So you did the work. You read the book. You took the course. You practiced the power poses, the firmer handshake, the slower speech, the strategic pause. Some of it helped on the margins. None of it changed the underlying thing.

Here is what almost nobody tells senior professionals working on this: the confidence gap is real. It is also almost never the actual problem.

For the senior IC who keeps getting “more confident” as feedback, the confidence is downstream of something else. And until that something else gets named, every confidence intervention will produce diminishing returns. Better delivery on top of a foundation that is not strong enough to carry the delivery.

The reason this gets missed is that confidence is the most visible symptom. When someone walks into a room and is not fully landing, the easiest read is that they need more confidence. The observer is partially right. Something is missing. The label is wrong about what.

In practice, what shows up as a confidence gap is usually one of three things in disguise. Each one looks identical from the outside. Each one requires a completely different fix. And working on the wrong one is what produces the years-long loop of confidence work that never quite cashes in.

The three patterns hiding inside “I need more confidence”

When a senior professional tells me they are working on confidence, I do not take that at face value. I ask them to describe the situations where the gap shows up. Within about ten minutes, one of three patterns becomes obvious. They are not the same problem. They do not have the same fix.

The first one is the most common, and the most often misdiagnosed. Most senior professionals working on confidence are actually in this one. It is worth walking through in full, because recognizing yourself in it is the first move.

Pattern one: it is a visibility gap

The person has a clear, specific, defensible point of view about their work. They know what they bring. They can articulate it when asked directly. The problem is that almost nobody is asking, and they are not surfacing it on their own.

What it looks like from the outside: someone who is competent in 1:1s, quiet in groups, invisible in the broader org. Their manager likes them. Their peers respect them. Senior leadership does not know who they are. When their name comes up in a calibration or a succession conversation, the room nods politely and moves on.

The internal experience reads as a confidence problem. Why can I talk about this with my manager but freeze in the leadership review? So they assume the freeze is the issue. They work on the freeze. They work on speaking up. They work on having a voice.

The freeze is not the issue. The freeze is what happens when someone has substance but no infrastructure for surfacing it. Add more pressure to surface, and the freeze gets worse. Build the infrastructure, and the freeze resolves on its own.

The first move if this is you: stop working on speaking up. Start working on the systematic, low-stakes surfaces where your point of view can show up before the high-stakes ones. Written commentary in Slack threads. Specific framing in standing 1:1s with senior leaders. A clear position taken in the document, not just the meeting. The room is downstream of the surfaces.

How to test whether this is your pattern: in the past month, count the number of low-stakes surfaces where you put a clear point of view in writing. Slack threads with leadership visible. Written feedback on a strategy doc. A position taken in an async comment. If the number is under five, the freeze in the high-stakes room is not a confidence problem. It is a reps problem. The room is the wrong place to start practicing.

This pattern lives in Build Your Presence.

Pattern one is the most common. It is not the only one, and for some senior professionals it is not the right diagnosis.

The two patterns below are what is actually going on for the senior professionals who have already worked on visibility, are already speaking up, and are still getting the same feedback. They are harder to see from the inside, which is why most senior professionals never reach them on their own.

Read more

It does not. It happens in the minute or two a hiring manager spends on you before they decide whether to talk to you at all. Your LinkedIn opens. They scan the headline, read the first two roles, glance at the about section if there is one. The tab closes. In that window, they have decided whether you are someone they will invest a forty-five minute conversation in, or someone they will pass on with a polite no.

The interview is what you get if the read in those two minutes was the right one. If the read was wrong, you do not get the interview, and you usually never know why.

What hiring managers are filtering for in that window is not your experience. They can see your experience. They are filtering for whether your experience reads as the level they are hiring for. There is a difference, and the difference is what costs senior professionals the roles they are entirely qualified for.

Here is what I know to be true. The work that gets you the interview is not the work that gets you the offer. They are two different jobs. Most senior professionals are doing one of them well and assuming the other will take care of itself.

The mechanic is consistent across levels. A Director-level candidate writes a headline that lists their current title and company. The headline reads as a person who holds a Director title. It does not read as a person operating at the Senior Director level the role is open at. A hiring manager scanning for Senior Director candidates does not think “this person could grow into it.” They think “this is a Director.” They move on.

A VP candidate writes an about section that walks through their career chronologically. Manager at this company, Director at that one, VP at the current one. That section reads as a competent professional with a normal trajectory. It does not read as a leader with a thesis about what they build and why. A hiring manager looking for VPs who can run a function is not looking for a chronology. They are looking for a point of view. If the point of view is not on the page, the candidate gets passed over for someone whose point of view is on the page, even if that other candidate has less experience.

A senior IC writes a resume that lists what they were responsible for. Owned the X workstream. Led the Y initiative. The resume reads as someone who held the role. It does not read as someone whose presence in the role changed the outcome. A hiring manager filtering for the senior IC who can come in and shift things is not looking for ownership language. They are looking for the language of consequence. Without it, the resume gets sorted into the pile of qualified candidates who do not get a call.

In every one of these cases, the candidate is qualified. The work is real. The experience is right. What is missing is the language that signals the level. And the language is what the hiring manager is filtering for, because it is the only signal they have in the time they spend.

The disconnect is this. Senior professionals assume hiring managers are reading carefully, will see the substance behind the language, and will recognize their level from the totality of their experience. Hiring managers are doing the opposite. They are scanning quickly, taking the language at face value, and using it to make a fast read on whether to invest time. The substance behind the language never gets evaluated, because the language never made it past the filter.

This is not a hiring problem. It is a positioning problem the candidate brought into the search.

The reason most senior professionals get fewer interviews than they expect, or interview for roles a half-step below where they should be, is not that the market is hard, or that the recruiter did not pass them through, or that their network is not strong enough. Those things matter at the margin. The thing that matters at the center is whether the under-two-minute read positions them at the level they are actually qualified for, or one notch below it.

When the read is wrong, every downstream conversation is harder. The recruiters who reach out are reaching out for roles below where you should be. The interviews you get start from a position you have to climb out of. The offers you get reflect the level your positioning suggested, not the level your work would have justified.

When the read is right, the opposite happens. The recruiters who reach out are reaching out for the level you want. The interviews start from a position of “we are excited to talk to you” rather than “let us see if you are who we think you are.” The offers reflect the level your positioning made clear before the conversation ever started.

The filtering is happening whether you have done the work or not. The only question is whether the read is the one that gets you considered for the role you actually want, or the one that quietly removes you from consideration without anyone telling you why.

If you are sensing a gap between the work you do and how it is being received, start here.

→ Start the Recognition Series

The Level Read Audit

Hiring managers form their under-two-minute read from four surfaces, in roughly this order.

Read more

You have decided you are going to ask for a promotion in June.

You have been in the role for eighteen months. Your last review was strong. You have taken on scope. Your manager has signaled, in that careful way managers do, that you are “on the radar.” You are going to wait until Q2 review, set up a thirty-minute meeting, walk in with your case, and ask.

Here is what most people in your position never see clearly. The decision is not being made in June. It is already happening right now, in conversations you have no visibility into, by people who are forming their perspective on whether you are ready based on whatever fragments of you have reached them.

By the time you sit down with your manager and say “I would like to talk about the next role,” the relevant decision-makers have already decided, in the rooms where promotions get architected, whether they would advocate for you. If their perspective is yes, the conversation is a formality. If it is not yet, no amount of in-meeting persuasion will change it. The work to shift that perspective had to happen months earlier.

Three to six months earlier, in fact. That is the lag between when the language about you starts traveling and when it reaches the people whose votes matter. If you start the work in June, you are not preparing for this cycle. You are preparing for the next one, and you do not yet know it.

Here is what I know to be true. The decision about your next role is not made in the meeting where you ask. It is made in the months before, by people piecing together a read of you from whatever fragments have reached them. By the time you ask, the answer is already in the room. The conversation either confirms it or runs into it.

For the answer to be the one you want, three things have to already be true before the conversation ever takes place.

One. Other people are using your language about your work. Not your title. Not your scope. The specific problem you are solving for the business, repeated enough times in your words that the language is recognizable when your name comes up.

Two. Your manager is already positioning you. They are bringing you up in the rooms you are not in, before you ever ask them to. If you are advocating for yourself before your manager is, the foundation is not ready. The work is upstream from the conversation.

Three. There is evidence that travels. Specific outcomes, attached to your name, that other people have seen with their own eyes. “She is reliable” does not travel. “She turned around the most volatile account on the East team in six months” does. Same person. Different read.

The work of getting promoted is the work of being undeniable in rooms you are not in. By the time you ask, the answer should already be obvious to everyone with a vote. If it is not, the question is not how to make a stronger case in June. The question is what should already be in motion right now, and is not.

The 90-day framework I walk clients through is below. The shape of the work, in the order it actually has to happen.

Read more

Not because the person making them lacks the capability for the new field. Because they approach the pivot as a subtraction problem, leading with what they don’t have rather than what they do.

The job posting asks for five years of SaaS experience. They have zero. The role requires a specific technical background. They’re coming from a completely different industry. So they spend their energy trying to close those gaps, building credentials, taking courses, finding ways to check the boxes they’re missing.

Meanwhile the real problem goes untouched.

The real problem is that nobody looking at their background can see how it connects to where they’re going. The translation layer is missing. And without it, a genuinely strong candidate looks like a question mark.

Here’s what I’ve watched work across the clients I’ve coached through pivots: the ones who move fastest do two things differently.

First, they stop trying to become something they’re not and start translating what they already are. Eighteen years running a client-facing business is not a liability in a solutions engineering role. It’s directly relevant. The question is whether you can express it in language that lands in the new context, not whether you can acquire experience you don’t have.

Second, they choose a direction and commit to it. The most common reason pivots stall is not the gap. It’s the hedge. Staying “open to anything” while quietly hoping to pivot keeps you positioned for nothing. The people who move in three months chose a lane and built their whole narrative around it.

Pivots don’t require starting over. They require repositioning what you already have. The gap between where you are and where you’re going is almost always smaller than it looks -- once the translation is in place.

If you’re sensing a gap between your value and how it’s landing, start here. → Start the Recognition Series

Read more

None of that addresses the actual problem.

The actual problem is that your network doesn’t know what to do with you. Not because they don’t like you or don’t want to help. Because you haven’t given them a clear enough picture of what you’re building toward that they could connect you to the right thing even if they wanted to.

This is the difference between a network that works and one that doesn’t. It has very little to do with size or activity. It has almost everything to do with signal.

When your positioning is clear -- when the people in your network understand specifically what you bring, what you’re building toward, and what kind of opportunity fits -- they become a referral engine without being asked. They forward your content. They mention your name when it’s relevant. They make introductions you didn’t know were possible.

When your positioning is unclear, the opposite happens. People want to help but don’t know how. They can’t forward you because they can’t summarize you. You end up having the same surface-level conversation over and over, starting from zero every time.

The fix isn’t more networking. It’s getting clear enough that the people who already know you can actually do something with that knowledge.

Here’s what I know to be true: the most referred professionals aren’t the most active networkers. They’re the most clearly positioned ones. Their network does the work because the signal is strong enough to carry.

If you’re sensing a gap between your value and how it’s landing, start here. → Start the Recognition Series

Read more

It starts at the offer. Counter this way. Hold on equity. Ask about the bonus structure. All of that is useful if you have already done the harder work. If you have not, the tactics do not matter much. You are negotiating from ambiguity, and the other side can feel it.

Here is what I have watched play out consistently across my clients: the professionals who navigate offer conversations well are not the ones who read the most negotiation books. They are the ones who resolved something before the conversation started. They know what they bring. They know what they are building toward. They know what this specific role does or does not do for that trajectory.

That prior clarity is not a soft thing. It is structural. It changes what questions you ask. It changes your read on what the offer is actually worth to you. It changes whether you push back on compensation or title or scope -- and which of those you push back on and why.

My clients who negotiate most effectively share one pattern: they did the positioning work first. They got clear on their narrative, their value, their direction. And when the offer arrived, they were not figuring all of that out under pressure.

The substance-signal gap shows up in negotiation the same way it shows up everywhere else. If you cannot articulate what makes you the specific right person for this specific role, you are negotiating on the other party’s terms. You are accepting their framing of your value instead of walking in with your own.

Positioning is not just a job search tool. It is the foundation of every high-stakes conversation you will have in your career. Offers. Promotions. Scope expansions. Internal advocacy. All of it runs on the same infrastructure.

This is the kind of clarity that changes conversations. If you’re seeing gaps in your own positioning, start here. → Start the Recognition Series

Read more

Not the job offer, the promotion, the interview that finally landed. The thing that changed right before all of that started moving.

And the pattern was so consistent it stopped me.

One client had been applying to roles for months with almost no response. Same resume. Same experience. Same person. He repositioned how he showed up on LinkedIn, not a rebrand, not a makeover, just a shift in language from documenting what he had done to signaling what he could do for the person reading it. He described the result as going from “zero to one hundred percent.” He is now in active interviews for a role that matches what he has actually built.

Another client left a role paying well over $400K because the compensation had become the only reason to stay. Within her first week of working together, she had six quality conversations lined up. Not because she suddenly became more qualified. Because she showed up differently. The clarity changed how people experienced her in every conversation.

A third client turned down one of the most prestigious companies in AI. Not because the role was wrong on paper. Because he had stopped asking “What looks best on my resume?” and started asking “What puts me where I want to be in two years?” That is a different question. It produces a different answer. And it requires a kind of clarity most people have never been taught to build.

Here is the thing that connects all three, and every other client win I reviewed this quarter:

None of them got better at their jobs. They got better at making their value visible to the people who make decisions about their careers.

That distinction matters more than most career advice acknowledges.

The standard playbook says: work harder, get more experience, develop new skills, network more. And all of that is fine. But it assumes the bottleneck is substance. That you need to be more, do more, know more.

What I see in my data, consistently, is the opposite. The substance is already there. The bottleneck is signal, the way that substance reaches the people who need to see it.

Your LinkedIn profile describes what you have done but not what you bring. Your interview stories are chronological when decision-makers listen for impact. Your professional brand was built by your employer, not by you. And the strengths that come easiest to you are the ones you dismiss, because you assume everyone can do what you do.

They cannot.

Every client I reviewed this quarter had the same starting condition: strong substance, weak signal. And the shift that unlocked everything else was not adding more substance. It was learning to control the signal.

That shift is quieter than people expect. But once it happens, the career starts moving at a pace that surprises even the person living it.

If this resonates, The Recognition Series is a free 7-email sequence that walks you through the exact shift these clients made, from substance that is being overlooked to signal that actually lands.

→ Start the Recognition Series

Read more

The feedback? “She needs more executive presence.”

When she pressed for specifics, she got the usual: Be more confident. Speak up more. Own the room.

So she did. She spoke up more in cross-functional meetings. She made her voice bigger. She projected.

Six months later, same feedback. Word for word.

Here’s what nobody told her: confidence wasn’t the problem. Relevance was.

What senior leaders are actually evaluating

When executives assess someone’s “presence,” they’re not scoring charisma or polish. They’re running a quieter calculation:

Does this person understand what actually matters right now? Can they prioritize when resources are tight and the timeline is moving? Will their judgment hold when the tradeoffs get uncomfortable?

Presence, at the executive level, is judgment made visible.

That VP? She was giving updates when the room needed decisions. She was showcasing her team’s work when leadership wanted to hear what she’d cut and why. The volume was fine. The signal was wrong.

Why confidence without context backfires

When someone is told to “show more confidence,” what leadership usually means is: We can’t yet see how you’d operate at the next level.

But most people hear that and try to project bigger. They talk more. They assert more. And it lands as performative — because confidence without context just looks like someone performing seniority instead of demonstrating it.

What actually creates presence is harder and less obvious. It’s naming the real problem before jumping to your solution. It’s framing a recommendation in terms of what you’re choosing not to do, and being able to explain that tradeoff without flinching. It’s knowing when the issue on the table isn’t material enough for your voice, and staying quiet on purpose.

That restraint reads as credibility. Every time.

What this actually sounds like

Let me give you one example of what I mean.

Most people walk into a cross-functional meeting and lead with progress: “Here’s what we shipped this quarter.” That’s a status update. It’s not wrong, but it doesn’t signal executive thinking.

Someone with presence opens differently: “We’re at risk of losing the enterprise segment if we don’t address onboarding complexity by end of Q2. Here’s what I recommend and what it requires.”

Same information. Different framing. One sounds like a report. The other sounds like someone who belongs in the room where priorities get set.

That shift — from showcasing your work to naming the business problem your work is solving — is the signal leadership is listening for.

Why this matters right now

As you move into more senior conversations, execution stops being the thing that separates you. Everyone at that table is competent. Everyone delivered results. What separates people is whether their thinking helps the group decide faster and with more clarity.

That’s executive presence. Not volume. Not polish. Relevance plus restraint.

If you’ve been getting the “be more confident” feedback and it isn’t landing, the issue probably isn’t your confidence. It’s your signal.

So how do you shift that signal?

In the paid version, I break down the three specific ways presence lands in senior rooms — with real examples of what to say, what to cut, and how to frame tradeoffs so leadership sees your judgment, not just your execution. Plus: how to audit your own signal and a 30-day reset plan to start showing up differently before your next high-stakes conversation.

Read more

When I asked what connected them, she went quiet.

Then she said, “I guess I was hoping one of them would feel right.”

That sentence stayed with me for days. Not because it was unusual, but because I hear some version of it almost every week.

The Spin

Here’s the pattern I see with high performers who feel stuck: they’re not sitting still. They’re spinning. Constantly in motion, meetings, applications, conversations, but nothing accumulates. Monday’s effort doesn’t connect to Tuesday’s conversation. Each week feels like a reset instead of a step forward.

And it’s exhausting in a specific way. Not the exhaustion of overwork, but the exhaustion of effort that isn’t building toward anything. You’re doing all the right things. You’re just doing them without a filter.

Being “open to anything” sounds flexible. Resourceful. Proactive. But without a clear frame for what you actually want, everything looks potentially relevant. So the search expands. The resume gets broader. Your LinkedIn profile becomes harder to place. The people in your network want to help, but they don’t know what to send your way.

And the longer you stay in the spin, the harder it becomes to stop. Because stopping feels like giving up. So you keep going. More applications. More coffee chats. More “just putting yourself out there.” All of it reasonable. None of it compounding.

I watched this play out with several people this quarter. One client described every item on her career checklist as “draining.” She wasn’t lazy. She wasn’t unmotivated. She was doing plenty. But none of it was building toward anything, so all of it felt heavy. Another client had been interviewing for over a year and consistently came in second. She was well-prepared and deeply qualified. But without a clear filter for what actually fit, her answers always sounded good and never sounded specific.

Why I Recognize This Pattern Instantly

I’ve been there myself.

After leaving Salesforce, I started doing what most people do. I applied. I interviewed. I went through the motions at different companies.

And I was half in. Every conversation, every application, something felt off, but I couldn’t name it.

Until I took a pause and turned my own framework on myself.

The seed had been planted long before I acted on it. The work I loved most in every leadership role I held was the people. Specifically, it was those conversations where I would ask someone: if you stripped away the title, the comp, all of it, and just did one kind of work forever, what would it be? And then figuring out how to build toward that with them.

I had been doing career coaching informally for years. Inside every team I ran. Every skip-level I held. It was always the part of my work where I felt most alive. The part I would have done for free if I had to.

When I eventually made the transition, it didn’t feel like a leap into the unknown. It felt like finally doing full-time the thing I had been doing on the side of my actual job description for over two decades.

The question wasn’t “what should I do next?” It was “what have I already been doing that I keep ignoring?”

The Question Behind the Question

When I work with clients who are in the spin, the first thing I do is slow them down. Not to stall their search, but to surface what’s actually driving it.

Because here’s what I’ve learned: most people who feel stuck think they’re optimizing for the next role. But when I dig in, they’re usually optimizing for something else entirely. Safety. Approval. Escaping their current situation. Or avoiding a decision they’re not ready to make.

None of those are bad motivations. But they produce very different searches than “I’m building toward something specific.”

The woman who applied to 47 jobs? When we finally got underneath the activity, she wasn’t looking for a role. She was looking for evidence that she was still valuable after being laid off. Every application was a way to test whether the market still wanted her. The jobs themselves were almost beside the point.

Once she could name that, the search changed completely. She didn’t need 47 more applications. She needed one clear filter, and the confidence that she was allowed to use it.

That’s the shift I see over and over. The people who break out of the spin don’t find it by searching harder. They find it by getting honest about what they’re actually looking for, and then building a filter that lets them move with intention instead of anxiety.

One client put it in words I haven’t stopped thinking about: “Hyper productivity followed by burnout. Followed by resentment.” She wasn’t describing a bad week. She was describing a career pattern. And she wasn’t looking for balance. Her exact words: “When I’m aligned, I can figure the rest out.”

If you listed the last ten things you said yes to, roles, conversations, projects, would a pattern emerge? Or would it look like a list of things that were available?

Sit with that for a second. Because the answer tells you everything about whether your effort is compounding or scattering.

Read more

Read more

Most people talk about burnout like it’s about capacity — too many hours, not enough rest, a workload that finally catches up with you. But the version I keep seeing in my coaching work is quieter than that. And harder to name.

It shows up when effort stops compounding.

One client described it this way: “I’m exhausted, but I can’t point to what it’s building toward.”

That sentence comes up more often than people expect.

The Burnout No One Warned You About

In her case, the pace hadn’t increased. The workload wasn’t unreasonable. Performance reviews were solid. From the outside, everything looked fine.

But the work she was doing wasn’t creating a signal for the next role or the next level. Another deck delivered. Another fire put out. Another win that disappeared the moment it landed.

Motion without direction.

And that’s where the real drain comes from.

There’s a meaningful difference between hard effort and heavy effort. Hard effort builds toward something — it’s demanding, but it compounds. You can feel it stacking. Heavy effort just accumulates. It sits on you.

When you can’t draw a line between what you’re doing today and what you want next, energy leaks. Even capable, motivated people start to feel worn down by work that doesn’t seem to add up.

This is why burnout can linger even when performance is strong. The issue isn’t that you’re doing too much. It’s that what you’re doing isn’t pointed at anything.

What Actually Changed

Once she could see where effort had been leaking — where she’d been spending her best energy on work that didn’t create forward motion — the recalibration wasn’t about doing less. It was about doing differently.

She started asking a different question. Not “what does my manager need from me this week?” but “what would make my value impossible to miss at the level I’m trying to reach?”

That one shift changed what she said yes to, what she volunteered for, and how she framed the work she was already doing. Within a few months, she’d landed a role that actually used what she was best at.

Same talent. Same drive. Same person.

The difference was that her work finally pointed somewhere.

The Part Most People Miss

This isn’t theory. I lived this from the inside.

When I was at Slack, Adobe, and Salesforce, I watched this pattern play out constantly. High performers grinding through visible, demanding work and wondering why they felt stuck. The problem was rarely effort. It was almost always positioning.

The people who moved forward weren’t necessarily working harder. They were working on things that made their value obvious to the people making decisions. Their effort created a signal. Everyone else’s created noise.

And here’s what made it painful to watch: the people creating noise were often the most talented people in the room. They weren’t lacking ability. They were lacking direction. No one had ever told them that effort alone doesn’t compound — positioned effort does.

That’s the part no one warns you about. You can be excellent at your job and still invisible to the people who decide what’s next for you. Not because they don’t care, but because excellence without positioning just looks like reliability. And reliable people get kept exactly where they are.

Not all burnout is a signal to stop.

Some of it is a signal that effort has lost its direction.

And once you can see that clearly, the fix isn’t rest. It’s redirection.

P.S. — In this week’s paid post, I break down the exact framework I use to map where effort leaks, plus three diagnostic questions that show whether your work is compounding or just accumulating. If this piece hit close to home, that’s the next step. Read the framework →

And I killed one.

It was sitting there on my kitchen counter, brown and crispy, when my family walked in. The laughter started immediately. Not mean-spirited, just… familiar. “Mom’s thumb of death strikes again!” My husband grinned. The kids shook their heads, already moving on to the next thing.

Everyone was laughing at the predictability of it. At the running joke that had defined me for years.

And something inside me snapped.

Not anger, exactly. Defiance.

I don’t like to lose. And I’d been losing at plants for so long that I’d stopped questioning it. I’d just… accepted it. Laughed along. Made self-deprecating jokes about my “thumb of death” instead of my green thumb.

But standing there in my kitchen, staring at that dead air plant, I realized something:

I’d surrendered to a narrative that wasn’t even true.

I’m fully capable of figuring things out. That’s literally what I do for a living — help people solve complex problems. But somehow, I’d decided plants were different. That THIS was just “not my thing.”

So I went out and bought one plant. Just one.

I researched it. I learned what it needed. I paid attention.

And it thrived.

The relief I felt watching that first plant grow? The satisfaction? It wasn’t really about the plant at all.

It was about realizing I’d been living inside a story someone else wrote about me — and I’d just… believed it.

Now I have eight thriving plants in my home. I can barely tell you what kind they are (green, safe for my cat, alive… that’s about all I’ve got). It’s not an area of strong interest for me.

But I love that I changed the narrative. I love that I have them.

This experience has made me think differently about the work I do with my clients.

Because here’s what I know after 25+ years of hiring, leading, and coaching senior professionals: the narratives that hold people back at work are almost never about capability. They’re about interpretation.

Somewhere along the way, someone categorized you. Maybe it was an HR system that slotted you into a lane. Maybe it was a manager who saw one version of you and decided that was the whole story. Maybe it was you — absorbing a piece of feedback in a vulnerable moment and turning it into a permanent identity.

“I’m not good at self-promotion.” “I’m just not visible.” “I’m a behind-the-scenes person.” “I’m not leadership material.”

These narratives feel true because you’ve lived with them so long. Because other people reinforced them. Because it’s easier to accept the label than to challenge it.

But I want you to sit with this for a moment:

What if the thing you think is holding you back isn’t a limitation at all — it’s just a story you stopped questioning?

I watch this happen constantly. A client will come to me convinced they’re “not good at executive presence.” But when we dig into it, what actually happened was one bad presentation three years ago and a manager who said “you’re more of a doer than a leader.” That one sentence became a belief. That belief became a behavior. And that behavior became a ceiling.

The limitation wasn’t real. But the impact of believing it was.

This is what I mean when I say your value isn’t a performance problem — it’s an interpretation problem. Decision-makers aren’t seeing you clearly, and often that’s because you’re not seeing you clearly either. You’re operating inside a narrative that limits what you put forward, how you show up, and what you believe is available to you.

The professionals who break through aren’t the ones who work harder. They’re the ones who change the story.

They stop accepting the label. They get specific about what’s actually true versus what they’ve simply absorbed. And they start showing up as the person they actually are — not the version that was convenient for someone else’s org chart.

That’s what I did with the plant. And it’s what my clients do with their careers.

What is the work that actually energizes you?

What would you do more of if you weren’t living inside someone else’s definition of who you are?

What narrative are you ready to change?

You don’t have to become a plant expert. You don’t even have to love it.

You just have to decide you’re done accepting the limitations.

Start with one thing. One story you’ve been telling yourself that maybe, just maybe, isn’t true.

And see what grows.

I’d love to hear what comes up for you. Reply to this email or leave a comment — I read every one.

P.S. — In this week’s paid post, I break down the exact 5-step framework I use with my clients to identify, test, and dismantle these limiting narratives. If you recognized yourself anywhere in this piece, that’s the next step. Read the framework →

This is The Next Chapter with Laurie.

Want to start with a diagnostic? The free Career Readiness Series shows you where your value is breaking down — and helps you reposition one thing in 15 minutes. → Start the series

The Framework: How to Identify and Dismantle a Limiting Narrative

When I work with clients who feel stuck — passed over, invisible, undervalued — the first thing I look for isn’t a skills gap. It’s a story.

Not the kind you tell other people. The kind you tell yourself so quietly you don’t even realize it’s running.

These narratives operate like invisible ceilings. You don’t hit them in dramatic moments. You just… stop reaching. You don’t raise your hand. You don’t apply. You don’t push back. You don’t share the insight. And over time, the narrative becomes self-fulfilling — not because it was ever true, but because you behaved as though it was.

Here’s the framework I use with my clients to surface these narratives, test them, and build new ones. It’s the same process I went through with the plant — just applied to what actually matters.

Step 1: Name the Story

You can’t change a narrative you haven’t identified. And most of us are carrying stories so old we’ve forgotten they’re stories at all.

Write it down. Get specific.

“I’m bad at networking” is different from “I’m an introvert” which is different from “People don’t remember me after conversations.”

The more specific you are, the easier it becomes to challenge. Vague narratives feel like identity. Specific ones feel like claims — and claims can be tested.

Try this: Complete the sentence “I’m just not the kind of person who ___________.” Whatever comes after that? That’s your narrative.

Read more

And when she asked about moving into the VP conversation, the answer came back: “You need more experience.”

She didn’t push back. She didn’t ask what that meant. She did what most high performers do, she took on another initiative. Volunteered for another committee. Started showing up earlier and staying later, trying to close a gap no one had actually defined.

Six months of that, and nothing changed. Not the feedback. Not the trajectory. The only thing that changed was how she felt about the work. The launches she used to get energy from started feeling like obligations. The extra hours stopped feeling like investment and started feeling like proof that none of it mattered.

I’ve seen this play out dozens of times now, and here’s what I know to be true.

What “More Experience” Actually Means

“More experience” is rarely a diagnosis. It’s a placeholder. It’s what people say when something feels unclear to them about your readiness, but they can’t, or won’t name what it is.

I’ve sat in rooms where promotion decisions get made, and I can tell you that sometimes “more experience” means they don’t see you operating at the next level yet. Sometimes it means they see someone else more clearly. And sometimes, more often than you’d think, it means they simply don’t have enough information about you to make the case.

Because the issue isn’t usually your track record. It’s how your track record is being interpreted in the rooms where decisions get made. And those are rooms you’re probably not in.

The Question That Changed Everything

When she and I first sat down, I asked her something that stopped her mid-sentence:

“Who in leadership can describe the scope of what you’re actually doing right now?”

Long pause.

“My direct manager, probably.”

“Probably?”

That was the moment. She had been working harder to close a gap that had nothing to do with effort. The people making decisions about her future didn’t have a clear picture of the scope she was already operating at. Her results were strong, but the story around those results wasn’t reaching the right people in the right way.

It was a visibility problem, not a performance one.

Why This Happens to High Performers Specifically

Here’s the cruel irony: the better you are at your job, the more invisible you become.

When you’re good at what you do, people trust you to handle things. They stop checking in as often. They stop asking for updates because they know you’ll deliver. And over time, the very competence that should be building your case for promotion is actually making you disappear to the people who matter.

Your manager knows what you’re doing. Your team knows. But the VP two levels up? The cross-functional leader who has a voice in calibration? They might know your name, but they don’t know your scope. They don’t know you led that reorg transition. They don’t know the $4M launch was your strategy, not just your execution.

And in a promotion conversation, what they don’t know about you is treated the same as what doesn’t exist.

What Changed for Her

Once we identified the real gap, the work shifted completely. We stopped focusing on accumulating more accomplishments and started focusing on making her existing accomplishments legible to the right people.

The “more experience” feedback disappeared. Not because time passed. Not because she accumulated more wins. Because the people evaluating her finally understood what she’d been doing all along.

The Question Worth Sitting With

If you’ve been hearing feedback that sounds reasonable but never seems to move you forward, this is worth paying attention to. The gap might not be in your experience. It might be in how your experience is being read.

Here’s the question. Who beyond your direct manager could articulate the scope and impact of what you’re doing right now? If the answer is “I’m not sure,” that’s your signal.

The work isn’t to do more. The work is to make what you’re already doing visible to the people who have a say in what happens next.

Want to go deeper? The Career Readiness Series is a free 5-day email series where you’ll diagnose how your experience is actually landing — and reposition one thing in 15 minutes.

→ Start the series

Not ready for that yet? Subscribe to the free edition, and I’ll send you the next one.

Subscribe now

Onward, Laurie

Not how impressive you are. How easy you are to say yes to.

This is the playbook for making that happen – whether you’re actively interviewing, passively open, or positioning for a move later this year.

Why “qualified” isn’t the bottleneck

Most candidates prepare for interviews by proving competence. They rehearse answers. They tighten their resume. They study the company.

None of that is wrong. But it solves the wrong problem.

In Q1, hiring managers aren’t asking “Can this person do the job?” They’re asking: “Can I justify this hire given the constraints I’m working with?”

That means your goal isn’t to demonstrate everything you can do. It’s to make the fit so obvious that no one has to work to figure out why you’re the right call.

The three things that make someone easy to say yes to

After 20+ years watching hiring decisions from the inside, these are the patterns I’ve seen consistently:

Read more

Hiring slows down early in the year. Budgets are locked. Every open role gets extra scrutiny. And the people making decisions get cautious – not about whether someone can do the job, but about whether saying yes feels safe enough to justify.

That’s the part most people miss.

When I was inside companies like Slack, Adobe, and Salesforce, I saw it up close. Q1 hiring wasn’t actually harder. It was more revealing. The constraints stripped away the noise and made one thing really obvious: who was easy to say yes to, and who wasn’t.

The candidates who moved fast weren’t necessarily more qualified. They just didn’t make anyone work to figure them out. The fit was obvious. The value was right there.

The ones who stalled? Usually strong. Often great on paper. But the decision felt heavy. And in Q1, heavy decisions just don’t move.

Here’s what I think is happening underneath that:

When budgets are tight, every hire has to be justified. Not just “this person is good” – but “I can defend this hire to my leadership team given the constraints we’re operating under.” That’s a different bar. It’s not about capability. It’s about whether someone has to work to figure out what you bring and where you fit.

And that’s not something most candidates think about deliberately. They focus on proving they’re qualified. But qualified isn’t the bottleneck. The bottleneck is whether someone can make your case on your behalf without having to piece it together themselves.

I’ve been thinking about this a lot because it maps directly onto what I see with positioning in general – not just in hiring, but in promotions, in visibility, in how careers move forward or quietly stall.

The gap is almost never skill. It’s almost always whether the fit is obvious – or whether someone has to squint to see it.

If you want the tactical side – how to actually close that gap – that’s what paid subscribers get.

Subscribe now

They assume visibility means:

• More output

• More responsiveness

• More being “helpful”

So they work harder, take on more, and stay busy.

And still get overlooked.

The mistake isn’t effort.
It’s what’s being made visible.

Here’s the mistake:
They make effort visible instead of judgment visible.

Most high performers are excellent executors.
Their calendars are full.
Their managers trust them.
Their work gets done.

But when promotion, hiring, or scope-expansion decisions are made, that’s not what decision-makers are scanning for.

They’re not asking:
“Who worked the hardest?”

They’re asking:
“Who can we trust with more?”

That requires a different kind of visibility.

What decision-makers actually need to see

Decision-makers don’t need to see how much you’re doing.
They need to see how you think.

Specifically:

• How you prioritize when everything matters

• What tradeoffs you make under constraint

• Which problems you choose to solve (and which you don’t)

• How your decisions scale beyond your role

This is what signals readiness for the next level.

Not volume.
Not responsiveness.
Judgment.

Why “doing more” often backfires

When high performers feel overlooked, they usually respond by increasing activity:

• Saying yes faster

• Taking on more work

• Being constantly available

From the outside, this often reinforces the wrong signal.

Execution without altitude.
Busyness without direction.

Visibility without framing doesn’t fix that.
It just creates noise.

What legible visibility looks like

Visibility that moves careers isn’t loud.
It’s legible.

Legible visibility makes it easy for someone higher up to answer three questions quickly:

• What is this person known for?

• What level are they already operating at?

• Where would it make sense to use them next?

The people who advanced fastest in 2025 didn’t try to be everywhere.
They focused on being recognizable for something specific, in rooms where decisions were made.

Reliable vs ready

There’s a difference between being known as reliable and being known as ready.

Reliable gets you more work.
Ready gets you more scope.

High performers who made that shift didn’t disappear.
They became easier to advocate for.

If you’re waiting for effort alone to get noticed, here’s the hard truth:
Effort without positioning often gets misread.

Visibility works when it communicates relevance, not activity.

If this clarified how promotion decisions actually get made, the next step is a conversation.

Book a discovery call →

They fail because they’re too vague to execute inside the way promotion decisions actually get made.

“Get promoted.”
“Be seen as ready.”
“Take the next step.”

Those aren’t plans. They’re aspirations.

By February, here’s what usually goes wrong.

1. Promotion goals without decision criteria

If you haven’t defined what actually qualifies as a yes, everything stays in play and nothing moves forward.

The people who stall keep themselves “open.”

The people who move define constraints:

• Level

• Scope

• Type of leadership or impact

• Tradeoffs they will and won’t make

Specificity doesn’t limit opportunity.
It gives decision-makers something concrete to approve.

Promotion conversations don’t reward optionality. They reward clarity.

2. Activity without a unifying promotion story

Updating LinkedIn.
Taking on extra work.
Saying yes to more projects.
Waiting for review season.

Busy can still be random.

Without a clear promotion narrative:

• Your manager can’t advocate cleanly

• Skip-level leaders don’t know what to associate you with

• Review conversations become subjective instead of directional

Coherence is what turns effort into leverage.

And leverage is what survives the two-minute test.

3. Waiting to feel “ready”

This is the quiet killer of promotion momentum.

Confidence doesn’t come first.
Positioning does.

The professionals who advanced didn’t wait to feel ready. They decided what ready enough looked like and started operating at that level early.

Momentum created confidence, not the other way around.

What works instead

Replace promotion goals with promotion decisions.

Decide:

• What level or scope you’re targeting

• What problems you want to be trusted with next

• What evidence needs to be visible before review season

Then design the next 30 days around those decisions:

• 4–5 targeted conversations

• 1 clear narrative refresh

• 1 visibility action per week at the next level

• Work that signals readiness, not just effort

That’s enough to create signal.

And signal is what moves promotions.

If you’re still keeping your promotion goals vague so you can “see how things go,” this is usually where momentum stalls.

The decision that changes outcomes is choosing what to lead, not what to keep open.

Ambiguity feels safe.
It keeps options open and stakes low.

But promotions don’t move on optionality.
They move when someone decides what they’re actually going after and makes that legible early.

If this helped you see why promotion goals stall by February, the next step is a conversation.

Book a discovery call →

This is the part most people never get help with.

Knowing how the room works is useful. Positioning yourself so the room says yes is the work.

This post is the playbook I use with clients before promotion cycles start.

Read more

It comes from a few smart visibility moves, made early and reinforced consistently.

Looking across client outcomes in 2025, three moves showed up again and again. They weren’t dramatic. But they changed leverage fast because they made the right people pay attention before decisions were on the table.

Move 1: Reposition before you apply

Most people start with applications.

The strongest candidates started with alignment.

Before they applied or raised their hand internally, they clarified the role they were actually targeting and reshaped their narrative to support that move.

Same experience.
Different framing.

Once the story matched the destination, response rates jumped and interviews felt easier to control. Decision-makers didn’t have to imagine the fit. It was already there.

Applying without repositioning is just hoping someone squints hard enough to see your potential.

Move 2: Build visibility where decisions happen

Visibility wasn’t about being louder or posting more.

It was about being recognizable in the right context.

Clients who invested in strategic visibility, whether through skip-level exposure, targeted LinkedIn presence, or focused relationship-building, stopped being overlooked. The people making decisions already had context before conversations even started.

Familiarity lowers perceived risk.
Lower risk accelerates decisions.

That pattern showed up again and again.

Move 3: Name the ask clearly

This is where many high performers stall.

They hint.
They hedge.
They try to sound flexible.

The clients who moved fastest were specific about:

• Level

• Scope

• Compensation

• Growth trajectory

Once the ask was clear, conversations shifted. They became productive instead of polite.

Clarity invited alignment.
Ambiguity invited delay.

The common thread

None of these moves required luck.

They required intention.

More importantly, they were all done before the formal process began.

That’s what made them work.

If you’re deciding whether more visibility will help or hurt, ask this:

Does it sharpen the signal, or add noise?

The difference is what separates momentum from exhaustion.

The people who benefited most from visibility in 2025 weren’t everywhere.
They were intentional about where and how they showed up.

If this helped you see which visibility moves actually change outcomes, the next step is a conversation.
Book a discovery call →