Career Decision Making

I've spent the last 8 months traveling to 20+ states, talking to young people about how they see their economic futures. I wrote about my findings here: https://lnkd.in/gJDuNqpn Gen Z faces a double disruption: (1) AI-driven technological change + (2) institutional instability. When I talk to young people, they're not just worried about finding jobs, they're worried whether "careers" as we know them will exist in 5 years. We're seeing a version of the barbell strategy in how young people approach their futures. On one end, people are choosing trades over college debt. On the other, people are betting everything on creator economy/crypto/AI startups etc etc. The middle path exists, but it's increasingly blurry. This shapes identity. When a single viral TikTok can outperform a year's salary, and traditional credentials lose value faster than you can earn them, young people aren't just changing careers—they're developing fundamentally different relationships with economic reality. When I talk to people across the country, their concerns are greater than traditional political divisions. They're wrestling with questions of identity, meaning, and community in a world where traditional narratives about success and stability no longer hold. What looks like a conservative shift among young voters might actually be something more foundational: a generation's attempt to navigate a world where institutions promise stability they can't deliver, where algorithms offer opportunity without security, and where the very nature of work and worth is being redefined. It’s constantly evolving, and it’s not just politics - it’s the very nature of self being called into question.

Early in my career, a colleague from P&G left for a startup. The pay was nearly double. The decision seemed obvious. But when I mentioned this to my boss, his response made me changed how I viewed career growth: “In the first third of your career, don’t chase money—chase knowledge. You’ll leverage that better in the next third to make real money.” At first, it sounded idealistic. But over time, I saw a pattern among top marketers: They optimized for learning, not just earning, in their first five years. Why this matters: [1] The Compound Effect of Skill Stacking I’ve seen P&G marketers turn down high-paying social media roles to master brand fundamentals first. Today? They’re leading global brands while their peers are still executing tactics. [2] The “Career Equity” Principle That startup role offering double the salary? Look closer. Are you building equity in yourself (strategic thinking, leadership, innovation) or just executing someone else’s strategy? [3] The Learning-to-Earning Ratio Every marketing leader I know followed this trajectory: Years 1-5: Learn intensively Years 6-10: Apply & grow Years 10+: Exponential career acceleration “But I need the money now.” I get it. I’ve been there. But consider this: A ₹10 lakh salary bump today vs. learning that could unlock ₹50 lakh+ annually in a few years. “But I might fall behind.” Look at any CMO interview in AdWeek or Marketing Week—nearly all highlight their early-career learning experiences as crucial to their success. It’s not about falling behind. It’s about positioning yourself to leap ahead. Before taking your next role, ask yourself: “Will I learn something new every week, or just get better at what I already know?” The best investment in your 20s isn’t in stocks or crypto. It’s in your skills toolkit. #career #work #job

“𝗬𝗼𝘂’𝗿𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝟮𝟬𝘀—𝘄𝗵𝘆 𝗱𝗼𝗻’𝘁 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗸𝗻𝗼𝘄 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝘄𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝘆𝗲𝘁?” Because maybe… I’m still figuring it out. And that’s okay. The pressure to have it all sorted—dream job, dream salary, dream lifestyle—by your mid-20s is unrealistic and exhausting. In a world of perfectly curated career wins on LinkedIn, it’s easy to feel like you’re behind. But here’s what I’ve learned instead👇 🔹 𝗘𝘅𝗽𝗹𝗼𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗶𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗳𝗮𝗶𝗹𝘂𝗿𝗲 Trying out different paths, internships, side hustles, or industries doesn’t mean you’re confused. It means you’re curious. 🔹 𝗬𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗳𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁 𝗷𝗼𝗯 𝗶𝘀𝗻’𝘁 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝗷𝗼𝗯 According to the World Economic Forum, Gen Z is expected to have 10–12 jobs in their lifetime. Stop treating your first job like a final destination. 🔹 𝗬𝗼𝘂 𝗱𝗼𝗻’𝘁 𝗻𝗲𝗲𝗱 𝗮 𝟭𝟬-𝘆𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗻 𝘁𝗼 𝗺𝗼𝘃𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗿𝘄𝗮𝗿𝗱 What helped me the most? Focusing on building transferable skills (communication, problem-solving, research, adaptability). These work everywhere. 🔹 𝗨𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗿𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘁𝘆 ≠ 𝗹𝗮𝗰𝗸 𝗼𝗳 𝗮𝗺𝗯𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 It’s a sign that you’re asking better questions: What do I enjoy? What drains me? What do I want to learn next? So if you feel like everyone’s racing ahead and you’re stuck figuring things out—breathe. You don’t need to have it all figured out. You just need to keep figuring yourself out. What’s something uncertain in your career right now that you're learning to embrace? Let’s normalize this👇 LinkedIn LinkedIn News India LinkedIn Guide to Creating #CareerGrowth #20sJourney #UnfilteredCareers #LinkedInRealTalk #CareerExploration #SlowSuccess

I had lunch with an exec last week who told me, "These Gen Z employees are so disloyal. They're gone in 18 months no matter what we do." 🙄 I asked what career development they offer. "We do annual reviews," he said proudly. No wonder they're leaving. Gen Z is 2x more likely to quit over lack of development opportunities compared to Boomers. Nothing to do with "participation trophies" or "entitlement" either. It's simple economics. Boomers entered a job market where loyalty was rewarded with pensions and steady advancement. Gen Z entered a completely different reality: ‣ Company loyalty died in the 2008 recession ‣ Skills expire faster than ever before ‣ The career ladder has become a career web They're not disloyal. They're adapting to the world we created for them. When I dig into companies with high Gen Z retention, I find that they've reimagined career development for today's reality. They're offering ↳ Skills-based advancement, not just title promotions ↳ Continuous learning, not annual training ↳ Career flexibility, not rigid ladders The companies winning the talent war aren't complaining about Gen Z's expectations. They're meeting them. Because these expectations will soon be everyone's expectations. #FutureOfWork #GenZRetention #CareerDevelopment #SkillsEconomy

Ambiguity is everywhere in today’s workplace. We’re often asked to make decisions without all the data, act before all the implications are known, or lead projects that shift midstream. This is the new rhythm of modern work. Professionals who thrive in these conditions have learned to stay grounded in uncertainty and manage the discomfort that comes with it. 💡 Here’s one practice to build this important soft skill: When facing a decision, generate three options, even if one feels like a stretch. Then step away for a short period. Give yourself a pause before evaluating them. When you return, reflect on: ❓ Which option feels most aligned with your principles or priorities ❓ What hesitations or questions arise as you revisit each choice ❓ What details you were inclined to overlook during the initial urgency This process trains your thinking to remain open longer. You gain clarity through reflection rather than speed. Professionals who develop this capacity tend to: 🏆 Respond more strategically when priorities shift 🏆 Avoid overconfidence in early assumptions 🏆 Recognize nuance in people and decisions 🏆 Foster stability and focus in moments of change In a professional world shaped by complexity and constant evolution, the ability to tolerate ambiguity has become one of the clearest markers of maturity and sound judgment. #ToleranceOfAmbiguity, #DecisionMaking, #StrategicThinking, #LeadershipDevelopment, #MentalAgility, #SoftSkills, Skiilify

Gen Z does not want to be your next manager. And before you panic, it is worth asking why. Korn Ferry research reveals that Gen Z, born between 1996 and 2010, is one of the most motivated age groups at work. They are tenacious, fast learners and deeply driven to maximise their potential. The issue is not ambition. It is what they are being asked to do with it. In my experience working with this generation, a few things stand out clearly. Gen Z is not fixated on a single profession or career stream. They are open to experimenting, trying different paths, acquiring new skills and pursuing executive education until they find work that genuinely aligns with who they are. They are not building a career in the traditional linear sense. They are building a life, and they want their work to fit into it, not consume it. They are also remarkably clear about what they expect from an organisation. And what they will not tolerate.They do not navigate office politics. They do not manage upwards for the sake of visibility or favour. They do not build relationships strategically to protect their career. They show up, they deliver, and they expect to be recognised for the quality of their contribution rather than for how well they have learned to manage perceptions. In short, they refuse to play games that previous generations accepted as simply part of how organisations work. This is not immaturity. It is clarity. And it is deeply uncomfortable for organisations built on hierarchy, political capital and traditional notions of who is ready for leadership. The reluctance of Gen Z to step into management roles is not a talent problem. It is a mirror. They are reflecting back everything that is broken about how most organisations define and practice leadership. The burnout they have watched in their managers. The ambiguity they experience around expectations. The politics they are unwilling to perform. The gap between what organisations say they value and what they actually reward. If organisations want Gen Z in the leadership pipeline, they need to earn that willingness.That means creating workplaces with clear expectations and fair practices rather than unspoken rules and invisible hierarchies. It means offering reverse mentoring, coaching and buddying to help them ease into managerial roles on their own terms rather than pushing them into structures designed for a different generation. It means showing them a version of leadership that looks like something worth becoming, not something worth surviving. Gen Z will lead. But they will do it on their own terms. The organisations that understand this early will have a significant advantage over those still waiting for this generation to simply fall in line. They are not disengaged. They are discerning. There is a difference. And it matters enormously for the future of your leadership pipeline.

Your career isn't broken. Your model is. We're still using outdated maps to navigate modern work landscapes. Still forcing ourselves into boxes that were designed for a world that no longer exists. The truth? There are four psychological models of work (built by Michael Driver). Four ways people move through their professional lives. And understanding which one you are might be the difference between fulfillment and quiet desperation. The Linear Climber. The one we're all taught to be. Ladder-focused. Upward-obsessed. Each job a stepping stone to something "higher." Success measured in promotions, titles, corner offices. The person who asks "What's next?" before they've even started. This used to be the gold standard. Now it's just one option among many. Then there's the Expert. The depth-seeker. The person who finds a field and burrows deep into its mysteries. Who values mastery over movement. Who stays in the same functional area for decades not because they're stuck, but because they're still fascinated. The Spiral Mover is different. They crave growth but not in a straight line. Every 7-10 years, they make lateral or diagonal jumps to related fields. The marketer who moves to product. The engineer who shifts to design. Not running away from anything, but running toward integration. Toward wholeness. They're building bridges while others build towers. And finally, the Transitory. The ones who completely reinvent every 3-5 years. New industry. New function. New challenge. Society labels them "flaky" or "uncommitted." But they're actually commitment specialists – to variety, to freshness, to the thrill of the steep learning curve. They're not afraid of starting over. They're afraid of never starting again. None of these models are inherently better than the others. The tragedy is forcing yourself into the wrong one because you think it's the "right way" to work. Gen Z gets this instinctively. They're rejecting the Linear model in droves. Not because they're lazy, but because they've seen what it did to their parents. The burnout. The identity collapse when the promotion doesn't come. The sacrificed relationships. Startups need Spirals and Transitories, people comfortable with ambiguity and reinvention. Corporate needs Experts and Linears, people who build depth and stable leadership. The gig economy isn't creating new models; it's finally making space for the ones that always existed but were marginalized. The most dangerous career move isn't changing jobs. It's forcing yourself into a model that contradicts your nature. It's the Expert trying to be a Linear because "that's what success looks like." It's the Transitory staying put because "stability is mature." Your restlessness might not be a character flaw. Your contentment might not be complacency. Maybe you're just in the wrong model. And the first step to finding the right path isn't changing your job. It's changing your map

💸 Why a high salary is not everything. A reality check we all need. Too often, we equate success with the highest package on offer. But numbers on paper don’t always reflect the true value of your time, energy or peace of mind. Let’s break it down: In the image, Job 1 pays ₹40 lakhs, but demands a 1-hour daily commute. That is 10 extra hours per week spent just getting to work. Job 2 pays ₹34 lakhs, but is a 5-minute walk away. That’s 9 more hours for yourself every week. When we factor in commute time and calculate the effective hourly rate, the job with the lower CTC actually pays more per hour! 🧮 ₹1,538/hr vs ₹1,594/hr — and that’s just the math. It doesn’t account for stress, exhaustion or time lost with loved ones. This isn’t just about commute. The same principle applies to: 🔹 Work-life balance 🔹 Toxic vs healthy work cultures 🔹 Learning opportunities 🔹 Flexibility and autonomy 🔹 Mental and physical well-being 💡 Sometimes, “less” money gives you more life. When choosing between offers (or evaluating your current job), don’t just ask “What’s the pay?” Ask: 🔸 “How much time do I get for myself?” 🔸 “What’s the cost to my health?” 🔸 “Will this role energize or drain me?” As professionals, especially in demanding fields like finance, law, or tech, we owe it to ourselves to look beyond the CTC. Because true wealth is freedom, not just figures. Would you choose Job 1 or Job 2? Let’s discuss in the comments 👇 #SalaryVsLife #WorkLifeBalance #CareerChoices #Productivity #FinanceTips #LinkedInLearning #MindfulCareers #TimeIsMoney

Most engineers spend years trying to get a seat at the table. Then they finally get it and make the same mistake immediately. They show up and act like builders in a room full of decision makers. Here's what that looks like in practice and how to fix it: Step 1. Stop bringing answers. Start bringing perspectives. - Builders come to meetings with solutions already decided - Decision makers come with a point of view and an open question - "Here's what I'd recommend and here's what I'm still uncertain about" is more powerful than "here's the answer" - Certainty closes conversations. Perspective opens them Step 2. Read the room before you read the data - Engineers default to leading with numbers and technical evidence - At the decision-making level, context and timing matter as much as accuracy - Before speaking, ask yourself who in the room has skin in this decision - The most technically correct answer delivered at the wrong moment loses every time Step 3. Stop defending your work. Start advancing the mission. - The instinct to protect your model, your code, your approach is natural - At the table it becomes a liability - When your idea gets challenged, your job is not to win the argument - Your job is to find the best path forward, even if it isn't yours Step 4. Learn to sit with ambiguity out loud - Builders are trained to solve before they speak - Decision makers are expected to think in public - Saying "I don't have a clear answer yet, but here's how I'd approach finding one" builds more trust than silence - The table rewards engineers who can reason visibly, not just deliver quietly Step 5. Shift your metric from output to influence - Stop measuring your contribution by what you shipped - Start measuring it by what changed because you were in the room - Did the direction shift? Did the team avoid a costly mistake? Did someone make a better decision because of your input? - That is the scorecard that gets you invited back Getting a seat at the table is hard. Keeping it requires a completely different operating system. If you're navigating this transition right now, this is exactly the work I do with engineers. Follow me and let's build that together.

Perceived unfairness at work is one of those quiet forces that shapes careers far more than we acknowledge. It shows up when someone else gets the promotion, when credit seems misplaced, when effort and outcome don’t quite line up. And over time, if left unexamined, it can erode motivation, distort judgement and even define how we see ourselves. Having gone through decades in corporate life, I’ve come to believe that every system, no matter how well designed, has elements of subjectivity, bias and imperfect information. The real question is: how do we respond when we perceive something to be unfair? Because perception, not reality, drives behaviour. The first step is to pause and interrogate the perception. Not all unfairness is real. Sometimes we are working with incomplete information. Decisions at senior levels often involve variables that are not visible to everyone. Before reacting, it is worth asking: What might I be missing? The second step is to separate emotion from action. Unfairness triggers a mix of anger, disappointment, even a sense of betrayal. Acting in that state rarely leads to good outcomes. A useful question here is: What is the outcome I want? Switch from “How do I express how I feel?” to “What will move me forward?” The third step is to seek clarity, not reflexive confrontation. There is a difference between asking for feedback and challenging a decision. Often, one opens doors while the other closes them. A simple question, “What could I have done differently?” or “What would position me better next time?”, often yields far more insight than a debate about fairness. It also signals self-awareness. Organisations tend to back people who demonstrate the ability to learn, rather than those who litigate every decision. The fourth step is to focus on controllables. You cannot control how decisions are made. But you can control your performance, your relationships and your reputation. Over a long enough timeline, these factors compound. Careers are not built on single decisions but on patterns. If the pattern consistently works against you, then it is data. The fifth step is to decide your response to the system, not the incident. If unfairness is episodic, it is part of the terrain. If it is systemic, it is part of the culture. And here remember: culture rarely changes because one individual pushes back. At that point, the question becomes less about fairness and more about fit. There is one final point that is often overlooked. A sense of unfairness, if handled well, can be a powerful teacher. It forces you to understand how decisions are actually made, not how you think they should be made. It sharpens your awareness of organisational dynamics. And it pushes you to build a career that is more resilient. In that sense, what you see as unfairness is not just an obstacle. It is information. And like all information, its value lies in how you use it.