Notes is a new space on Substack for us to share links, short posts, quotes, photos, and more. I plan to use it for things that don’t fit in the newsletter, like work-in-progress or quick updates or insights.

Go to Notes

How to join

Head to substack.com/notes or find the “Notes” tab in the Substack app. As a subscriber to RISEUP@work, you’ll automatically see my notes. Feel free to like, reply, or share them around!

You can also share notes of your own. I hope this becomes a space where every reader of RISEUP@work can share thoughts, ideas, and interesting quotes from the things we're reading on Substack and beyond.

Why Substack Notes

Fellow writers and readers are spending time in Notes for a variety of reasons.

Ted Gioia sees Notes as a forum for dialogue.

The idea behind Notes is simple. Millions of people now participate in Substack as writers and readers—but much of this is built on long articles and essays. We now have a forum for dialoguing and sharing shorter posts.

Chris Ryan is drawn to Substack as an alternative for legacy social media.

One of my main reasons for joining Substack was to wean myself off exploitative social media platforms. I’m hoping this is going to help move us along on that journey!

Sherman Alexie wants to create a kind and creative new space in Notes.

I’m going to focus on being positive, with my own thoughts and photos and by linking to songs, stories, poems from around the web and from other Substacks.

If you encounter any issues, you can always refer to the Notes FAQ for assistance. Looking forward to seeing you there!

Go to Notes

Let me start with a sentence I have heard, in one form or another, more times than I can count.

“I became a lawyer because I did not want to go to medical school.”

Wow, just read that and ruminate on it for a bit. A person spent years and a small fortune becoming something, and the real reason was not a pull toward the law. It was a push away from a path someone else had laid out. The decision was not made toward anything. It was made against something. And that person is now three promotions deep into a life they chose by elimination, quietly wondering why the success feels borrowed.

I am not telling you this to be clever. I am telling you because I think it is the most common and least examined fact about working life. Most people did not choose their work. They inherited it, absorbed it, or backed into it, and then spent years decorating the decision to make it look deliberate.

So here is the uncomfortable idea I want to hand you. You are probably not the author of your career. You are its narrator. You are reading out loud, with real conviction, a script that a committee wrote for you. And you never elected that committee.

The committee you never voted for

Think about who actually sits on it.

There is a parent, or two, whose idea of a respectable life you absorbed before you were old enough to question it. There is the culture you grew up in, quietly ranking some paths as impressive and others as embarrassing. There is a peer group whose choices set the invisible baseline for what a normal next step looks like. There is a version of you at nineteen who picked a major in a hurry, for reasons that made sense that week and have been running the show ever since. And there is fear, the quietest and most powerful member of all, the one that never argues. It just removes options from the table before you notice they were ever there.

None of these voices are evil. Most of them love you. That is exactly what makes them so hard to separate from your own voice. When a decision arrives wrapped in love and common sense, you do not interrogate it. You obey it, and then you call the obedience a choice.

Whose voice was really in the room the last time you made a big career decision?

Why a promotion does not fix this

Here is what almost nobody tells you. If the committee chose your direction, then climbing does not set you free. It just gives the committee a bigger office.

You get the title, the raise, the part of the building with better light, and somewhere around the second month you notice that the low hum of wrongness came up the stairs with you. Most people read that feeling as a sign they need the next rung. Often it is the opposite. It is a sign they have been climbing a ladder that was never theirs, only faster, and all that speed did was deliver them to the wrong place sooner.

This is why so many capable, successful people are quietly restless. It is not that the work is bad. It is that they never chose it, and no amount of winning at someone else’s game will ever feel like winning at your own.

The passion trap, which is not the escape either

The usual rescue at this point is the oldest advice in the building. Follow your passion. Do what you love. I want to be careful here, because that advice is half right and quietly dangerous.

It is dangerous for two reasons. The first is that most people honestly do not know what they love, so telling them to go find it sends them chasing a feeling that may not show up on schedule. The second reason is the one nobody says out loud. Even your passion might belong to the committee. You can inherit a love the same way you inherit a fear. The thing you believe you are burning for may simply be the thing you were praised for at fifteen, and you have been chasing that applause quietly ever since.

So the real question is not what do I love. That one is too easy to answer with a borrowed answer. The harder and better question is this. What here is actually mine.

The authorship audit

This is the part I want you to actually do, not just nod at. It takes about twenty minutes and a sheet of paper, and it will tell you more than any personality test you will ever sit.

Write down the three biggest decisions of your career so far. The degree, the first job, the big switch, the move, the thing you said yes to, the thing you turned down. Then, beside each one, do not write whether it was good or bad. Write the name of who actually made it.

Be honest, because this is for you and no one else. For each decision, ask yourself:

• Was this a move toward something I wanted, or away from something I feared?

• If a person cast this vote for me, name them. A parent, a mentor, a partner, a whole culture.

• If it was fear, name the fear plainly. Looking foolish. Disappointing someone. Falling behind the people I quietly measure myself against.

• Would the me of today, knowing what I now know, cast that same vote again?

When people do this with me, something shifts in the room. They stop seeing their career as a straight line they walked and start seeing it as a series of votes, most of which they never cast. That is not a comfortable realization. It is a freeing one, because a decision you can finally see is a decision you can finally change.

The story only makes sense looking backward

There is a comforting lie in career advice that says if you just plan hard enough, you can see the whole staircase from the bottom. You cannot. Nobody can. The shape of a career only ever makes sense in the rear-view mirror.

Most people miss what that actually means. If the meaning is only visible looking backward, then the most valuable career skill is not planning. It is reviewing. It is the willingness to look back honestly at the decisions you have already made, notice the pattern, name the voices, and let that awareness change the very next call. You cannot write the whole book in advance. You can absolutely pick up the pen for the next sentence.

That is what career progression really is. Not altitude. Authorship.

Taking the pen back

I am not going to tell you to quit anything. The dramatic exit is usually just the committee making one last decision for you, this time out of frustration. Taking the pen back is far quieter than that.

It looks like making the next decision, even a small one, in your own voice, on purpose. It looks like being able to say why you are doing what you are doing without borrowing a single reason from anyone else. It looks like catching an inherited fear in the act, as it reaches to clear an option off your table, and gently putting that option back. Awareness first. Only then improvement, because getting excellent at the wrong thing is just an efficient way to travel further from yourself.

This is the real reason we built RISEUP@work, so I will admit I have skin in it. Most career tools are designed to help you climb faster. We are far more interested in helping you find out whose ladder you are on before you give it another decade. Our diagnostics exist to surface the script, show you the committee, and hand you back the pen. The career is yours. It is time the decisions were too.

If you reread your own career as a story, whose handwriting is it in, and are you ready to write the next chapter yourself?

About the author: Dr. Deepak Bhootra is the Founder and CEO of RISEUP@work. He spent three decades as a senior leader inside Fortune 100 companies across four countries, earned a doctorate studying what really drives professional satisfaction and commitment, and has spent thirteen years as an ICF-certified coach across more than 1,500 coaching relationships. RISEUP@work turns that experience into a career progression platform, built for the growth that begins after you are hired. It is live and welcoming early adopters at riseupatwork.com.

Subscribe for more like this: https://riseupatwork.substack.com/subscribe

Years ago, long before any of us had an AI on our desk, a young analyst handed me the cleanest deck I had seen in months. Beautiful work. Every chart in place, every number squared off. He had pulled it together with help, a senior’s old model here, a borrowed template there. Nothing wrong with that.

Then I asked him one small question. Why this number, I said, and not the other one.

He froze. Not because he was slow. He was sharp. He froze because he had never actually decided anything. He had assembled. He had not chosen. Back then, that freeze raised eyebrows. We had a name for someone who could produce the work but not defend it, and it was not a kind one.

Here is the part that has kept me up.

That exact gap is everywhere today, except we have given it a far more flattering name. We call it AI-enhanced. AI-infused. The very behavior that once got you quietly flagged, handing over something polished you cannot actually explain, now gets you praised, because the tool doing the assembling is dazzling and new. See where I am going? The judgment gap is not new. AI did not invent it. It just gave it a respectable disguise and handed it to everyone at once.

I did not have the words for this back then. This week, someone gave them to me.

I read a piece written for engineers, of all people, and could not stop reading it as a piece about careers. That is how I know I found my next one. This is a Restack on Steroids, my habit of taking Substack writing that moves me and carrying it somewhere it was never aimed, almost always career progression. The source is ’s The Moat Was Never the Code. Her line, the one I cannot put down, is this.

The engineers who took AI the hardest are the ones who confused what they did with who they were. The moat was never the code. The moat was the judgment underneath it.

Read that again. Slowly. Because I think it explains the next ten years of your working life, and my young analyst was just the early warning.

When you quietly become the thing you produce

Here is what I have watched for thirty years.

Your surface skill, the deck, the code, the report, becomes what you are known for. It is what people see and pay you for. And so, without deciding to, you start to believe the skill is you. For a long time, that costs nothing. It even feels good.

Then a machine arrives that makes the deck in nine seconds, and your stomach drops, because if you are the deck, and the deck is now free, then what are you? That was my analyst, years earlier. He had made the artifact his identity and skipped the judgment underneath, the part where you actually decide. Nobody told him that was the job. They praised the charts.

AI did not delete judgment. It turned a spotlight on it.

This is the part of Aarti’s piece that made me put my coffee down. AI did not remove the judgment layer of work. It stripped away everything around it and left judgment standing there, exposed, as basically the whole job.

• Knowing which problems deserve solving.

• Knowing which shortcuts become tomorrow’s disaster.

• Knowing when to build and when to just buy.

• Knowing what “done” really means once it meets the real world.

None of that comes from a prompt, and the market has noticed. In the World Economic Forum’s Future of Jobs Report 2025, the most valued skill employers named was analytical thinking, above every specific tool.

Stay with me here, because this next one is the deepest.

The rarest thing is knowing which problem to solve

Back in the sixties, two psychologists, Getzels and Csikszentmihalyi, watched art students work and found that the ones who spent longer sitting in the discomfort of the problem before they began produced the more original work. The kicker: they were the ones still succeeding as artists years later (MIT Press Reader). Not the fastest solvers. The best problem finders. Now hold that next to the machine on your desk.

AI is a magnificent problem solver and a hopeless problem finder.

It will answer any question you bring it and never tell you that you brought the wrong one. Choosing the real problem is judgment. It is rare, and it stays yours entirely to build.

Why I am really writing this for someone just starting out

Aarti’s other half is about executives. A leader with twenty years behind her finds her judgment transfers almost straight across to AI decisions. The big spend, the read on a hire, the gut on a vendor. Only the label changed.

That is freeing and a little painful at once if you are twenty-three, because that transferable judgment is exactly what you do not have yet. The good news, and the reason I bothered writing this, is that it is buildable, on purpose. Anders Ericsson spent his career proving something plain. Expertise is earned the slow way, through effortful hours nobody enjoys while they are inside them (Ericsson, on deliberate practice). The hours you most want to skip are the ones where the judgment is made. And AI has politely offered to take those hours off your hands. Do not hand over all of them.

So what do you actually do with this:

• Chase the judgment, not the output. Let AI make the artifact, then spend the time it saved you on the real question: why this one, and is it right?

• Find the problem before you solve it. Ask whether it is even the right question. That instinct is rare, and it grows every time you use it.

• Do the hard hours AI offers to do for you. The struggle is not in the way of the work. It is where the judgment gets built.

• Stop letting the task be your identity. The task is rentable. The judgment underneath is the one thing nobody can automate out from under you.

The thing underneath

This is the whole reason RISEUP@work exists, so I will admit I have skin in it. Your career is the one asset you carry across every job and every new tool, and its value in an AI world is your judgment, not the surface skill the whole market can now generate. Whether you are building judgment or just producing output is exactly what our diagnostics read.

I still think about that analyst. He had talent. What he lacked was anyone telling him the deck was never the point. The deciding was. You get to learn that now, before the surface hardens into who you think you are. Build on the thing underneath. It was always the moat.

Thank you, Aarti, for a piece worth sitting with.

Read the piece

Aarti Anand’s original is worth your time. Here it is.

Aarti Anand

The moat was never the code!

I started writing software in 2000…

Read more

7 days ago · 2 likes · Aarti Anand

About the author: Dr. Deepak Bhootra is the Founder and CEO of RISEUP@work. He spent three decades as a senior leader inside Fortune 100 companies across four countries, earned a doctorate studying what really drives professional satisfaction and commitment, and has spent thirteen years as an ICF-certified coach across more than 1,500 coaching relationships. RISEUP@work turns that experience into a career progression platform, built for the growth that begins after you are hired. It is live and welcoming early adopters at riseupatwork.com.

Subscribe for more like this: https://riseupatwork.substack.com/subscribe

I spend my days worrying about people walking into the workforce right now. This week I sat in on a conversation that never once mentioned careers, and all I did was listen carefully for parallels to the work I do at RISEUP@work. There were more than I expected.

This is a Restack on Steroids, which is how I take someone else’s thinking and carry it somewhere new, here into career progression. The source is a Cash & Cache Live conversation between , , and (a McKinsey partner who advises banks and insurers on enterprise AI and writes HumAnIzing on Substack)

Neha highlighted a distinction that I’ve been reflecting on. She explained that enterprises often conflate adoption with absorption. Adoption refers to a manager monitoring how frequently you access a tool, whereas absorption occurs when you genuinely incorporate it into your routine, indicating a change in habit. In this stage, success is measured by what you produce, not just login frequency. “It’s not about adoption,” she emphasized. “It’s really about absorption, and absorption happens when habits change.”

She was talking about billion-dollar institutions. She could just as easily have been talking about a 23-year-old on their first team.

Here is the uncomfortable parallel. Your career is an enterprise, and it is making the very mistake Neha is warning her clients about. You have adopted AI. You can prompt your way to a polished deck, a clean analysis, a confident answer, on day one. What you have almost certainly not done yet is absorb it, and the gap between those two is where careers will quietly be won or lost over the next decade.

Absorption is the thing you cannot fake

Adoption you can perform. Absorption you have to earn, and the research is starting to show how easily the earning gets skipped. A Microsoft and Carnegie Mellon study of knowledge workers found that the more people trusted the tool, the less critical thinking they engaged in, and that handing routine work to a machine strips away the everyday reps that used to build judgment (Microsoft Research, CHI 2025). MIT put caps on people’s heads while they wrote with an AI assistant and recorded the weakest brain engagement of any group, which they named cognitive debt (MIT Media Lab). And a 2025 study in the journal Societies found the link between heavy AI use and weaker critical thinking ran deepest among the youngest people studied (Gerlich, Societies 2025). Put those next to Neha’s warning, and it sharpens into something personal. The people most able to adopt AI without absorbing it are the ones earliest in their careers.

Set the direction. Let AI change the flight.

Neha’s next idea was about strategy, and it travels straight into a career. A strategy that changes just because the underlying technology changed, she said, was never a strategy. The direction is London to New York. AI simply gives you a faster flight. Carve that line in the sand, and different routes and speeds are fine, but the destination holds.

Few early in their careers maintain this discipline. Your chosen direction reflects what you aim to master and the judgment you want to develop. AI accelerates your progress toward your goal but doesn’t determine its destination. The mistake is relying on the tool to choose your path, pursuing what seems easiest each quarter, resulting in rapid but aimless progress over a year. Define your core before leveraging AI to speed your advancement.

The mental exercise you skip

Her headline, the one she repeated, was that we overestimate what AI does in twelve months and underestimate what it does in ten years. Cloud took fifteen years to absorb, she reminded them, and plenty of enterprises still have not finished. Your judgment compounds on that same slow curve.

The reps you skip this year do not show up as a bad review. They show up in Year +10 as an absence, the expertise you were supposed to have built and did not. This is not a hunch. Anders Ericsson spent a career showing that expert performance is built through deliberate practice, the effortful reps most people would rather avoid (Ericsson, on deliberate practice). AI is extraordinarily good at removing exactly those reps. Convenient today. Expensive later, with interest.

Context is the moat, so build yours on purpose

The most strategic thing Neha said was about moats, using TSMC as an example. What makes the company defensible is not the factory; it is the context around it, the supply chain, and the accumulated know-how that nobody can quickly copy. If data can be shared and the tools are available to everyone, she asked, what is actually left to protect? Context.

The same is true of you. Your moat is never the output AI can generate for anyone with a login. It is the context only you accumulate: how your clients actually behave, why a number feels wrong before you can prove it, what happened the last three times someone tried this. She told her clients to keep an A-team in the loop with every vendor and to decide at each step what is shareable and what is not. Do that with yourself. Outsource the typing and gatekeep the thinking, because the thinking is the only part that stays yours.

Nobody has defined “high-value work”

Her most honest moment was an admission. She pointed out that while everyone claims AI will free humans to focus on high-value tasks, nobody clearly defines what those tasks are. Although judgments on taste and value are often discussed, an average person with an average IQ isn’t expected to have exceptional judgment, so what does that advice actually mean for them? She correctly notes that the definition is vague, and for someone just starting their career, this ambiguity becomes their entire goal. Instead of waiting for a job description, you define your role and judgment before anyone can specify it. Those who intentionally shape it are the ones who stop being average. Neha also cautioned companies against telling employees to automate themselves out of jobs, because no one willingly destroys their own value. The personal version of this risk may be even quieter but more dangerous: Don’t let AI automate away the crucial struggles that shape and build you.

She is right that it is undefined, and for someone early in their career, that undefined space is the entire assignment. You do not wait for a job description for judgment. You build it before anyone can write one, and the people who build it deliberately are precisely the ones who stop being average. Neha also warned companies never to tell staff to automate themselves out of a job, because no one destroys their own value on command. The individual version is quieter and more dangerous. Do not let AI automate away the formative struggle that was going to build you.

Absorb, do not just adopt

So, what does building absorption, rather than adoption, look like this year? Three habits carry most of it:

• Use AI to execute, and keep the thinking for yourself. A deliverable you cannot defend is adoption wearing absorption’s clothes.

• Do the hard reps AI offers to skip. Especially the messy first steps of any process, because those are the ones you have to be able to trace when something breaks.

• Build context on purpose. Stay in the room and in the hard conversation long enough to accumulate the one asset that cannot be handed to anyone else.

This is the whole reason RISEUP@work exists. Your career is the one asset you carry across every job, every boss, and every tool cycle, and its value in an AI world is your absorbed judgment, not your ability to produce output the whole world can now produce. If you want an honest read on whether you are absorbing AI or merely adopting it, our short RISEUP AI-usage Diagnostic is built for exactly that, at maven.riseupatwork.com/rad.

Neha’s clients will spend the next decade learning that a tool you have installed is not a capability you have absorbed. You get to learn it now, at the very start, while the habit is still forming and the cost of fixing it is close to nothing. Adopt the tool. Absorb the judgment. Only one of them is your career.

Thank you, Neha, for a conversation worth sitting with.

Watch the full conversation

The whole discussion is worth your time. Here it is.

Cash & Cache

Your Enterprise Adopted AI. It Hasn’t Absorbed It Yet.

Neha Kabra has spent 18 years inside the rooms where AI deployment decisions get made. Nine years at McKinsey, before that at Standard Chartered as a corporate banker. She’s a partner in the London office working with banks, insurers, and private equity firms. On Substack, she writes…

Listen now

2 months ago · 27 likes · 9 comments · Raghav Mehra, Neha Kabra, and Ashwin Francis

About the author: Dr. Deepak Bhootra is the Founder and CEO of RISEUP@work. He spent three decades as a senior leader within Fortune 100 companies across four countries, earned a doctorate studying what truly drives professional satisfaction and commitment, and has spent 13 years as an ICF-certified coach in more than 1,500 coaching relationships. RISEUP@work turns that experience into a career progression platform, built for the growth that begins after you are hired. It is live and welcoming early adopters at riseupatwork.com.

Subscribe for more like this: https://riseupatwork.substack.com/subscribe

I once worked with a salesperson who could explain away his misses better than anyone I have ever met. His constant stream of excuses put the old “my dog ate my homework” to shame.

The leads were feeble, he’d tell me, the product lagged the competition, the territory was picked clean. The comp plan punished effort, marketing gave him nothing, the best accounts were always reserved for the favorites. Every quarter brought a fresh reason, always something external, delivered with a weary sigh, as if the universe itself had conspired to make him fall short one more time.

I came to think of it as a martyr’s cloak.

Woe is me. Why me.

The cloak is warm, and it is comfortable, and that is exactly the trap, because as long as it sits on your shoulders nothing is ever yours to fix. It also quietly guarantees you never will. He did not, and after enough sighing quarters he left for a competitor he was certain would finally give him a fair shot.

You already know how this ends. New logo, new leads, new territory, and by the second quarter, the same number and the same miss. He had carried the one thing actually holding him back straight through the front door of the new company. It was never in the CRM. It was in him, and it travels light.

I tell this through a salesperson because a quota drags the pattern into the light. There is a number on the wall, and you either hit it or you did not, so the excuse has nowhere to hide. But this was never really a sales problem. It is the engineer whose deadlines always slip because of another team, the manager whose best people always quit for reasons that are somehow never her, the founder whose market is forever the villain and never the product. Chronic blame may be the most common affliction in professional life, and its cruelest trick is that the people who have it worst are the most certain they do not have it at all.

The bias that makes the cloak feel like truth

Here is why blame can feel so much like clarity from the inside. Psychologists have a name for it: the self-serving bias, our well-documented habit of filing our wins under talent and our losses under circumstance (Simply Psychology). Land the big deal, and it was your instinct. Miss the quarter, and it was the leads. The bias is not out to hurt you. It is guarding your ego, and that is precisely what makes it so dangerous, because a defense mechanism doing its job feels identical to an honest reading of the facts.

Let that reflex run unchecked across a career, and it hardens into something researchers can actually measure. People with an external locus of control, who read their outcomes as the work of luck, circumstance, and other people, consistently report lower job satisfaction, weaker performance, and higher burnout than those with an internal locus, who believe their own actions move the needle. A large meta-analysis of the workplace evidence found exactly that pattern (Ng, Sorensen and Eby, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2006). My salesperson was external locus in full bloom. Every lever that might have changed his results sat, in his telling, in somebody else’s hand.

The self-awareness he did not have

Under all that blame sat a blind spot he could not see around, and he is far from alone in that. The researcher Tasha Eurich found that about ninety-five percent of us believe we are self-aware, while only ten to fifteen percent genuinely are (Forbes, on Eurich’s research). He could hand you a forensic teardown of the product’s every flaw. He could not tell you that his discovery calls skated the surface, that he heard what he wanted to hear on every deal, that he ducked the hard qualifying questions because he did not want the answers, and that his technique had not meaningfully changed in three years. The problem was always out there, in plain view. It was never in here, where he would not look.

That was the real cost, because the fix had been sitting in front of him the whole time. The research on salespeople keeps pointing to coachability, the willingness to seek feedback, trust a coach, and actually change, as a genuine engine of performance. One study of outside salespeople found that a manager’s leadership lifted results almost entirely through the salesperson’s coachability, which is to say the coaching only worked on the people open enough to be coached (Shannahan, Shannahan and Bush, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 2013). He was not one of them. Feedback hit the cloak and slid straight off. Every suggestion I offered came back with a reason it could not possibly work in his particular, uniquely unlucky situation.

Telling a real problem from a convenient one

None of this means the organization is never at fault. Sometimes the leads really are thin, and the plan really is broken, and part of genuine self-awareness is telling an honest structural problem apart from a personal one. But there is a tell, and it is unforgiving. When the same result follows you from one company to the next, the common denominator stopped being the company a while ago. It is you. That is not an accusation; it is the best news on offer, because you cannot rewrite a comp plan from your desk, but you can absolutely rebuild your discovery calls, your questions, your habits, and your appetite for a hard truth.

The questions that take the cloak off

Taking it off starts with the questions a blamer dodges for years. Sit with them honestly, and write the answers down, because the cloak is always thinner on paper than it is in your head. I run people through six.

• The repetition test. Am I carrying the same result from one company to the next, and if I am, what does that honestly tell me about the real common denominator?

• The removal test. If the thing I keep blaming were fixed tomorrow, what part of my own work would I suddenly have to face?

• The echo test. What feedback have I now heard more than once, from more than one person, and quietly waved away each time?

• The process test. If I name the single weakest part of my actual process, when did I last change it on purpose rather than wait for it to fix itself?

• The symmetry test. When a deal goes well, I credit my own skill, so when one dies, am I willing to look at that same skill with the same honesty?

• The fear test. What am I afraid I would find if I stopped blaming and started looking?

These questions sting, and the sting is the point. They are exactly what our diagnostics at RISEUP are built to surface, not to tell you the leads were fine, or the plan was fair, but to show you the part of the pattern with your own fingerprints on it, which is the only part you can actually change.

The one variable that travels

At RISEUP@work, we keep arriving at the same stubborn idea. Your career is the one asset you carry across every job, and the habits you refuse to examine are stowed in the very same suitcase.

Change the company, and you change the scenery. Change yourself, and you change the results, in this job, and the next one, and the one after that.

My old colleague, last I heard, is still explaining his numbers. Still certain the next org will be the fair one. Still warm inside the cloak. The tragedy was never that he kept missing. It is that the one thing he truly needed was the one thing he would not pick up: a mirror, and the nerve to believe what it showed him.

RISEUP@work is live and welcoming early adopters at riseupatwork.com. Subscribe for more like this: https://riseupatwork.substack.com/subscribe

There was a line from my conversation with Paula Quinsee that stayed with me longer than I expected.

“Your people are your business.”

It is the kind of sentence that sounds obvious until you place it next to how many organizations actually operate. We talk about productivity, performance, revenue, retention, engagement, utilization, and results. We build dashboards to measure what people produce, but we often underinvest in the relationships that make the production possible.

That gap becomes expensive.

You can have talented people and still have a weak team. You can have meetings all day and still have very little honest communication. You can have performance reviews and still have poor feedback. You can tell people to collaborate and still create a culture where they protect themselves from one another.

That is why I wanted Paula on RISEUP@work. As CEO of Engaged Humans and author of Embracing Conflict, she works in the space many leaders say matters but do not always practice well: relationship intelligence, conflict, trust, psychological safety, accountability, and well-being.

We will embed the full episode below because this is one of those conversations that deserves to be heard in context. But as I sat with it afterward, three themes felt especially important.

Paula Quinsee | LinkedIn

1. Relationship Intelligence Starts With the Person You Bring Into the Room

Paula’s phrase relationship intelligence is useful because it does not let us hide behind vague language like “soft skills.” There is nothing soft about a manager who can calm a tense room, give feedback without crushing someone, notice when a team member is shutting down, or hold a standard without turning the conversation into a threat.

Relationship intelligence begins with self-awareness. That sounds simple, but most difficult workplace moments move faster than our self-awareness does. Someone questions our decision, and we feel challenged. Someone misses a deadline, and we feel disrespected. Someone gives feedback, and we hear criticism even if they intended help. Before we know it, we are not responding to the situation. We are responding to the story we have built around it.

Paula connected this back to how people are formed. We are born into relationship, but few of us are deliberately taught how to be in relationship. We learn from parents, caregivers, school, culture, friendships, romantic relationships, early managers, and old disappointments. By the time we arrive at work, we have already built a playbook for conflict, trust, defensiveness, listening, silence, and repair.

The problem is that many of us do not know we are carrying that playbook.

This is where emotional intelligence research has been pointing for years. Daniel Goleman helped popularize emotional intelligence as a leadership capability, especially the importance of self-awareness, self-regulation, empathy, motivation, and social skill in effective leadership. The language may have become familiar, but the practice is still demanding. It is one thing to believe in self-awareness. It is another thing to notice your own reaction while your ego is trying to take the microphone.

I kept thinking about early-career professionals during this part of the conversation. We teach them how to prepare resumes, answer interview questions, and look confident in the hiring process. Then they enter the workplace and discover a much harder curriculum: how to read a room, how to ask for clarity, how to interpret silence, how to receive feedback, how to disagree without becoming defensive, and how to recover after a difficult conversation.

That is where RISEUP@work comes in for me. Career growth is not only about getting the opportunity. It is about developing the internal and relational capacity to handle the opportunity once you have it.

If you do not understand yourself under pressure, you will keep blaming the room for reactions you brought into it.

2. Conflict Is Not the Enemy. Avoidance Usually Does More Damage.

Paula said something that should be written into every leadership development program:

Conflict is growth trying to happen.

I like that line because it does not romanticize conflict. It does not pretend conflict is pleasant. Most people do not enjoy hard conversations. There is a reason we delay them, soften them, intellectualize them, or turn them into jokes until the issue becomes too large to ignore.

But conflict often carries information we need.

It may be telling us that expectations were unclear. It may be exposing a broken process, an unspoken resentment, a mismatch in values, or a decision that needed more challenge before the team rushed ahead. It may be showing a leader that the quiet person in the room is not disengaged, but tired of being interrupted. It may be showing an employee that feedback is not a personal attack, but an invitation to grow.

The trouble begins when the conflict becomes personal before the issue becomes clear.

Paula’s guidance was practical: pause, notice your own reactivity, separate the person from the problem, listen to understand, name the situation, name the impact, and agree on the next step. I know that sounds straightforward. In real workplace life, it is anything but.

I have made enough mistakes here to know. I can be direct. Sometimes too direct. Earlier in my leadership journey, I could move so quickly toward the answer that I left people behind in the conversation. I would hear the first part of a sentence and assume I knew the rest. One person who reported to me once helped me see the cost of that. He told me, in effect, that even if his idea would not work, he still needed to finish saying it. Otherwise, the next time I was about to make a mistake, he might not speak.

That landed.

It is a strange thing to realize that your speed can make other people less honest. Not because they do not care, but because they have learned the conversation is already over before they enter it.

That is why language matters so much. In the episode, we talked about the difference between asking, “Why did you do it this way?” and saying, “Help me understand how you got to this outcome.” The first may be factually reasonable, but it can land like an accusation. The second still asks for accountability, but it opens a better doorway.

Amy Edmondson’s research on psychological safety gives us a useful foundation here. Her work defined psychological safety as a shared belief that a team is safe for interpersonal risk-taking and connected it to learning behavior in teams. Google’s Project Aristotle later helped bring the same idea into mainstream business language by identifying psychological safety as a key dynamic in effective teams.

The point is not that every conversation should be gentle. The point is that truth needs somewhere to go. When teams cannot surface disagreement safely, the truth does not disappear. It goes underground. It becomes side conversations, resentment, delay, passive compliance, and mistakes that could have been prevented earlier.

RISEUP@work is not about creating tension-free workplaces. That would be dishonest. Work has pressure. People disagree. Leaders must make decisions. Teams will disappoint each other. The real work is learning how to turn friction into clarity before it turns into damage.

3. Psychological Safety, Accountability, and Well-Being Belong in the Same Conversation

One of the reasons I appreciated Paula’s perspective is that she did not present psychological safety as a workplace comfort blanket.

That matters because the term is often misunderstood. Some people hear psychological safety and imagine a culture where no one is challenged, everyone must agree, and difficult feedback is avoided. That is not what Paula was describing. She was talking about an environment where people can raise issues, ask questions, admit mistakes, challenge thinking, and hold each other accountable without humiliation or fear.

That distinction is important.

A psychologically safe workplace still has standards. It still has deadlines. It still requires performance. It still has consequences. What changes is the way human beings are treated while the work is being done.

Paula gave a line that captures the balance beautifully: empathy without accountability becomes avoidance, and accountability without empathy becomes fear.

I have seen both. The leader who is so careful not to upset anyone that the real issue never gets named. And the leader who is so focused on performance that the person disappears behind the metric. One culture becomes vague. The other becomes unsafe. Neither creates the kind of workplace where people can do their best work for very long.

This is also why Paula’s point about mental well-being matters. She said, plainly, that mental health is health. It should not require a campaign for us to understand that a person’s mental and emotional state affects focus, judgment, capacity, communication, and relationships. The World Health Organization’s guidance on mental health at work emphasizes organizational interventions, manager training, worker training, and support systems because mental health at work is shaped not only by the individual, but also by the conditions around them.

Leaders are not therapists, and they should not pretend to be. But they are close enough to notice patterns. The person who used to participate stops contributing. The camera stays off. The work becomes inconsistent. The tone changes. The energy drops. The old response might have been to push harder, ask for the recovery plan, and move straight to the gap. Sometimes that is necessary, but it should not be the only move.

A better leader notices the person before diagnosing the performance. That does not remove accountability. It makes accountability more accurate.

Paula described a flourishing workplace as one where people still face pressure, challenge, and stress, but have enough trust, support, meaning, and accountability to meet that pressure without losing themselves in the process. That definition sits very close to the heart of RISEUP@work.

We are not anti-ambition. We are not anti-performance. We are not pretending work will always feel balanced or easy. We are asking whether people can grow, deliver, disagree, recover, and remain human while doing the work.

That question matters because a business can keep functioning for a while even when the human system is unhealthy. The dashboard may still look acceptable. The quarter may still close. The project may still ship. But the cost eventually appears in the quality of conversations, the level of trust, the willingness to speak up, the speed of repair, the energy people bring to the work, and the decision talented people make when they quietly stop believing the environment is good for them.

The RISEUP@work Takeaway

This conversation with Paula Quinsee belongs at the center of what we are building with RISEUP@work.

Too much career advice focuses only on external movement: get the job, win the promotion, build the brand, negotiate the salary, climb the ladder. Those things matter, but they are incomplete if the person climbing becomes disconnected, reactive, burned out, or unable to build healthy relationships along the way.

Relationship intelligence gives us the first move: understand the human being you are bringing into the work. Conflict gives us the second: do not avoid the truth simply because it arrives with tension. Psychological safety gives us the third: build conditions where people can speak honestly, learn quickly, and still be held to meaningful standards.

That is the practice.

A way of speaking. A way of listening. A way of repairing. A way of leading with enough humanity that performance does not require people to disappear inside the machine.

Paula’s line still carries the episode for me. Your people are your business.

If we forget that, the business may run for a while, but it will run on borrowed trust. And borrowed trust always comes due.

Join us at: http://riseupatwork

Over the past few weeks, nearly two hundred people joined multiple sessions of a free lesson we ran on Maven, called Using AI Without Losing Your Edge at Work. We also asked each of them to complete a short questionnaire on how they actually use AI from day to day. Their answers, and one afternoon in a review room, are why I am writing this.

I have spent most of my working life in and around sales. Territory reviews, pipeline reviews, quota fights, the lot. I have sat in that chair more times than I can count, so understand that I am not easily surprised in it anymore.

Then a few weeks ago, I was.

We asked two sales managers to analyze their territory and walk us through it. One was running a territory for the first time. The other was on his second. Same brief, same data, same tools. And both of them, like almost everyone now, leaned on AI to build the analysis.

The decks came back. Both were good. Genuinely good. Clean, well structured, confident, full of the right numbers and the right language. On the slides, you could not tell the two apart. For a few minutes we thought we had two strong managers on our hands.

Then we started asking questions.

• How did you size the territory, and what drove that number?

• How does this year’s performance compare to last year, and why?

• Are there any overhang or shadow commitments sitting under the surface that we should know about before we trust these figures?

Ordinary questions. The ones any sales leader asks in their sleep.

Here is the part worth sitting with. The answers came. It was not that the first-time manager froze or had nothing to say. He answered. But the answers arrived thin. They sat right on the surface, and the moment we pushed one layer past what the AI had assembled, there was nothing underneath to stand on.

The second-time manager was different. Not slicker. Deeper. He had wrestled with his own numbers. He knew exactly why the territory was sized the way it was, where last year’s shortfall really came from, which commitments were soft and which were real. The AI had helped him build faster. The judgment underneath it was his, and he could defend it from any direction we came at him.

Same tools. One had used AI to do the work. The other had used it to skip the work. On the page, that gap was invisible. In the room, it was the entire story.

The artifact stopped being the proof

Here is what shifted for me that afternoon. For my whole career, a polished deliverable was proof of something. A tight territory analysis meant a capable person had done the grind, because the grind was the only way to produce it. That link is now broken. When anyone can generate an expert-looking artifact in minutes, the artifact tells you almost nothing about the person who handed it in.

So the test moved. From what you can produce to what you can defend. From the deck to the thinking behind it. And thinking does not fall out of a prompt. It comes from having done the hard reasoning yourself, enough times, that you can hold your ground when someone who knows the field starts pulling at it.

Which leaves an uncomfortable question hanging over that first-time manager, and over a whole generation walking into work right now. If you outsource the thinking from the very start, what happens to the judgment that was supposed to grow there.

The research is starting to say it out loud

For a while I treated this as a hunch from the review room. The research is beginning to say it is more than that.

Microsoft and Carnegie Mellon surveyed knowledge workers on how generative AI shapes their thinking. The more people trusted the tool, the less critical thinking they did. They named the trap precisely. Hand the routine work to a machine and you also strip away the everyday reps that used to build judgment, leaving people, in their words, atrophied and unprepared when the hard exceptions finally arrive (Microsoft Research, CHI 2025).

MIT went and measured it. They put EEG caps on people writing essays. The ones leaning on an AI assistant showed the weakest brain engagement of any group, ran up what the researchers called cognitive debt, and often could not even quote back what they had written minutes earlier (MIT Media Lab preprint). The work was there. The person had barely shown up.

And a 2025 study in the journal Societies found a real negative link between heavy AI use and critical thinking, driven by offloading the mental load onto the tool. The effect was strongest among the youngest people in the study (Gerlich, Societies 2025).

Put those three next to my two sales managers and the pattern is hard to unsee. The people most exposed to losing their judgment are the ones earliest in their careers, because they are handing away the thinking before they ever built it.

Why this hits the early years hardest

Judgment is not something you are taught. You earn it. And you earn it through exactly the moments AI now lets you skip.

You build it by sitting with a number that does not add up until it finally does. By taking a position on your territory, getting challenged on it, and either defending it or changing your mind. By getting a call wrong and feeling why it was wrong. By the uncomfortable review where a leader asks the one question you cannot answer, and you walk out sharper than you walked in. That friction is not in the way of the work. It is the work. It is where intuition quietly gets made.

When someone early in their career uses AI to route around all of that, the polished output hides the fact that none of the forming happened. And because it looks fine, nobody flags it. It does not show up as a bad review. It shows up years later, as a capable-looking manager who cannot defend their own plan, cannot feel when a number is off, and cannot handle the exception the machine was never trained for. The convenience was real. The bill just arrives late, with interest.

Using AI without losing your edge

None of this is a case against AI. Used well it is a serious multiplier, and refusing it is its own career mistake. The line is easy to say and hard to hold. Use AI to execute your work. Do not use it to do your thinking.

Let it draft, and make yourself the editor, because editing forces you to have a view. Let it speed up the parts you already understand. Do the hard thinking yourself on the parts you do not, because that struggle is the entire point. Stay in the loop on anything that matters, since you cannot challenge an answer in a field you never learned. And early on especially, stop dodging the hard conversations. Walk toward them. They are the reps that build the one thing AI cannot hand you.

This is exactly why we built our Maven lesson, Using AI Without Losing Your Edge at Work. The professionals who will stand out over the next few years are not the ones who produce the most. They are the ones who can still think, and defend it, when the machine goes quiet.

If you want an honest read on where your own habits sit, from healthy leverage to quiet over-reliance, take the RISEUP AI-usage Diagnostic, the same short questionnaire our Maven participants used. You can find it at maven.riseupatwork.com/rad, and a few minutes will show you your own pattern clearly.

Your career is the one asset you carry across every job, and in an AI world its value is your judgment. The output is free now. The thinking behind it is the whole game, and it is still, thankfully, yours to build.

That is the reason RISEUP@work exists, and we have just launched. We are looking for early adopters, the people who would rather sharpen their judgment than quietly hand it away. Come and join us at riseupatwork.com, and as one of the first through the door, your first year of the Builder tier is on us.

Subscribe for more like this: https://riseupatwork.substack.com/subscribe

That is the whole reason RISEUP@work exists, and we have just launched. We are looking for early adopters, the people who would rather sharpen their judgment than quietly outsource it. Come and join us at https://riseupatwork.com, and as one of the first through the door, your first year of the Builder tier is on us.

The most dangerous career move is the one everyone congratulates you for.

You get the promotion. The title, the raise, the flood of LinkedIn likes. Then, a few months in, you are quietly struggling in a job that looks nothing like the one you were good at. Nobody warned you. The applause drowned out the warning.

In 1969, Laurence Peter and Raymond Hull published The Peter Principle, a book proposing a half-serious theory of how organizations break down. The claim was simple and uncomfortable. In any hierarchy, people rise to their level of incompetence.

You are good at your job, so you get promoted. You are good at the next one, so you rise again. This continues until you reach a role you are not good at. And there you stop. You stall at the exact level where you can no longer perform, and that is where you tend to stay.

It was written as satire. The uncomfortable part is how accurate it turned out to be.

The research caught up with the joke

For decades, this was a clever idea with no hard proof. Then economists tested it.

In a 2019 study in the Quarterly Journal of Economics, Alan Benson, Danielle Li, and Kelly Shue examined the Peter Principle using detailed performance data on sales workers. They tracked almost 40,000 salespeople across 131 firms, and found that companies systematically promote their best sellers, even though those same people tend to become worse managers. A worker who sold twice as much as a peer was about 15 percent more likely to be promoted. And the traits that actually predicted good management were sitting in the data, ignored, while raw sales numbers did the deciding.

None of this means you are the problem. The promotion system produces the stall on its own. You get rewarded for one skill, then are moved into a job that needs a different one.

Why it feels like a slow boil

There is an old story about a frog in a pot. Drop it into boiling water, and it leaps out. Raise the heat slowly, and it never notices until it is too late. Biology is a myth. The career version is very real.

The Peter Principle rarely arrives as a single bad day. It arrives one degree at a time. A little more of your week goes to managing. A little less goes to the work that made you great. Each shift is small enough to shrug off. Then, one quarter, you look up, and the job has become something you were never built for, and you have been simmering in it for a year.

The trap is the gradualness. Slow change hides from you until the damage is already done.

How to stay alert: scan before you simmer

Strong operators do something most people never learn. They scan their environment on purpose, before the water gets hot. Here is what that looks like in practice.

Name the real job, not the title. Before you chase the next role, write down the actual behaviors that make someone great at it. Handling conflict. Reading a profit and loss statement. Growing people through work you could do faster yourself. Those behaviors are the job you are actually signing up for.

Run a quarterly scan. Every three months, ask three questions. What is changing in my industry? What part of my work is getting automated or commoditized? Where is the value moving next? This single habit is what keeps you from boiling.

Study someone one rung up. Find a person doing the job you are aiming for. Watch how they really spend their day. Most of it will surprise you.

Build the skill in your current seat. Volunteer for the slice of the higher job you can practice now, where the stakes are low, and nobody is grading you while you learn.

Watch your leading indicators. Do not wait for a bad review to tell you the fit is slipping. Notice the earlier signals. Does your core strength still apply? Are you energized or drained by the new parts of the work? Those signals rise long before the results do.

This matters most in what we call the Foundation Stage, the decade after your first few years of work, when the jump from doing the work to leading it usually happens. That seam is where strong careers quietly stall.

The career is the asset

This is exactly what we built RISEUP@work to do. We pair a career diagnostic with guidance on how to act on it. The diagnostic reads the temperature of your career before you can feel the heat, and shows you where a law like the Peter Principle is already at work. The guidance turns that read into your next move.

The career is the asset. The title is rented. The value you build underneath it is the only thing you truly own.

We are opening RISEUP@work to early adopters now and launching this week. Come get in early and help shape it at www.riseupatwork.com.

You do not have to be the frog. You just have to keep an eye on the water.

The Benson, Li and Shue study: https://academic.oup.com/qje/article/134/4/2085/5550760 Plain-language summary: https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/promotions-and-peter-principle

RISEUP@work is a career progression platform. It pairs a career diagnostic with the guidance to act on it, so you can see the forces shaping your career and make your move before they cost you. The career is the asset. The role is rented.

Sign up as an early adopter at https://www.riseupatwork.com.

If you want to back what we are building, you can support us at https://wefunder.com/riseupatwork.

You once talked yourself out of a bigger career move.

Not because anyone told you to. Nobody criticized you. But you had spent time around people for whom that move was not normal, and it slowly stopped feeling normal to you, too. The promotion you might have chased, the pivot you might have made, quietly shrank into something more sensible. You did not lower your ambition. The room lowered it for you.

That is not a mood. It is a documented effect, and for anyone building a career, it is one of the most important forces nobody names.

Your trajectory travels through your network

Nicholas Christakis and James Fowler tracked the social ties of thousands of people over decades. Their finding, three degrees of influence, is that many human states do not stay in one person. They ripple out to friends, to friends of friends, and one step further, before fading (Three Degrees of Influence).

Over 32 years, a person’s chance of becoming obese rose about 57 percent if a friend became obese (New England Journal of Medicine). The same held for smoking, which stopped in whole clusters, and for happiness.

If body weight and contentment travel through a network like weather, so does your sense of what a normal career looks like. The salary you think is reachable, the role you think is above you, and the risk you think is sensible. Much of that is not yours. It is the average of the people around you.

Ambition is a career input you can catch

Psychologists call it goal contagion. In experiments by Henk Aarts and colleagues, people who watched someone pursue a goal went on to pursue that same goal themselves, in a different setting, without being asked and often without knowing why (Goal Contagion).

For a career, that is the whole game. Spend your days among people who treat growth, ownership, and reinvention as normal, and those become your defaults. Spend them among people who are coasting, and you inherit the ceiling without agreeing to it. Your professional ambition is less a fixed trait than a setting that your environment keeps adjusting.

The catch that changes who you learn from

The same research found a filter, and it is the part most people miss. When people watched someone pursue a goal through means they found unacceptable, they did not catch the goal. They rejected it.

This matters enormously for a career. You do not absorb drive from just anyone who is successful. You absorb it from people whose methods you respect. Being near someone who wins by cutting corners does not raise your ambition. It quietly teaches you that getting ahead and keeping your integrity are opposites, which is its own kind of shrinking. So the question is not who around you is successful. It is who is successful in a way you would be willing to become.

Why are we built to sync

None of this is weakness. It is wiring. Roy Baumeister and Mark Leary established belonging as a fundamental human motivation, a drive as basic as hunger, shaped by the long stretch of our history when staying in the group meant surviving (The Need to Belong). We are built to read the group and move toward it. That is why a workplace or a peer set shapes your career, whether you invite it or not.

So the smart move is not to resist the pull. It is to point it at a room worth joining.

A career is learned inside a community

Jean Lave and Etienne Wenger described how people actually learn a profession, through what they called communities of practice. You do not become good at your work mainly by absorbing information. You become good by joining a community of people who already are, starting at the edge and moving toward the center as you take on their standards, their language, and their sense of what good looks like (communities of practice).

For anyone in the first decade of work, that is decisive. Your professional identity does not form in your head alone. It takes the shape of the group you join. Early on, the community around you quietly decides not just how ambitious you are, but what kind of professional you become.

Belonging is not soft. It builds careers.

Gregory Walton and Geoffrey Cohen ran a now-famous experiment. First-year university students received a single hour-long intervention built to shift one belief: that early struggle is normal and shared, not a sign that you do not belong. That one hour raised Black students’ grades over the next three years, halved the racial achievement gap, and improved their well-being (Science).

The most important part came later. Seven to eleven years on, those students reported greater life and career satisfaction as adults, and the effect ran largely through one thing: the stronger mentorship relationships they had gone on to build. Belonging, established early, sent people toward mentors, and the mentors changed their careers.

So belonging is not a warm feeling on top of the work. It is a career input. It moves outcomes years later, and it works through the relationships you form inside a community.

Why we built RISEUP@work around community

This is where the science kept landing, and it is why the community sits at the core of what we are building.

If your career ambition is contagious, if you catch it only from people whose methods you respect, if belonging is a basic human drive, if a profession is learned by joining a community rather than studying alone, and if belonging early sends you toward the mentors who change your career, then the highest-leverage career move is not another course. It is to place yourself, deliberately, inside a community of people whose ambition and standards you would be proud to catch.

That is what RISEUP@work is for. Not a library of tips, and not a feed to scroll. A chosen community for people in the first decade of their careers, built so the ambition in the room is worth absorbing, so belonging is designed in rather than left to luck, and so mentorship is close enough to reach. Your career is the asset you carry with you from every job. The community you build it in is what compounds it.

The part that is yours

There is one thing the community cannot do for you. To choose the right room, you have to know what you value, so you can tell an ambition worth catching from a method you should walk away from. That clarity is the piece you bring. The community supplies the pull. You supply the direction.

Your career will be shaped by the people around you. That is not a flaw. It is how humans are built. The only real question is whether you chose the room or whether you just happened to be standing in it.

Dr. Deepak Bhootra is the founder of RISEUP@work, a career community for the first decade of work. He is the author of four books and has coached professionals across four countries. RISEUP@work is currently welcoming community investors on Wefunder at wefunder.com/riseupatwork.

Every promotion, every new manager, every job change is a small acquisition. Someone with authority decides to take you on, fit you into their world, and bet that you are worth more inside their structure than outside it. We never use that language, so we miss the parallel, and we treat a career move as a finish line when it is really the start of an integration. And integrations, as any dealmaker knows, are where value is either created or quietly destroyed.

The spark for this was a piece that, on its surface, had nothing to do with careers. In What Eleven US Acquirers Taught Me About Post-Acquisition Governance, interviewed eleven acquisition entrepreneurs about what actually happens after they buy a company. It is a study of business governance written for dealmakers, and yet it reads to me like an operating manual for a career, a reminder that the most useful ideas often come from the field that seems least related to your own. When you read only inside your own lane, you tend to collect confirmation, but when you read across it, you find the insight nobody in your field went looking for.

Here is the reframe. In every transition, you play two roles at once. You are the company being bought, and you are the operator expected to run it once the deal closes. Kelm’s four findings map onto that almost perfectly.

Finding 1: There is no template, so stop waiting for one

The acquirers threw out the standard corporate playbook, and there was no single model. The winning principle was that governance is adaptive rather than standardized. Most professionals are still waiting for the template, the clean ladder someone promised would work if they just kept their heads down. That template is gone. The people who thrive govern their careers the way a founder governs a business they just bought, deciding what this specific situation needs rather than following an org chart that assumes everyone climbs the same way. You are not an employee waiting to be arranged. You are the operator, and you set the structure.

Finding 2: Trust is what earns you autonomy

The finding that surprised even the acquirers was that formal control mattered far less than trust, and they managed risk through cultural alignment and relationships rather than contracts and oversight. Careers work the same way, and it is easy to get it backward. Stepping into a new role, your instinct is to lean on your title and your credentials to establish authority, but autonomy is not granted by the offer letter. It is earned in the first months, and the person who builds real relationships and delivers on small promises is handed the real decisions long before the one waving a job description. Control is what you are given. Trust is what you build, and it is worth far more.

Finding 3: The honest timeline is one to two years

Delegation in these deals did not happen at closing. It unfolded in phases, with the previous owner staying involved through a gradual handover over twelve to twenty-four months. Sit with that against a culture that expects you to prove yourself in ninety days and to feel like a fraud if you have not mastered the role by the end of your first quarter. The dealmakers, who have every financial reason to rush, deliberately do not, because they know that owning something new takes one to two years. If seasoned acquirers give a business that long to be absorbed, the honest runway for you to own a genuinely new role is not ninety days, so stop mistaking the discomfort of month three for failure.

Finding 4: The exit is the asset

This is the finding almost nobody applies to a career, and it is the most valuable. What stabilized these acquisitions was seller continuity: the outgoing owner stayed on to bridge two cultures and keep relationships steady, not primarily to transfer knowledge. Now turn that on yourself. Everyone obsesses over the entrance, the title, the bigger offer, the win, and almost no one thinks about the exit, yet research shows that the outgoing owner’s continuity determines whether the whole thing holds. How you leave a role, the grace you show, and the relationships you preserve are not afterthoughts. It may be the most compounding thing you do, because those relationships and that reputation are exactly what the next acquirer is buying. You build a surprising amount of your career in how you walk out the door.

Governing the one company you will never sell

Underneath all four findings runs a quieter one. Get the incentives right, and you need less oversight, because a well-aligned operator governs itself. The same is true inside you, and when your work connects to what you actually value rather than someone else’s scoreboard, you need less managing, less reassurance, and less permission to keep going.

So here is where it lands. Your career is the one asset you carry across every job and every acquisition of you, and it is the one company you will never sell, which means it deserves to be governed rather than merely occupied. Governed means you set the structure instead of waiting for one, earn autonomy through trust instead of demanding it through title, give your transitions the honest one to two-year runway, and treat every exit as an asset. No operator does this alone, which is why acquirers lean on boards and advisors, and why a real community and a mentor are the board of the company that is your career. That is what we are building at RISEUP@work.

You will keep being acquired. The only question is whether you show up as the company being arranged by someone else, or as the operator who knows exactly how this integration should go. And if a study written for people buying companies can teach you this much about your own career, it is worth asking what else you have been missing by reading only the things written for you. Thanks, !

Subscribe for more like this: https://riseupatwork.substack.com/subscribe

There are weeks when you feel stretched thin and still somehow alive, as though all the effort is building toward something worth having, and there are other weeks when the very same hours leave you hollow in a way that a full night of sleep does not touch.

The workload barely changes, yet the experience is completely different, and most of us are never taught to tell the two apart, even though they call for opposite responses. So before you reach for the word burnout, which has become the label we attach to almost any hard week, it is worth slowing down and checking whether that is really what you are living through.

Understand what you are measuring against

We tend to treat all stress as something to avoid, but research has never supported that. The endocrinologist Hans Selye spent his career distinguishing between distress, the corrosive kind that wears us down, and eustress, the beneficial kind that stretches and strengthens us (Eustress). Eustress is the strain of a hard project you care about, or the discomfort of learning something just beyond your reach, and though it does not feel easy, it is genuinely good for you.

The difference between healthy stress and burnout is not how hard you are working. It is whether you recover, whether you have any control, and whether the work still means something to you.

That single distinction is what the three questions below are built to surface, because two people working equally hard can sit on opposite sides of it, one being strengthened by the pressure while the other is quietly worn down.

The three questions

Before you accept the burnout label, sit with these three honestly and pay close attention to what comes up. They are not a checklist to tick, but prompts to reflect on.

1. Does rest actually restore you?

After a real break, a weekend away or a proper night of sleep, do you come back with something in reserve, or does the heaviness settle back over you within an hour of logging on? If recovery still works, you are most likely being stretched rather than broken, but if rest changes nothing at all, that points toward the deep exhaustion that sits at the center of real burnout.

2. Do you still care?

Hard work that carries meaning will hurt and still feel worth it, so if you can find something in the difficulty that matters to you, that is a reassuring sign. It is when the caring gives way to cynicism, when you stop being pulled in by work that once held your attention, that the warning light genuinely comes on.

3. Do you have any real control?

A loss of agency over your workload, your pace, and your priorities is one of the strongest predictors of burnout there is, because hard work you have chosen sits very differently in the body than hard work imposed on you with no way out.

If your honest answers are that rest no longer helps, that you have stopped caring, and that you feel you have no control, you are probably not being stretched. You are burning out, and naming it plainly is the first step toward regaining your footing.

What the science actually calls burnout

Those three questions map closely onto how the World Health Organization defines the real thing. They describe burnout not as a rough week but as an occupational phenomenon that results from chronic workplace stress that has not been successfully managed, and they name three signs (WHO): a deep exhaustion that rest does not repair, a growing cynicism and distance from the work and the people in it, and a quiet decline in one’s sense of one’s own effectiveness. Set those beside a healthy stretch, and the contrast is clear: where eustress tends to leave you more engaged and more connected, burnout leaves you empty and detached.

What it tends to look like in real life

Burnout rarely arrives with any announcement, and it usually hides inside perfectly ordinary appearances, so it helps to recognize its disguises.

The high performer who went quiet. She used to bring ideas to every meeting, but now simply does the work well enough and says nothing, and because her output still looks fine on paper, nobody thinks to check on her, even though the silence itself is the symptom.

The Sunday that never lifts. He feels reasonably fine on Saturday, but watches a familiar weight descend by Sunday afternoon that does not lift until the week is nearly over, which is less about any single project than a constant low detachment that has become his baseline.

The one who cannot switch off. Always reachable and always slightly behind, answering messages late at night, not because anything is urgent, but because the body’s stress response has forgotten how to stand down.

None of these people is weak, and each is a capable professional whose relationship with their own work has quietly tipped from productive to depleting.

Why does this belong in a conversation about careers?

This is not a wellbeing footnote to your working life but something central to it, and the newest data makes that plain. In Deloitte’s 2026 survey, the single most common reason young professionals give for turning down leadership roles is stress and burnout, named by half of them, which means burnout is not only making people unhappy but actively narrowing their ambition and capping their careers before those careers have really begun.

The reframe worth holding onto is that your career is the one asset you carry across every job you will ever hold, and you cannot protect it by pushing harder. You protect it by learning to feel the difference between a healthy stretch and a slow burn, and by asking those three questions often enough that you notice the drift while it is still early.

Turning this into practice

Reading about burnout on its own changes very little, and it is reflecting on it that does the real work, so it helps to make that reflection concrete in three ways.

Check yourself on a schedule. Run the three questions once a month, with the same seriousness you would bring to reviewing your finances, rather than waiting for a crisis to force the issue.

Build recovery on purpose. Research points consistently to two experiences that restore us most, genuinely detaching from work and giving our attention to a skill that carries no professional stakes, both of which help turn hard effort back into the healthy kind.

Do not do it alone. Burnout deepens in isolation and eases considerably when you can admit to someone who understands that you are struggling, which is exactly why community and mentorship sit at the center of what we are building at RISEUP@work. Someone who reflects alongside others and has a mentor close enough to notice the drift before they do tends to catch burnout before it becomes a full collapse, with only a small correction.

Agency over anxiety is not a phrase we use for effect, but the practical difference between tending a fire and being consumed by one.

The honest close

Stress itself was never the problem, and a career worth having will stretch you in ways that are genuinely good for you. The problem is the particular kind of stress that never ends, that you cannot steer, and that has lost its meaning, and the whole skill lies in feeling that difference early and keeping people close enough to tell you the truth about what they see in you.

Guard that fire carefully, because it is the one that has to last you a whole career.

This is a reflective piece and not medical advice. If you are struggling, please reach out to a qualified professional or to someone you trust.

Dr. Deepak Bhootra is the founder of RISEUP@work, a career community for the first decade of work. He is the author of four books and has coached professionals across four countries. RISEUP@work is currently welcoming community investors on Wefunder at wefunder.com/riseupatwork.

Subscribe for more like this: https://riseupatwork.substack.com/subscribe

In fifteen years of coaching and three decades of exec roles, the pattern I trust most is this. The feedback a person fights the hardest is usually the feedback they most need to hear, and it rarely arrives from the person who delivers it well. It tends to come from the one who irritates us, the colleague whose own behavior seems to contradict the very thing they are pointing out in us.

captured this beautifully in her piece, The Hardest Feedback I Ever Got. She was told she was defensive, and her instinct was to snap back that she was not, which of course was the very thing being pointed out. She sat with the discomfort, worked on it, and watched her relationships and her capacity to learn improve. Her larger point is one I wish more leaders understood: that we pour enormous energy into becoming great at giving feedback when the rarer and more valuable skill is becoming great at receiving it.

She is right, and I want to build on it because there is a trap beneath her story that quietly costs people years.

The trap is the messenger, not the message

We let the quality of the delivery decide the value of the message. When feedback is clumsy, badly timed, or comes from someone whose credibility we question, we use those flaws as permission to dismiss the content entirely. Sometimes the delivery really is poor, but poor delivery does not make the information wrong. The moment we treat the two as the same thing, we protect our self-image and lose the lesson in the same breath.

This is why I encourage the people I coach to stop treating feedback as a verdict and start treating it as data. A verdict is something you accept or reject, while data is something you examine. Not all of it is clean, not all of it is complete, and not all of it deserves equal weight, but a leader who sorts the signal from the noise ends up far better informed than the one who threw the whole thing out because they did not like how it was handed to them. Feedback simply tells you how someone experienced you, and where your intention and your impact may have drifted apart, and that is worth knowing even when it stings.

Defensiveness shows up in the body first

Kaila is honest that she still struggles with defensiveness, and so do most of us, because feedback does not press on our behavior so much as it presses on our identity. A single sentence about how you came across in a meeting can set off a quiet spiral about your competence, your reputation, and whether you still belong. That spiral is not a strategy; it is self-protection, and it usually shows up in the body before it reaches your mouth, as a tight chest, a flush of heat, or a rebuttal already forming while the other person is still speaking.

Amy Edmondson’s work taught organizations to build rooms where people can speak up and admit mistakes without fear, but there is a personal version of that safety she talks about less, and it is the real leadership edge. You cannot only demand safety from the room. You have to build enough safety inside yourself to hear something hard without collapsing, attacking, or performing openness while privately dismissing the point. That is the difference between looking coachable and being coachable.

What to do in the moment

Good intentions dissolve the instant the heat arrives, so here is what I actually teach people to do when it does.

First, notice the reaction before you obey it. When you feel the defensiveness rise, name it silently: something in me feels threatened, and I do not have to act from there. That one pause has saved more relationships than any clever reply.

Second, buy yourself a moment with one honest line, something like, thank you for telling me. I want to understand it before I respond. It does not commit you to agreeing. It only shows you are strong enough to listen.

Third, ask for specifics instead of building a defense. Rather than arguing, ask where they noticed it, what you said or did that created the impression, and what would have landed differently. Vague feedback breeds shame, while specific feedback gives you a choice.

Repair beats perfection

I watched this play out with a director whose team had told her she came across as dismissive. Her first instinct was to explain that she was under pressure and simply keeping things concise, and the team quietly learned never to raise it again. When she revisited it months later, she asked for a specific moment instead, and a teammate reminded her that when a colleague raised a concern, she had said we already covered that and moved on. She replied that she could see how it shut the room down, that she had been guarding the clock, but the cost was a real concern going unheard, and that next time she would name the time pressure and offer a separate conversation rather than cut it off. That is not perfection. It is repair, and repair is what people actually follow.

The goal Kaila points us toward is not to become someone who never feels defensive, because that person does not exist. It is to become someone who notices the defensiveness before it takes the wheel, who can hold a hard sentence long enough to find the useful part inside it, and who turns that into one visible change rather than a long apology that changes nothing.

The feedback that hurts is rarely there to shrink you. More often it is there to sharpen you, if you are willing to pick it up, turn it over, and keep the part that is true.

Thank you, Kaila, for a piece worth sitting with. Subscribe for more like this: https://riseupatwork.substack.com/subscribe

In Deloitte’s 2026 Gen Z and Millennial Survey, which polled more than 22,000 people across 44 countries, 72% of Gen Z said they now use AI to seek career advice, and 67% use it to cope with work-related stress. Three-quarters use it in their daily work, up from just over half a year earlier (Deloitte 2026 Gen Z and Millennial Survey).

Read that as a practitioner, not a headline. When someone at the start of their career feels lost about who to become, they are not turning first to a manager or a mentor. They are turning to a chatbot. And they are asking it not for facts, but for direction.

I do not read that as a generation in trouble. Deloitte calls this a coming-of-age story, not of delay, but of discernment, and I agree. A whole cohort is telling us, through their behavior, that the early years are disorienting, that they are hungry for a guide, and that no one handed them a good one. That is worth understanding before we judge it.

What they are actually reaching for

The same survey shows these workers now judge progress by the skills they are building, not the titles they collect. Only a quarter are chasing fast promotions. About one in five would even take a sideways move or a more junior role if it gave them better experience.

So this is not a lazy generation avoiding the hard climb. These are people trying to build something solid inside themselves. They are looking for self-knowledge. They just have nowhere reliable to find it.

And their timing is right. The science shows that the early twenties are exactly when a person is still deciding who they are, which makes this the best possible moment to do that inner work.

A self that is still forming

Psychologists describe the years from roughly 18 to the late 20s as their own life stage. Jeffrey Arnett called it emerging adulthood, and its defining feature is identity exploration, the period when people work out their capabilities, their limits, their values, and where they fit (Noba Project).

The biology agrees. The prefrontal cortex, which governs judgment and planning, continues to mature into the mid-20s, well after a person starts working (Lurie Children’s).

So when a young worker reaches for a guide, they are not being weak. They are responding, correctly, to the fact that they are still being formed. The instinct is sound. The question is what they form themselves around.

Whose pattern do you absorb?

Here is where it gets risky. When we are new and unsure, we take our cues from whoever is nearest and most confident.

Monica Higgins at Harvard studied how this plays out at work and called it career imprinting. A first serious employer leaves a lasting mark on four things: capabilities, connections, confidence, and the way a person thinks about how work operates. She notes plainly that people early in their careers are more impressionable and carry no strong prior pattern to weigh a new one against (Harvard Business School).

Now put that beside the Deloitte number. A generation at its most impressionable, reaching for a guide, and increasingly that guide is a tool that reflects back the most common pattern rather than the right one for them. A borrowed self is easy to absorb. It is much harder to notice you have absorbed it.

The thing the tool cannot give you

There is a deeper gap under all of this, and it is the most humbling finding I know.

Tasha Eurich’s research found that while about ninety-five percent of people believe they are self-aware, only ten to fifteen percent actually are. She also describes two separate kinds of self-awareness that do not travel together: an internal sense of your own values, and an external sense of how others see you (Forbes on Eurich).

This is what a chatbot cannot hand you. It can produce a fluent answer in seconds. It cannot give you an honest read on who you are, because that has to be built slowly, often with the help of someone willing to tell you the truth. A young worker outsourcing direction to AI can get a confident answer, and still be no closer to knowing themselves.

The small practice that compounds

The encouraging part is that self-knowledge responds to something simple and proven.

In a field study by researchers from Harvard and HEC Paris, new employees who spent the last fifteen minutes of the day writing about what they had learned outperformed a group who kept working during those minutes by nearly 23% on a final assessment (Harvard Business School).

The lesson is practical. Structured reflection early in the learning curve compounds. Stepping back to look at yourself is not time taken from the work. In the formative years, it may be the most valuable time you spend, and it is the one thing the young workers scrolling for answers are least likely to be doing.

One way to respond

So here is the tension the 2026 data leaves us with. A generation knows it is still forming, wants a guide, and has reached for the nearest one. The instinct is right. The instrument is thin.

This is the direction we have chosen at RISEUP@work. Not a faster answer, but a structured way for people early in their careers to actually see themselves, through diagnostics, and a simple way to track what that clarity is worth over time, which we call a Return on Clarity Index. By longitudinal, a word we lean on, we mean something a person returns to as they change, rather than a one-time verdict.

We have not solved it. We are saying the newest data points somewhere specific, and a chatbot is not the whole answer. Reasonable people could read the same numbers and build differently. We would welcome that conversation.

What I hope you take from this

The young workers reaching for AI are not the story. What they are reaching for is.

They are telling us the early years are formative, that they know it, and that they want help making sense of themselves before the pattern sets. That is not a weakness. That is a generation asking a good question and being handed a shallow answer.

The self you build in these quiet years is easy to inherit by accident, and easier still to outsource. It is also, with a little more reflection and a better mirror, yours to choose.

Dr. Deepak Bhootra is the founder of RISEUP@work and writes on careers, clarity, and the first decade of work. He is the author of four books and has coached professionals across four countries. RISEUP@work is currently welcoming community investors on Wefunder at wefunder.com/riseupatwork.

Half of 2026 is gone. You have five months to decide what kind of professional you will be when you walk into 2027. Not the title. Not the level. The person.

Here is what changed while you were busy being useful. The output part of your job has gotten cheaper. Anyone can generate the deck before their coffee gets cold. Anyone can produce the analysis, the summary, the polished memo, the clean first draft. The thing that used to signal that you were good at your job now signals nothing, because it costs nothing.

So the people around you stopped being impressed. Your manager has seen forty flawless documents this quarter. What she has not seen in a while is someone who actually thinks.

That is the opening. Here are three ways to take it.

1. Say no sooner, not later

Your calendar is lying to you. Half of it is work that feels like a contribution and builds nothing you keep. The status meeting you attend out of habit. The deck nobody reads. The project you said yes to because saying no felt risky.

You know the ones. They fill the week and leave nothing behind.

The hard rule holds, and it matters more now than ever. Get to your own “no” faster. Decide up front what a piece of work has to give you before you pour a month into it. A skill you did not have. A relationship that matters. A result someone will remember. If it offers none of those, it is not a career. It is just motion.

A commitment you kill in July costs you a conversation. The same commitment dragging on through December costs you the quarter.

So basically, protect your time like it is the only thing you actually own. In the first decade of your working life, it is.

2. Do the thing the software cannot do for you

AI drafts the polished version. It cannot sit in a hard room and read what is not being said.

I once watched a talented person send a beautiful, tailored proposal, then walk into the meeting and add nothing the document had not already said. No read of the room. No question that moved anyone. The gap between the polish and the person is exactly where trust quietly leaks out.

Your edge in 2027 is not the artifact. Everyone has the artifact now. Your edge is the judgment call nobody else will make, and the uncomfortable question nobody else will ask. “What are we actually optimizing for here?” Then stop talking and let the silence do its work.

That is the human layer. It is the one part of your job that does not get cheaper the year after next.

3. Write down what actually built you

Not what your performance review says. What actually moved your career? The offhand feedback that reframed how you work. The stretch assignment you almost turned down. The moment you finally handled a difficult stakeholder right.

Most people carry their real playbook in their head and lose it the day the role changes. The reorg comes. The manager leaves. The title you thought was yours turns out to be rented, and everything you learned to do inside it walks out the door with you because you never wrote it down.

Build the operating system you own. On paper, in your own words. The patterns, the moves, the hard-won reads. That is the asset nobody can take when the role changes, because it was never attached to the role in the first place.

This is the whole idea underneath RISEUP@work. The career is the asset. The role is rentable. The work of the first decade is turning what you did into something you keep. By longitudinal, I mean built to compound across years, not reset every time your job title does. A diagnostic that shows you where your value actually sits, before a layoff or a stall turns into the autopsy that tells you after.

The five months in front of you

2027 will not reward the person who produced the most. That person is now competing with a machine that produces infinitely, for free, at 2 a.m.

It will reward the one who saw clearly, said no without flinching, asked the question the software could not write, and kept a record of what actually made them good.

You have five months to become that person. Start this week. Say no to one thing that builds nothing. Ask one question you have been swallowing. Write down one move that worked.

The output is cheap now. The forming is still yours.

Dr. Deepak Bhootra is the founder of RISEUP@work, the career operating system for the first decade of work. Four books, 34 years of leadership across four countries, and more than 1,500 professionals coached. While the community round is live, you can own a share of what we are building at wefunder.com/riseupatwork.

You already know this. You have had weeks where you barely sat down, answered everything, showed up to all of it, and still ended Friday with the odd feeling that you built nothing. The week was full. You were not.

An email from landed in my inbox this week, from his newsletter, with a fix for the first half of that problem. Years ago, he handed his calendar to an assistant, and it turned into fourteen meetings a day, a wall of grey boxes, no way to tell a call worth real money from a chat that should have been an email. So he did one small thing. He gave every event a color.

Red for client calls. Purple for paid speaking. Blue for deep work. Now he glances at his phone and knows in three seconds whether the week will make money or waste it.

It is a good trick. I want to hand it to the person starting off to build a career. Bear with me.

The CEO asks a different question than you should

Martell colors his week to protect revenue. Fair enough. He runs companies. His calendar is a profit-and-loss statement, with time as the currency.

You are earlier than that. The role you hold today is not the thing you are protecting. The role is rented. Someone else owns it, and they can take it back whenever they choose.

So your colors have to answer a different question. Not “which of these boxes pays me this week.” The real question is “which of these boxes is building something I will still own when this job ends?”

That is a harder thing to see. And your calendar is hiding the answer in plain sight.

Color your week by what it does to you, not by the task

Forget sorting by activity. Sort by what time does to your future. Four colors are plenty to start.

Green is growth. The hours that make you measurably better at something hard, a skill you did not have last quarter. Reps at the edge of your ability, not the comfortable middle.

Blue is position. The work that makes you known and trusted by people who are not your manager. The talk. The written piece. The relationship is one rung up. The project that puts your name on something visible.

Yellow is delivery. The actual job. What you are paid to do today. This is not the villain. It is most of the week for everyone. But it is rented time. It keeps you employed. On its own, it does not make you harder to replace.

Grey is maintenance. Status meetings, inbox, the recurring call nobody remembers agreeing to. It has to happen. It builds nothing.

Now open the next seven days and color them honestly.

The color you see most is the direction you are heading

Here is the part that stings.

For most people in the first decade of work, the week is a wall of yellow and grey with a thin thread of green on Tuesday morning, if that. The rented hours and the wasted ones.

Which means the two colors that actually build a career, growth, and position are the ones that get canceled first. They are never urgent. Nobody escalates because you skipped the thing that would have made you better. So, it moves. And moves again. And a year goes by.

Whatever color you see the most is not a description of your week. It is a forecast of your career.

I would love to be there when you open your calendar and look at it this way for the first time. The reaction is most likely going to be quiet. As you expected to find growth. You are likely to find a wall of yellow.

The two colors nobody schedules

Growth and position share the same weakness. They are never the loudest thing on Monday, so they lose every fight for your attention.

So do exactly what Martell does for them for revenue. Put them on the calendar first, in ink, before the week fills in around them.

One green block. Two hours, protected, on the hardest skill you are building, set for your best morning, not the leftovers of your day. Martell protects his mornings for deep work. Yours are worth even more because you are still forming.

One blue block. Ninety minutes a week aimed at being seen. The draft, the post, the coffee with someone a level above you, the small piece of visible work that carries your name.

That is three and a half hours out of a forty-hour week. Under ten percent. If you cannot find ten percent of your week to build the only asset that is actually yours, that is not a scheduling problem. That is the finding.

The colors do not lie, and neither will this

Martell is right about one thing above all else. The colors do not lie.

You think your mornings go to deep work. Color them and find out. You think you are growing. Point to the green. You think you are building a reputation. Point to the blue. If you cannot point to it, it is not happening, no matter how tired you are on Friday.

Tired is not the same as building. A grey and yellow week can flatten you completely and leave you exactly where you started. That is the cruel maths of the rented hour. You spend all the energy and keep none of the equity.

Your calendar is the cheapest diagnostic you own. It is already tracking everything you do. You just have to give it color and be willing to look.

Do this before Monday

Open your calendar. Color the next seven days with four colors: growth, position, delivery, and maintenance.

Then count. If growth and position together come to less than one box in ten, you have your answer. And you have it while there is still time to change it.

This is the core idea behind how we think about careers at RISEUP@work. Your career is the asset you carry from one role to the next. The role is rented. The colors on your calendar are the truest record you have of whether you are building the asset or just paying the rent.

So open the calendar. Not to feel busy. To find out. Whatever color you see the most, that is not this week. That is you, a decade from now, already in motion.

Credit where it is due. The color-coded calendar is Dan Martell’s idea, shared in his newsletter. I have only changed the question it is built to answer.

Dr. Deepak Bhootra is the founder of RISEUP@work, a career operating system for the first decade of your working life. He is an ICF-certified coach, the author of four books on careers, and has held senior leadership roles at Fortune 100 companies across four countries.

If this was useful, subscribe at riseupatwork.substack.com. It is where I write about building the career that no employer can take back. And do visit wefunder.com/riseupatwork to see our investor page, where we are raising capital for deploying RISEUP@work.

Every skill, every tool, every opening, every piece of advice from someone a rung above you. You say yes to all of it, partly from hunger and partly from the fear that the one thing you skip is the thing that mattered. At that stage, you have no filter yet, so everything gets a yes.

wrote a piece this week called The Erasing Is the Work, and it named something I have watched in coaching for years. His argument is simple and true. Experience is not about knowing more. It is about knowing what to ignore. He tells the story of Mike, a grocery veteran thirty years his senior, who could sit through a polished software demo and spot the vaporware in a single question, because he had already seen the movie. The most valuable thing on JP’s whiteboard, he realized, was not what he had written. It was what he had erased.

He is right. I want to run his idea straight through a career.

Where JP is right

The part JP nails is that judgment is subtraction. Every yes quietly costs you a hundred invisible no’s, and the people who move fastest are not the ones who weigh every option. They are the ones who eliminated most of the options before the meeting even started. In working life, attention is the scarcest thing you own, and experience teaches you to spend it on less.

I would add only that this has never mattered more. AI has made accumulation free. Anyone can now pull up every article, every framework, every option in seconds. So the thing that used to separate people, simply knowing more, is worth almost nothing now. The only remaining scarce skill is JP’s skill. Knowing what to leave on the board.

The part a career adds

Here is where I want to extend him, because he is writing from thirty-seven years in, and most of the people I coach are not.

Knowing what to ignore is earned, not chosen. Mike could filter that demo in one question because he had sat through a thousand of them first. The scar tissue came before the shortcut. Tell someone in their first job to “ignore more,” and they will ignore the wrong things, because they do not yet have the library of patterns that makes the filter safe.

So the career version of JP’s idea is not a rule. It is a sequence. There is a season for adding and a season for editing, and the whole art is knowing which one you are standing in.

The three seasons of judgment

At RISEUP@work, we think about a working life in three stages, and JP’s skill lands differently in each.

In the Launch Stage, the first years, your job is to accumulate on purpose. Say yes widely. Go chase the movie you have not seen yet. You are building the pattern library you will draw on for the rest of your career, and this is the one season when collecting really is the work.

In the Foundation Stage, the decade that follows, the work quietly flips. You have enough scar tissue now to start erasing. The skill becomes saying no to the shiny role that leads nowhere, the tool that adds motion but not judgment, the inherited rule you never actually chose. You start to feel progress in the things you turn down.

In the Dividend Stage, judgment itself is the asset. People pay for what you refuse to chase, because your no is backed by everything you have already seen. You became valuable not by knowing everything, but by becoming very hard to distract.

That arc is the career. It is the slow move from adding to editing, and the people who stall are usually the ones who never made the turn. They are still meeting every new idea at year twenty with the same wide-open hunger that served them at year two. JP watched them at conference tables, exhausted. I watch them in coaching, busy and going nowhere.

The move this week

Pick one thing you are still chasing that experience has already told you to let go of. A skill you keep meaning to learn that your gut knows is not yours. A standing meeting you attend out of habit. An inherited belief about what a good professional must always do. Erase it, on purpose. Then guard the space you just cleared, because it will refill with noise the moment you look away.

That single act is career progression in miniature. Nothing got added to the pile. You just got expensive with your attention, to borrow JP’s phrase.

The close

JP wrote that the world does not get quieter; you do. For a career, that is the whole thing.

You will not build a durable working life by trying to keep up with everything, because nobody can, and the trying is exactly what burns people out. You will build it by deciding, earlier than feels comfortable, what you are willing to ignore, and then trusting the blank space more than the noise. That blank space is judgment, and judgment is the only part of a career that no machine can rent, and no reorganization can take.

Thank you, JP. I have seen this movie too, and it gets better every time I watch someone finally pick up the eraser.

Related reading: AI Is a Threat to Your Job. But a Bigger Threat to Your Promotion. and The Corporate Deal Is Dead. The Self-Authored Career Is What Replaces It.

Dr. Deepak Bhootra spent 34 years in leadership roles and 14 years as an ICF-certified coach, touching the lives of 1,500 people. Those learnings led him to found RISEUP@work, a career operating system that accompanies professionals throughout the full arc of their working lives, organized into three stages: Launch, Foundation, and Dividend. RISEUP@work is raising capital now, ahead of a revamped platform build aiming for a July launch, with a minimum investment of $100 to keep participation broad. Invest at wefunder.com/riseupatwork.

My client’s seat was cut on a Tuesday without warning.

Six years of hitting quota. Club twice. Then a reorg deck, a line item that read “AI-augmented pipeline,” and a role that no longer existed. She called me that week. Not angry. Confused. “I did everything they asked,” she said. “I made the calls. I hit the number.” She had. That was the problem.

Then I read ’s piece, The Death of the SDR. She was writing about a role. I kept thinking about the person who just lost one.

Laura Fu’s Argument, Compressed

First, in case you are not familiar with sales jargon. The SDR is the Sales Development Representative. It is the entry-level seller whose job is to find prospects and book first meetings, then hand them to a more senior closer. It is where most sales careers begin.

Laura’s case is clean and correct. The SDR role was never designed for the person doing it. It was built for the org chart, a cheap and scalable way to manufacture a pipeline. The repetitive work was repetitive by design. The turnover was a feature.

The transactional layer, research, lists, sequencing, follow-up, CRM, the 60 to 80% of the week that follows a script, is now machine time. Her numbers are stark. In 2025, 36% of B2B companies cut their SDR teams. 22% replaced them entirely with AI.

Then she turns hopeful, and rightly so. The role is not dead. It is evolving into something harder. The new SDR does not book meetings; they set up deals. They map who else matters, read what a reply means rather than whether it counts, and win on curiosity instead of volume. Then she names the uncomfortable question. If the on-ramp narrows, where do new sellers come from?

She is right about all of it. I want to sit inside the question she left open, because the answer is bigger than talent development.

Where I Would Push It Further

The thing AI killed was not the SDR. It was the belief that activity was ever the asset.

For a decade, the entry-level seller rented out their activity. Dials, emails, and meetings booked. The company paid for the activity by the hour and kept everything the activity produced. The pipeline had a name on it, and the name was not the seller’s. So basically, the person doing the work was building a machine they did not own, with parts that could be swapped the moment a cheaper part arrived.

A cheaper part arrived. That is the whole story of those layoffs.

Here is what that means for the seller who is still standing. If the only thing you produced was activity, you have nothing to carry out the door, because activity does not travel. It stayed on the dashboard. It belonged to the quarter. The seller I described at the top did everything she was asked, and she was let go precisely because everything she was asked to do could now be done without her.

The SDR Is Only Where the Water Hit First

Now look again at the seller who called me. She was not an SDR. She carried a quota. She closed. She sat three rungs above the role Laura is writing about, and she got the same Tuesday.

That is the part I cannot stop thinking about as a coach. The automation did not stop at the entry level. It started there because the entry-level work was the most scripted, and scripts are what machines eat first. But nothing about the logic is unique to the SDR. Move up the ladder, and the same pattern is already waiting. The account executive whose research, forecasting, and follow-up now run on a model. The account manager whose renewal deck assembles itself. The enterprise seller whose call prep is written before the call.

Every rung of a B2B sales career had its own layer of activity that felt like the job. Every one of those layers is being automated, from the bottom up, on the same timeline. The SDR is simply where the water reached first.

Which means the question Laura raised about one role is not a question about roles at all. It is a career question, and it is pointed at anyone who sells for a living. Under all that activity, across all those years, what did you actually build that is yours?

The Career Is the Asset

There is a different thing a seller can build, and it is the only thing worth building now.

Call it judgment. The read on a room that has gone quiet for a reason. The instinct that the person who booked the meeting is not the person who will kill the deal. The question you ask in minute four that reroutes the entire conversation. None of that lives in a CRM field. None of it is rentable because it does not fall within the activity. It sits in you.

That is the shift Laura’s piece points to without naming it. The role is rentable. The career is an asset. The role can be cut on a Tuesday. The judgment you built cannot, because it walks out of the building inside your head and shows up at the next one.

Which means the real work of a first selling decade was never the volume. It was the forming. The volume was just the setting in which the forming occurred. Remove the volume, and the forming does not disappear. It only stops happening by accident.

The Answer Laura Left Open

So, where do new sellers come from if the on-ramp is gone?

I think we have the diagnosis slightly wrong. The volume ramp was never meant to teach people to sell. It was teaching them to endure. Rejection tolerance, mostly, and the muscle memory of a cadence. Useful, but not the thing. Plenty of reps survived that ramp for three years and never learned to think, because nothing in the day required it. The busywork was covered for the average performer and for the system that employed them.

Take away the ramp, and you have not removed the school. You have removed the excuse. The forming that used to happen slowly, as a byproduct of grind, now has to happen on purpose and out loud. Coaching that builds judgment instead of compliance. Reps who are asked what a conversation meant, not just whether it counted. A first decade designed to compound a person’s thinking rather than to consume their evenings.

That is harder to run than a dial-count dashboard. It is also the only version worth entering.

What To Do This Week

Wherever you sit in a sales org, whether you carry a bag today or you are the SDR eyeing the seat above you, stop measuring yourself by the thing the company measures.

Keep a private record of the judgment calls you made this week and what happened next. That record is your asset forming in real time. Ask the question in the next call you would normally skip, the one that risks a longer silence. Let the machine do the renting, the research, the sequencing, and the summaries, and spend every reclaimed hour on the part no one can automate: deciding what any of it actually means.

The seller who does that is not competing with AI. They are using the hours AI gave back to build the one thing AI cannot take, because it was never on the dashboard to begin with.

Laura is right that the role is evolving into something harder and more interesting. I would only add that the point was never the role. The role was always going to be rentable. The question that decides the next decade is whether, underneath the role, you were quietly building something that is yours.

The work can be automated. The forming is still yours. Safe selling!

Dr. Deepak Bhootra spent three decades in enterprise sales operations leadership across four countries and has written four books on careers. He is the founder of RISEUP@work, the career operating system built on one idea. Your role is rentable. Your career is the asset you own and compound over a working life.

RISEUP@work is raising on Wefunder through April 2027. If this resonated, read more at riseupatwork.com, or back the mission and become an investor here.

Somewhere around year five of your professional career, the rules stop feeling like choices.

• Always be available.

• Never disappoint anyone.

• Say yes before you are ready.

• Be visible or be forgotten.

• Your worth is your output.

Nobody read you that list on your first day. There was no manual. And yet by the time most people are a few years into a career, they follow every line as if it were a law of nature.

That is where I think burnout actually begins. The long hours are real, but underneath them is something quieter and harder to see. Obedience to rules nobody ever explained.

You stop questioning

We do not respond to work directly. We build a model of how work operates, then run it.

Psychologists have studied this for decades under the term “mental models.” Your mind builds a small working picture of how the world behaves, and it uses that picture to predict, decide, and react, mostly without you noticing. If promotion has always followed overwork, overwork starts to feel like the only road up. If every manager rewarded answering emails at night, then being reachable at night becomes your private definition of commitment.

After a while, you stop asking whether the rule is even true. You only ask whether you are following it well enough. That is how a workplace culture copies itself from one person to the next. Not because anyone states the rules. Because nobody questions them.

Why the first years stamp the deepest

The early part of a career carries more weight than its length suggests.

Organizational researchers call this imprinting. During a short, sensitive window, the environment around you leaves a mark that lasts long after the environment is gone. If your first manager rewarded perfectionism, perfection starts to feel like professionalism. If your first company celebrated eighty-hour weeks, an ordinary week starts to feel like coasting. If your first promotion came after a year of lost weekends, sacrifice starts to feel like the price of admission.

The experience was temporary. The belief becomes permanent. You change employers, and you carry the same operating system into the new building. Different company, same invisible rules.

What burnout research actually says

Here is where most conversations about burnout go wrong. They blame the workload and stop there.

Christina Maslach, whose work is the foundation of the field, found that burnout grows out of a chronic mismatch between a person and their job, and that workload is only one of six places the mismatch can happen. The other five are control, reward, community, fairness, and values. A mismatch in any of them can break someone, even when the hours are reasonable.

Read that once more, as it alters the entire perspective. People don’t only burn out from overdoing things. They also burn out from overdoing things for reasons they no longer believe in. That’s a different issue, and you can’t simply rest your way through it.

The sentence that hides the rules

Listen to how people defend the rules, and you hear the same phrases everywhere. This is just how corporate works. This is the price of success. You have to pay your dues. We all went through it.

None of those are facts. They are inherited beliefs, some useful and many decades out of date. They survive because everyone repeats them, which makes them feel like the air rather than a choice.

So the better question is not how do I get more resilient. It is resilient to what. Resilience without reflection only helps you tolerate a broken system for longer. The point was never to endure every environment. The point is to recognize which environments deserve your best energy.

The habit that changes everything

Every few months, sit down and write five beliefs you hold about work. Finish these sentences honestly.

Success requires…...

Good employees are always…...

Leaders should…...

Career growth means…...

If I do not…...

Then ask one question of each answer.

Who taught me this?

It will almost never be research. It will be your first boss, your parents, a toxic company, a mentor, an industry, or a feed you scroll. In other words, someone else’s experience, dressed up as your reality. Naming the source is what turns an invisible rule back into a choice you are allowed to make.

The career you actually own

This is also the spine of how a career compounds over time.

In the Launch Stage, the first years of work, you inherit the rules without noticing. In the Foundation Stage, the decade that follows, the real work is to deliberately keep the rules that still serve you and retire the ones that do not. And in the Dividend Stage, when you finally have people watching how you operate, the work is to stop handing the harmful rules down to the next person who does not know they can question them.

The biggest professional advantage is not working harder, or networking better, or learning AI faster. It is noticing the assumptions running your career before they quietly become your identity.

Careers are not built only from decisions. They are built from beliefs, and beliefs are dangerous things, not because they are wrong but because they are invisible. The people who are still standing and still growing thirty years in are rarely the most talented. They are the ones who stop every so often, look hard at the rules they inherited, and decide which ones have earned the right to stay.

Everyone else spends a career playing a game they never realized they were allowed to redesign.

Related reading: Read the Report. Then Argue With It. and Managing Your Boss Could Save Your Career.

Dr. Deepak Bhootra spent 34 years in leadership roles and 14 years as an ICF-certified coach, touching the lives of 1,500 people. Those learnings led him to found RISEUP@work, a career operating system that accompanies professionals throughout the full arc of their working lives, organized into three stages: Launch, Foundation, and Dividend. RISEUP@work is raising capital now, ahead of a revamped platform build aiming for a July launch, with a minimum investment of $100 to keep participation broad. Invest at wefunder.com/riseupatwork.

I read Paul Allen’s piece twice this week.

It stayed with me. On the eve of America’s 250th birthday, he asked a simple question. If Franklin, Jefferson, and Washington were alive right now, what would they be building? Not tweeting. Not waiting on a committee to approve the next step. Building.

His answer is that the Founders were builders before they were statesmen. Franklin invented the lightning rod and founded the first public library and the first fire department. Jefferson designed a university and cataloged the books that seeded the Library of Congress. Washington ran one of the most productive farms in the country while commanding an army and then governing a nation. They saw gaps and closed them. That was the American tradition from the very start.

Then Paul draws the arc across 250 years. Franklin tamed electricity. Edison turned it into light. NASA turned math into a moon landing. The internet put the whole world inside a laptop. Every one of those leaps widened the circle of who got to build. His claim is that AI agent fleets are the next leap, finally putting real capability in the hands of anyone willing to learn to use them.

He is right. There is one part of it I want to push on.

The tool, and the person using it

Paul frames the agent as a capability. A way to do more, and to do it faster, at any hour. He is not wrong about that.

But look closer at Franklin, the man he picks first. Franklin was a tinkerer at his core. Printer, inventor, diplomat, scientist, civic organizer. The thread running through all of it was not output. It was learning. He tinkered because he wanted to understand, and he knew himself well enough to keep aiming that curiosity at the next useful thing, for sixty years.

What I hope for is something quieter. That people learn to see an AI agent as more than a faster way to get the work done.

Used well, it becomes a mirror. It shows you how you actually go about the work. Where you rush? Where you avoid the hard call. Where your thinking is sharp, and where it has gone lazy.

The agent handles the work. The work on yourself is the part that compounds.

Outer engineering and inner engineering

I have loosely called this outer engineering versus inner engineering.

Outer engineering is everything the agent can now do for you. The draft. The analysis. The schedule. The research was pulled together in seconds. That whole layer is getting cheaper by the month, and before long, it will be close to free.

Inner engineering is the harder build. Self-awareness. Judgment. Knowing where to point all that intelligence, and why. Knowing which problems are even worth solving. No agent does that part for you. It is yours to build or leave unbuilt.

Franklin had both. The tinkerer’s hands and the citizen’s judgment. What made him a one-man fleet was never the tools he had. It was knowing what deserved his attention.

A career is an asset

This is the work I spend my days on.

At RISEUP@work, we treat the career itself as the asset, not the role. The role is rentable. The title can be taken. A career is the thing you actually own across an entire working life. We are building the longitudinal system underneath it. By longitudinal, I mean the decisions made in the first decade of work that keep paying you back long after you have forgotten you made them.

AI works well inside that system. It cannot replace the system itself.

An agent can write your résumé in a minute. It cannot tell you who you are becoming while it does. That question lives one level up, in the inner engineering, and almost no one was ever taught to work there.

The promise of agents is real. It is also only half a promise. Speed without direction just gets you lost faster.

What the Constitution actually promises

Thinking about the US Constitution this week, something struck me that I had not put into words before. The American promise is not only about how the country presents itself to the world. The larger half of it points inward. It is about how a whole population brings out its own inner engineering.

That inner work is what produces love of country that is earned rather than performed. Respect for hard work is a real value, not a slogan on a wall. A stubborn belief that democracy, messy as it is, remains the right framework for a world that feels perpetually on fire.

The Founders not only designed a government. They designed people who would keep choosing to build it. That invention has to be renewed in every generation, by every person, from the inside.

Build like a Founder, in both directions

On this 250th birthday, I will borrow Paul’s word and hand it back to him.

Build.

Build the outer things. Deploy the agents. Close the gaps you can see. That opening is now there for a first-generation founder in a small town and a nonprofit director in a hard neighborhood, the same as it is for anyone in a corner office. That is the promise beginning to keep itself.

Then build the inner things too. The self-awareness. The judgment. The version of yourself worth handing all that new capability to.

Franklin would have grabbed the agents first. Then he would have used them to become more himself.

Happy 250th, America. Let’s build. Both engines.

Dr. Deepak Bhootra is the founder and CEO of RISEUP@work, a longitudinal career operating system for the first decade of working life, and the author of four books on work and human potential. RISEUP@work is currently raising on Wefunder at wefunder.com/riseupatwork.

The test told me who I was, and I was young enough to believe it.

That is the danger nobody warns you about at the start. You take an assessment, the results come back, and something in you relaxes. There it is. That is me. The strengths sound right. The blind spots sound right. And when you have only a few years of work behind you, you do not yet have the lived evidence to push back. So you take the printout at its word, and slowly you become it.

The warm click of recognition

In 1949, a psychologist named Bertram Forer gave his students a personality profile and asked how well it fit. They rated it 4.3 out of 5. Almost perfect. Every student had received the same generic write-up, lifted from a newsstand astrology column.

That is the Barnum effect, and it has been replicated for decades. The same mechanism shows up whenever assessment language is vague enough to read yourself into, flattering enough to want, and handed to you by something you trust. None of that makes it true about you. Feeling seen is not the same as being measured.

Where it gives you a head start

I am not here to trash these tools. I am certified in behavioral assessments and use them in my coaching every week. Early on, a good one earns its keep.

It gives you language. Most people in their first years cannot describe how they work under pressure, or why a certain manager drains them. A decent assessment hands you words for patterns you already half-sensed, and naming a pattern is the first step to working on it.

It surfaces a blind spot before it costs you. The result that surprises you is the gift. Be suspicious of the one who flatters you only.

Used this way, the report is a head start on self-awareness that most people do not get until much later. The problem begins the moment you ask it to do more.

Where it quietly holds you back

A label picked up early can become a ceiling you never test.

It happens quietly. Someone in their first job decides they are “not a leader type” or “not a numbers person” and starts turning down the very stretch assignments that would have built those muscles. The test did not measure a limit. It described a starting point. Treated as a verdict, it becomes a cage, and you put up the bars yourself. One by one. Sigh!

This matters more at the start than anywhere else, because you are still changing. Large-scale studies tracking people over time find that traits keep shifting through the twenties and thirties, with most people becoming more conscientious and emotionally steady as they go. A label that fits one year can be out of date a few years later.

The science says go easy on the verdict in other ways, too. Critics have long noted that Myers-Briggs type classifications can flip on retest, partly because continuous traits are being forced into either-or boxes. Even the Big Five, the model academics take most seriously, predicts job performance modestly and unevenly. Conscientiousness tends to be the most consistent predictor, but no trait profile can tell someone starting out where they belong.

There is a deeper principle underneath all of it. A test result is only valid for the specific purpose for which it was built and checked. Most of these were built to prompt self-reflection, not to forecast a career. The failure is not the assessment. It is the over-interpretation.

The cost lands hardest in the Launch Stage, the first years of work, because a borrowed limit accepted then can set the ceiling for the next twenty.

The one rule that protects you: demand evidence

You already know where to start.

Does this actually sound like me?

But the real test goes one step further.

Can you back it with evidence from your own life?

The report says you are resilient. Name the last setback and what you actually did the next morning. It says you are a natural collaborator. Name the last time you were the hardest person in the room to work with.

If you can answer with repeated, specific examples across different situations, the pattern is worth taking seriously. If all you have is the phrase from the printout, the trait is not proven. It is borrowed.

The part that is actually yours

The report is not the asset. You are.

We began with “Mirror, mirror on the wall.” So stand in front of one.

At the start of a career, self-knowledge is the most valuable thing you are building, and it is the one thing you cannot hand to a questionnaire. Read the report. Let it give you language and a blind spot or two. Then go gather the real evidence, the kind that only comes from doing hard things and watching how you actually respond.

Use these tools as mirrors, not maps. A mirror shows you where you are today. A map claims to know where you are going, and no assessment has earned that authority.

Look in the mirror. Learn from what you see. Then decide for yourself where to go next.

Related reading: Managing Your Boss Could Save Your Career and The New Digital Divide Already Forming in Your Field.

Dr. Deepak Bhootra spent 34 years in leadership roles and 14 years as an ICF-certified coach, touching the lives of 1,500 people. Those learnings led him to found RISEUP@work, a career operating system that accompanies professionals throughout the full arc of their working lives, organized into three stages: Launch, Foundation, and Dividend. RISEUP@work is raising capital now, ahead of a revamped platform build aiming for a July launch, with a minimum investment of $100 to keep participation broad. Invest at wefunder.com/riseupatwork.