused on an individual-based rhetoric that we cannot admit that sometimes people affect others and that is a much bigger lever to pull than trying to convince every individual person to be some sort of a superhero who has no problems.