Career Decision Risks

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. 🙏

In which of these 2 scenarios, will a sales rep sell more blenders? a) She nails the demo, flawlessly blending a smoothie in front of potential customers b) Same exact pitch, but when she pours the smoothie, she spills it all over the table Dr. Richard Wiseman conducted this exact study. More people bought the blender when she made an absolute mess. This phenomenon is called the "other shoe effect." The underlying principle: We instinctively know people aren’t perfect. So when someone appears too polished in high-stakes moments—job interviews, pitches, first dates—part of our brain asks: “What are they hiding? When does the other shoe drop?” The longer someone appears flawless, the more suspicious we get. This creates a dangerous cycle: • You try to appear perfect in the first impression • The other person's brain gets increasingly distracted wondering about your hidden flaws • When your imperfection finally shows (and it will), it hits much harder than if you'd acknowledged it upfront I learned this the hard way. When I first wrote Captivate, I tried to sound like an academic. My editor called it out: “This doesn’t sound like you.” So I rewrote the intro to be me, very me in a vulnerable way: “Hi, I’m Vanessa. I’m a recovering awkward person.” That vulnerability built instant trust. By dropping my shoe early, I built trust immediately and let readers know they were in good company. This is also how I introduce myself in conversations, and I have noticed everyone laughs and relaxes when I say it. There are a couple situations where you can actively use this effect: • Job interviews: After sharing your strengths, say "One area I’m still growing in is public speaking—which is why this role excites me." • Investor pitches: After a strong open, confess: "One challenge we’re still working through is [X], and here’s how we’re tackling it." • Team meetings: Proactively raise project risks, then offer a solution. Don’t let others discover it first. Rules to remember: • Choose authentic vulnerabilities, not fake ones • Drop your shoe AFTER establishing competence, not before • Pair vulnerability with accountability - show how you're addressing it Remember: The goal isn't to appear perfect. It's to appear trustworthy. And trustworthy people acknowledge their imperfections before others have to discover them.

One major red flag in interviews is pretending to be someone you’re not. It might sound obvious, but you’d be surprised how many candidates feel unsure about their own experience. They act overly confident or put on a façade to impress the interviewer. For a moment, ask yourself: How can you expect an employer (or anyone) to feel confident in you when you're not even confident in yourself? The only solution to this is to BE REAL. Employers can tell when you’re being genuine, and they can also spot when you're trying too hard to be something you're not. And honestly, it’s exhausting to keep up a fake persona, both for you and for the person on the other side of the table. – Instead, own your experiences, even the mistakes. – Talk about what you’ve learned and how it’s made you better. – Share your journey honestly. Employers don’t just want someone perfect. They want someone who can grow, learn from their mistakes, and bring real value to the team. So be yourself, own your story, and know that the right opportunity will come. #interviewquestions #interviewpreparation #interview #linkedinforcreators

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.

"Hi Mark, we received this CV 5 times this week." This scenario never fails to bemuse me. Let's set aside terms of business for a moment—whether retained, exclusive, or contingent—because this issue cuts across all recruitment models. Here’s the heart of the problem: We’re dealing with multiple factors that create this mess: 1️⃣ Candidate Behavior: Some candidates apply through multiple channels for the same role without disclosing their prior applications. Transparency matters here—if you’ve already applied, just say so! 2️⃣ Rogue Agencies: Certain agencies mass-send CVs with attached terms, often locking candidates out of the process entirely. Worse still, this can leave companies caught up in avoidable disputes and duplicate charges. Misrepresenting a candidate isn’t just unethical—it’s illegal. 3️⃣ Too Many Cooks: Engaging too many agencies for one role leads to chaotic processes where it’s all about "first past the post." Spoiler alert: this never ends well. 4️⃣ Stale Roles: When roles stay open for months, candidates get re-submitted over time, creating confusion. The same candidates think it’s a different job and apply again, perpetuating the cycle. 5️⃣ The "Magic Mystery": Here’s one that will blow your mind. I’ve seen agencies resend the same candidates’ CVs every 6 months as terms expire, then claim a fee when one of those candidates gets hired—without the candidate even knowing! Shockingly, some companies have lost in court over this tactic. 🚨 Duplication is the silent killer of recruitment efficiency. Finding the right candidate can take 30-60 days, only to discover duplication derails the process. So, what’s the fix? There is a solution, but it requires action from all parties: ✅ Candidates: Protect your CV. Always ask where your details are being sent and give explicit consent before representation. Work with recruiters who discuss roles in depth and are clear about where they’ll submit your profile. ✅ Companies/HR/Hiring Managers: Streamline your agency pool. Limit the number of agencies per role—2-3 specialized agencies should suffice. Have a “B-list” for backup - But if you insist on using multiple agencies - Get an ATS system to upload candidates too, which will alert the recruiter ASAP. There are few out there, some not that expensive. ✅ Agencies: Retained or exclusive search is often the way to go. Retained ensures focus, while exclusive keeps it simpler and less intense - but as long as the process is good, will yield a fair result. Both approaches reduce duplication headaches. But if you open a role up to another agency, ask yourself why. what is happening? Finally, choose wisely. Don’t default to “first past the post.” Insist on proof of representation—signed or emailed consent from the candidate. Quality recruitment is about partnership, not speed. Let’s stop duplication from undermining the process and elevate recruitment to the professional standard it deserves. What are your thoughts? 

"We needed this person yesterday." Throughout my career, so many recruitment processes started with this phrase from a Hiring Manager. There is no doubt that some roles are genuinely urgent. Yet, too often, this mantra of urgency becomes a reflex—a knee-jerk reaction ingrained in our professional DNA. A mentality born out of habit and perhaps the panic from discovering you're losing a team member, a valued employee. I remember many occasions where a vacancy started with this phrase, and then the role changed or was never filled, and......everyone was ok. There are unintended consequences when we initiate a recruitment process with an unwavering focus on speed. It restricts a recruiter's ability to: ✅ Meticulously evaluate their talent pool before presenting candidates, fearing delays might cost them. ✅ Advocate for candidates who cannot operate at the same speed and pace as the rest of the pool ✅ Disrupt and challenge biases throughout without fear of not meeting deadlines or commercial goals Starting a recruitment process with an exclusive focus on speed means that you're creating a race. A race that likely the most privileged will win. So, here's a friendly reminder: In recruitment, speed is the enemy of inclusion and the best friend of privilege. Food for thought or unpopular opinion? Join me in the comments. #InclusiveRecruitment #InclusiveHiring #SpeedKillsInclusion

Anyone can call themselves an “expert” on LinkedIn. And most of the loudest ones haven’t done the work. You’ve seen them: → Selling "frameworks” for things they've never did → Promising results they couldn’t deliver themselves → Charging thousands for programs built on theory, not experience. It’s not just noise. It’s dangerous. Because people buy it. They follow advice that was never pressure tested. And they get burned. I’ve spent 26 years in corporate MNC's and start ups. I’ve carried the scars from rooms where silence could cost everything, and pressure could break anyone. That’s where expertise is built. Not in a weekend certification. Not in Canva slides. Not in copy paste scripts. Real experience is messy. It takes years. It leaves bruises. And it can’t be faked. So if you’re learning any professional skill, look for scars not slogans. Choose teachers who’ve lived it, not just branded themselves an “expert” last Tuesday. That’s the difference between advice that works under pressure. And advice that collapses when things get real.

More often than not, people who change jobs later admit they did it too early. They moved not because they had clarity, but because they were uncomfortable with not knowing. That discomfort is costing people their best career moves. If you feel restless at work but cannot yet articulate what you want instead, that is not a weakness. It may be the most strategically useful phase of your career. Here’s how to use it well: 1. Treat uncertainty as an expansion, not a gap When you stop forcing yourself to name the next role, you give your thinking room to widen. Instead of asking what job you want, ask where you have done your best work before and under what conditions. Patterns emerge when pressure lifts. 2. Learn to separate signals from fear Ambiguity makes everything louder, especially anxiety. Fear pushes you toward familiar roles that look good on paper. Curiosity shows up quietly in the work you lose track of time doing. One leads to safety. The other leads to direction. 3. Build your future around skills, not titles Titles lock you into narrow paths. Skills travel. Inventory what you are genuinely good at and where those capabilities could matter in different contexts. Then identify one or two skills worth deepening before you decide anything else. 4. Replace purpose statements with purposeful days Purpose rarely appears as a single sentence. It shows up in how you allocate your time, who you help consistently, and what you choose not to pursue. Alignment comes from daily decisions, not grand declarations. Career clarity is often iterative and occasionally messy. Rushing to resolve uncertainty usually trades short-term relief for long-term regret. If you are between chapters, resist the urge to force an answer. The uncertainty is not something to escape. It’s information worth listening to.

Early in my career I kept waiting for the “clean quarter”. The quarter where hiring was stable. Where the product roadmap was certain. Where revenue visibility felt comfortable enough to make bigger bets. It never came. Every important decision I made as a CEO happened while something was incomplete: a key hire missing numbers still noisy customers undecided board opinions split I used to think timing would reduce risk. What I learned is timing mostly delays ownership. Teams don’t stall because markets are unclear. They stall because leadership signals hesitation. The moment you delay a decision hoping for better conditions, the organization quietly creates its own plan: people hedge priorities drift execution fragments And then six months later you call it a market problem. Leadership is deciding while information is still uncomfortable. Not reckless decisions, but committed ones. You choose a direction you explain the reasoning you hold it long enough for the company to organize around it Most progress I’ve seen did not come from brilliant strategy sessions. It came from removing the question “are we actually doing this?” There is no right time. There is the moment a leader makes it safe for everyone else to move.

I remember hiring a candidate who nailed the interview without hesitation. Within months, it was a disaster. During the interview, this lawyer had seemed like a perfect fit: • confident • articulate • charismatic. Once she started, though, this lawyer showed up late and left early. She didn’t align with our firm’s values. Her work was subpar. I had to admit that I let myself get fooled by a great first impression. The truth is, the traditional hiring process is broken. • exaggerated résumés • meaningless references (who lists someone that won’t praise them?) • performative interviews. If you're hiring based primarily (or solely) on interviews, then you run the risk of hiring people who can talk—or BS— their way into a job. The problem is that you might find yourself  standing knee-deep in their accumulated BS within a couple months. I've learned that lesson the hard way. That's why we stopped relying so much on interviews at the Mike Morse Law Firm. We've incorporated methods for ensuring candidates don’t just look good on paper. In addition to interviews, we administer skills tests to ensure that a candidate actually have the skills we need for the job. We also use different  assessments to learn more about a candidate's personality and whether they share our core values. Interviews still matter. But they matter far less today than they did when I was hiring 20 years ago. And that's reduced the guesswork in our hiring process. It's also helped us avoid those scenarios where we're left knee-deep in BS.