Career Decision Risks

The most important skills today and in the next years will be human capabilities: critical and analytic thinking, resilience, leadership and influence, overlaid with technological literacy and AI skills to amplify these human capacities. World Economic Forum's new Future of Jobs Report provides a deep and broad analysis of the drivers of labour market transformation, the outlook for jobs and skills, and workforce strategies across industries and nations. It's a really worthwhile deep dive if you're interested in the topic (link in comments). Here are some of the highlights from the Skills section, which to my mind is at the heart of it. 🧠 Analytical Thinking Leads Core Skills. Skills like analytical thinking (70%), resilience (66%), and creative thinking (64%) top the list of core abilities for 2025. By 2030, the emphasis shifts even more towards AI and big data proficiency (85%), technological literacy (76%), and curiosity-driven lifelong learning (79%). This shift underscores the critical role of technology and adaptability in future workplaces. 📉 Skill Stability Declines but at a Slower Rate. Employers predict that 39% of workers' core skills will change by 2030, slightly lower than 44% in 2023. This reflects a stabilization in the pace of skill disruption due to increased emphasis on upskilling and reskilling programs. Half of the workforce now engages in training as part of long-term learning strategies compared to 41% in 2023, showcasing the growing adaptation to technological changes . 🌍 Economic Disparities in Skill Disruption. Middle-income economies anticipate higher skill disruption compared to high-income ones. This disparity highlights the uneven challenges of transitioning labor forces across global regions, particularly in economies still grappling with structural changes. 🚀 Tech-Savvy Skills in High Demand. The adoption of frontier technologies, including generative AI and machine learning, is increasing the demand for skills like big data analysis, cybersecurity, and technological literacy. These trends indicate that businesses are aligning workforce strategies to integrate these advancements effectively. 📚 Upskilling Is the Norm, Not the Exception. By 2030, 73% of organizations aim to prioritize workforce upskilling as a response to ongoing disruptions. This reflects a shift in corporate investment priorities towards human capital enhancement to maintain competitiveness.

Today, a VP of Product reached out asking if I’d be willing to have a “quick backchannel conversation” about a candidate he’s considering hiring. His reasoning? “You only get the best side of someone during the interview process.” That request stopped me cold. I said yes—but only so I could tell him directly that backchanneling is not a practice I agree with or participate in. I only proceeded because I happened to have positive firsthand experience with the candidate, and I wanted to advocate for them. But I left that conversation unsettled. Let me be clear: - Backchanneling is unprofessional. - It’s slanderous when done to discredit someone. - And if you’re still employed at the same company as the candidate, it can be illegal. No one should ever speak off-the-record in a way that could jeopardize someone else’s opportunity for employment. If a candidate wants you to serve as a reference, they'll ask you directly. And if you're hiring, respect the process: interview thoroughly, ask for thoughtful references, and make an informed decision based on facts—not whispers. Backchanneling is lazy hiring dressed up as due diligence. It violates trust. It fuels bias. And it has no place in a professional, equitable hiring process. Let’s do better. ___________________________________________________________________ 🔄 UPDATE: I want to add a few clarifications based on the thoughtful discussion happening in the comments: The VP of Product who reached out to me was a leader at another company—someone I didn’t know personally. “Backchanneling” refers to the common (and problematic) practice of contacting former managers or colleagues of a candidate for an unofficial reference—without the candidate’s knowledge or consent. I’m grateful for the positive and constructive dialogue this post has sparked. Thank you all for engaging with honesty and care. 🙏

Getting fired…after you quit?…🤔 It’s a scenario many don’t anticipate: you submit your two weeks’ notice, expecting a professional transition, but instead, you’re shown the door immediately. Here’s why this happens—and how to handle it: 1. Why Companies Do This: • They may see your departure as a security risk. Will you take sensitive info to your next job? • Morale concerns: They worry you might disengage or influence your colleagues. • Budget cuts: Sometimes they see an opportunity to save two weeks of salary. 2. What to Expect: • Final Paycheck: Depending on your local laws, you may still be owed the notice period or unused vacation pay. Know your rights. • Health Benefits: If you’re in the U.S., find out when your insurance coverage ends—often it’s immediately. COBRA or a new employer plan can help bridge the gap. • References: Even if this feels personal, keep your exit professional. Burning bridges won’t serve you long-term. 3. Protect Yourself Beforehand: • Don’t Blindside Your Employer: Avoid catching them off guard; a carefully crafted resignation letter helps. • Secure Key Documents: Before resigning, ensure you have any personal files or non-confidential information you might need. • Have an Emergency Fund: A buffer can turn a sudden firing into a minor inconvenience instead of a financial crisis. 4. Lessons to Take Away: • Companies look out for their interests; you should do the same. • Two weeks’ notice is a courtesy, not a guarantee. If your gut says they might let you go on the spot, prepare accordingly. Remember: an unplanned exit is just a detour, not a dead end. Stay resilient and use it as fuel for your next opportunity. Have you ever experienced this? What did you learn from it? #CareerGrowth #JobTips #Resignation

How to Analyse a Company (Like a Real Financial Analyst) Most people look at the stock price. Analysts look beneath it. Because the secret to smart investing isn’t predicting it’s understanding. Here’s how professionals break down a company: [1]. Understand the Business Before the balance sheet, comes clarity. What does the company actually do? Where does its money come from? Is it cyclical, defensive, or growth-oriented? Does it have an edge: brand, patents, or market share? If you don’t understand how it makes money, you can’t value what it’s worth. [2]. Analyse the Financials Numbers tell a story, if you know how to read them. Income Statement: Revenue growth (YoY) → Is it expanding or stagnating? Gross & Net Margins → Are profits growing with sales? EPS trend → Consistency builds trust. Balance Sheet: Current Ratio = Liquidity Debt-to-Equity < 0.35 → Stability ROE > 15% → Efficiency Cash Flow Statement: OCF > Net Income → Real cash, not accounting profits. Interest Coverage > 2.5 → Comfort with debt. Free Cash Flow = OCF – CapEx Healthy cash flow means survival. Healthy margins mean growth. [3]. Evaluate Valuation Now the question — is it worth it? P/E → Are you overpaying for growth? PEG → Growth-adjusted pricing (lower is better) EV/EBITDA → Compare across peers DCF → Find intrinsic value Because price is what you pay. Value is what you get. [4]. Assess Management & Risk A company is only as strong as its leadership. Transparent governance → Trust Consistent strategy → Vision Red flags → Sudden accounting shifts, share dilution, or rising debt. Good management compounds value faster than numbers do. [5]. Decide with Logic, Not Emotion Ask yourself: Is it undervalued? Is it growth, value, or dividend play? What’s my exit plan? You don’t need to be smarter than everyone just more disciplined than most. In investing, clarity is your greatest edge. The deeper you understand the business, the lesser you’ll depend on luck. ----- Jeetain Kumar, FMVA® Founder, FCP Consulting Helping students break into finance and consulting PS: If you want to start your career in finance, check the link in the comments to book a 1:1 session with me #finance #cfa #investment #interviews #consultation

The most dangerous career strategy in 2025: Following a path that worked for everyone before you. Over the last few weeks, my inbox has been flooded with messages of strife and anxiety from brilliant people blindsided by layoffs. To be honest, there is very little I can say to many. Most played the game of life perfectly. They went to great schools, got good grades, landed prestigious jobs, and worked hard. Their stories raises a critical question: What if it's not just specific jobs disappearing, but a fundamental flaw in how we've viewed careers and success? The linear world we've grown accustomed to is abruptly being disrupted. The ladders that guaranteed safety and success no longer hold their promise. For decades, we've operated under the belief that: → Business success comes from perfect execution → Career paths follow logical progression → Expertise can reliably predict the future My friend Gaetan recently said: "What if success was always more random than we wanted to believe? What if strategic planning was always more about the illusion of control than actual causality?" Navigating uncertainty now requires us to: → Judge the quality of our decisions not just results → Embrace uncertainty over false certainty → Recognize success as probabilistic For individuals navigating this shift: → Build skill portfolios, not linear paths → Combine skills uniquely; avoid single specialties → Design for uncertainty, not control → Test multiple career options → Adapt quickly; don’t chase perfection → Diversify income streams Following these principles won't just help you withstand career shocks, it makes you antifragile, allowing you to grow stronger from volatility and stress. The human cost of layoffs extends beyond financial insecurity; it's the painful realization that playing by the rules perfectly was never a guaranteed protection. Yet within this destabilizing reality lies a massive opportunity: to redefine success itself. Success shouldn't be a singular path to follow, but the freedom to create multiple paths of your own design. The true cost of clinging to old models isn't just stalling your career; it's missing the chance to discover who you might become when you stop following and start creating.

Your employment offer letter is not your employment agreement. What is verbally told to you in the interview process can change. Before you resign from your old employer, get EVERYTHING in writing. Make sure there are no surprises. That you have a chance to review anything you will be expected to sign before you resign from your old job. I have heard the following story several times recently. So, beware. I spoke to a rep named Mike, who was very angry. He was bait and switched during the interview process. He was verbally told about the comp plan, quota, and accelerators. He was offered the job through an employment letter. It included his base salary, title, start date, benefits, and a few other basic pieces of information. Mike signed the letter and resigned from his old employer. After joining his new company a few weeks later things were different. He was given an employment agreement and compensation plan to sign. The comp plan was very different than what was discussed. The quota was considerably higher, the accelerators were lower. Mike estimated that his earnings would be $60k less than expected. The plan also called for commissions to be paid on collections and quarterly, something Mike had never experienced in his sales career. The plan also said that commissions would not be paid upon departure. That he was not eligible for earned commissions if not employed. The employment agreement had overly restrictive clauses. The non-compete, non-solicit and non-disparage were vague and one-sided. Mike feels stuck. He does not want to work there anymore. He is worried that the non-compete could limit his employment. He is worried that the short stay on his resume will harm him as well. Mike learned a big lesson the hard way. He wants me to share his story to help you to avoid it happening to you. Never resign until everything is in writing and finalized. Leave nothing open to interpretation or gaslighting. Don't let them make you feel guilty for getting everything in writing. If they do, they likely never intended to honor it in the first place.

Silent Red Flags in a Contract Not all contract risks are obvious. Some don’t wave big red flags they sit there quietly, sipping coffee, waiting to ruin your day when it’s too late. Here are a few sneaky ones to watch out for: 1. Termination Notice that has a trap ex: “Either party may terminate by giving a 90-day prior written notice by registered post.” This sounds fine until the other party refuses to accept mail, leaving you stuck. Flexibility in notice delivery methods (emails, RPAD, etc.) helps avoid this. 2. Auto-Renewal that feels like some subscription you forgot to cancel ex: A contract that auto-renews unless terminated 60 days before expiry. Missed the deadline? Congratulations, you just bought another term of commitment. Always check renewal terms and negotiate flexibility. 3. ‘Reasonable Efforts’ without a guiding light ex: “The service provider shall take all reasonable steps to ensure 99.5% website up-time.” Reasonable to whom? The client? The universe? Always define obligations with measurable standards. 4. Confidentiality that lasts forever ex: “The receiving party shall never disclose or use the confidential information.” Never is a long time, longer than some companies exist. A well-drafted clause should account for practical realities (disclosures required by law, etc.). 5. One-sided dispute resolution ex: “All disputes shall be resolved by arbitration, and the Party A shall appoint the arbitrator.” Agreeing to this means you’re going to their turf every time. Always ensure jurisdiction and dispute resolution are neutral. 6. Hidden costs in referenced documents ex: The main contract looks great, but a linked “Standard Terms & Conditions” document quietly adds extra fees, penalties, and other nightmares. Always review referenced docs. for no surprises. 7. ‘Best efforts’ vs. ‘Commercially reasonable efforts (CRE)’ ex: “The contractor shall use its best efforts to complete the project on time.” Best efforts could mean working 24/7 with unlimited resources. CRE = practical, business-minded execution. Choose wisely. 8. Non-Compete clauses that overreach ex: “The employee shall not engage in a competing business at any time in the future.” is a legal life sentence. Restrictions ought to be reasonable in scope, and duration. 9. Force Majeure that helps one side ex: “In case of an unforeseeable event, Party A is excused from obligations.” And Party B? Well… good luck. Force majeure should work both ways. 10. Silent Assignment clauses ex: You sign a contract with a trusted vendor, only to realize they’ve assigned their obligations to an unknown entity. Avoid unpleasant surprise, and require written consent before assignment. A little ambiguity is unavoidable. But when vagueness creates risk, or gives one party too much control, that’s when alarms should go off. #ContractReview #InHouseCounsel

Choose speed over perfection.   I've always emphasised organisational speed, an underrated virtue.   Striving for perfection can seem admirable - a mark of elevated standards and thorough consideration. But it restricts pace, which I frequently find exasperating.   Speed is not just a competitive edge but essential. Delaying decisions to pursue the “perfect” outcome can result in missed opportunities, whereas making swift decisions allows you to adapt, learn, and stay ahead. Speed doesn’t mean skipping due diligence—it means executing efficiently within constraints. It’s about creating systems that allow rapid, informed decisions, not endless debates.   But seek speed appropriately - never sacrificing safety, integrity, or compliance. Thoroughness is critical in decisions where safety or irreversible outcomes are at stake. Speed wins hands down in areas where agility and iteration add value—like product launches or market entries.  So, why do I think speed is critical?   Momentum matters; it enhances confidence: A wise choice made today encourages advancement. Hoping for the unattainable “perfect” choice frequently results in inaction and disappointment. In industries like telecom, tech and medtech, where I’ve spent years, speed isn’t optional—it’s survival. Disruptors move fast; incumbents must match their pace or risk irrelevance. Mistakes facilitate learning: moving at pace enables faster comprehension. Imperfect decisions can offer important lessons that perfection postpones. Every decision generates data—good or bad. The faster you act, the quicker you collect insights that fuel the next iteration. Flexibility drives creativity: When flawless outcomes aren’t the primary objective, teams are more inclined to explore, revise, and develop daring, big solutions.   Decentralised decision-making enhances this impact. When teams closest to the problem own the solution, they act faster and produce more innovative results. This agility outperforms top-down management. Yet, here's the irony: selecting speed doesn't imply forsaking careful consideration. It's about recognising when 80% suffices for taking action. The real skill of leadership is found in this equilibrium. The bottom line: The cost of waiting for perfection isn’t just time—it’s the opportunities you let slip by as the world moves on. When it becomes part of the organisational DNA, speed fosters urgency, accountability, and a competitive edge. Culture eats strategy for breakfast, and speed is the engine behind the execution. Many of the most significant breakthroughs arose not from flawless strategies but from people and groups ready to take bold actions which continuously iterate and swiftly adapt. Personally, this approach has never let me down in leadership. If I had waited for perfection, I wouldn’t have had the privilege of learning from bold moves—or the occasional misstep that taught me even more.

The January JOLTS report out today shows employers & workers alike are sitting tight in this job market: 1. The hires rate fell to 3.6%, continuing a string of weak gross hiring numbers, comparable to levels seen in 2017. Employers are holding back on hiring aggressively as they wait to see how the economy will evolve after a few years of more rapid hiring. Additionally, weak hiring may help explain why worker sentiment has been soft as job seekers find it difficult to find their next career move. 2. And that shows up in quits: The quits rate fell to 2.1% as workers sit tight. If workers lack confidence in the job market, they are unlikely to quit, instead prioritizing job security over career/income growth. 3. Despite a raft of layoff headlines in January, measured layoffs actually ticked down to 1,572,000. This is low by historical standards (layoffs averaged ~1.8m/month in the 2010s) and suggests employers are pulling back on hiring but still holding onto existing workers. 4. Openings fell slightly to 8,863,000 in January, continuing their unsteady downward trend. I would caution against just focusing on openings as a measure of job market health. While openings are still very high, other indicators from JOLTS like hires or quits tell a story of a job market that is flirting with weakness outright or at least pointing to softer wage growth ahead. Overall, this points to a job market where job seekers & employees feel like there aren't good opportunities on the open market and are sitting tight as a result. Thankfully, layoffs remain low, but unless employers feel the confidence to reaccelerate hiring, the pause we are in may make it harder for new/returning workers to get their foot in the door and existing workers to level up their careers. #economy #news #JOLTS

In yesterday's post on the FCA's Diversity and Inclusion consultation, I questioned whether their proposals (which largely reduce DEI to demographic diversity statistics) would improve customer welfare. Here I discuss the FCA's second goal of improving the UK's international competitiveness (by increasing talent from underrepresented groups). All of yesterday's concerns continue to apply. 1. The proposals focus on very narrow aspects of diversity - what can be measured, not what's important. Other sources of underrepresentation are: a. Socioeconomic background, given the power of wealth and contacts. b. Regional background. Even a different accent can affect whether you get a job, or how seriously you are taken by colleagues or clients. c. Personality type. How often is someone not hired or promoted because they're said to be not aggressive or assertive enough? 2. What matters is not just diversity but inclusion: whether minorities can thrive rather than just having jobs. A minority could be a bully; a white male could be a mentor. Moreover, additional concerns apply here. 3. Targets undermine merit. If a company has announced a target for (say) senior women, and a woman is promoted out of merit, colleagues and clients may think she was promoted to meet the target. I was once approached to apply for a board position because it needed to increase its “number of non-white faces”. 4. Targets are divisive. They can create divisions in a company and worsen culture because one party benefits at the expense of others. A white male may believe he has limited promotion prospects and thus be less motivated. More broadly, the focus on symptoms, not problems, has missed a real opportunity to address the underlying causes of lack of diversity. Taking gender diversity in fund management as an example, a significant hurdle to women becoming portfolio managers is that the major promotion decision (from analyst to PM) typically occurs when many women have children. Most women take extended parental leave, but men rarely do. If a woman is overlooked for promotion pre-kids, her earnings may have fallen significantly behind her partner’s post-kids. The family dynamic may either dissuade her from returning to work, or require her to bear more childcare responsibilities after returning, hindering promotion. Even if a woman has made PM prior to leave, there are still barriers. When one PM was on leave for more than six weeks, her employer ended her CF30 approval (part of the FCA’s Approved Persons regime at the time) leaving a gap in her track record. Track record is crucial in fund management, affecting her client inflows, ability to launch a new fund, and likelihood of being assigned to a bigger fund. My response to the consultation is below, which I hope is helpful to both the FCA and also companies and investors interested in diversity. https://lnkd.in/eWgkd8qz.