Career development

8h

How To Navigate Long-Term Unemployment In Today's Job Market

Headline unemployment remains relatively low. And yet a growing share of job seekers have been out of work for six months or longer. For many, re-entry is proving slower and more disorienting than expected. As CNBC recently reported, long-term unemployment is becoming a status quo in parts of today's labor market.

If the economy is "fine," why are so many capable people stuck?

For those living... it, long-term unemployment is not a statistic. It feels like sending résumés into a void or being told you are "overqualified" one week and "not the right fit" the next. The system you knew how to navigate no longer operates the same way.

The easy explanation is cautious employers and longer hiring cycles. The harder explanation is structural: many professionals are looking for yesterday's job in tomorrow's job market.

How To Reposition Your Job Search During Long-Term Unemployment

If you have been unemployed for six months or longer and are wondering how to get hired again or survive long-term unemployment, the answer may not lie in sending more applications. It may lie in repositioning yourself for how today's job market actually works.

Treating the job search as a transaction -- find an opening, submit a tailored résumé and wait -- no longer works reliably because roles are evolving before they are formally defined. Organizations increasingly hire around emerging gaps that do not translate neatly into traditional job titles or prior experience.

That is why conversations matter more than applications.

Not the transactional "I'm looking for a job" call. Few people respond well to that. What you want instead are curiosity-driven conversations designed to understand where the work is moving, how problems are being framed and what capabilities are becoming more valuable.

Embark on a "coffee journey." Start with people you already know who are doing work that interests you. Talk to them about what is changing in their field. What new pressures are emerging? What tools are reshaping the way work gets done? What challenges feel unresolved? Then ask who else you should speak to.

This is more than networking. It is research.

As you expand your circle from people you know to people you do not yet know, two shifts occur. First, you begin to describe what you actually know how to do, independent of your previous title. In conversation, you naturally draw on past experiences to engage with current problems. You recognize where your experience is relevant, even if it once carried a different label. A former marketing manager may realize her deeper capability lies in translating customer insight into strategic decisions. An operations leader may recognize that what he brings is systems thinking across complex environments.

Second, you learn to tell the story of your skills in the language the market is using today. You discover adjacent spaces where that capability matters. The marketing manager who once saw herself narrowly as a brand lead may find opportunities in product strategy or customer experience. The operations leader may see openings in transformation initiatives or cross-functional redesign efforts. You begin to recognize needs before they are formalized into job postings. What once felt like a fixed career path starts to branch.

The coffee conversations lead you to a clearer understanding of where your capabilities intersect with emerging needs. They shift your focus from chasing openings to identifying opportunity.

How To Redefine Your Professional Identity During Long-Term Unemployment

Even with that clarity, long-term unemployment can destabilize identity. The longer someone is out of work, the more tightly they cling to their last title as proof of competence.

But employers are not hiring your past. They are hiring their future. That requires more than describing your experience. It calls for reframing how you understand and present your value.

Repositioning begins by asking different questions. What problems do you consistently solve well? What decisions improve when you are involved? What patterns do you see faster than others?

You are detaching your professional identity from job titles and anchoring it in transferable value. In a market where roles morph quickly, job titles are fluid. Capabilities are portable. The ability to synthesize information, manage ambiguity, design processes, build trust or interpret data travels across industries. Over time, that clarity becomes your personal brand, grounded in value and trust, and it opens doors to new possibilities.

How To Upgrade Your Skills For Today's Job Market

Professional stagnation used to be a hidden risk of long-term unemployment. Today it can become an opportunity. Work inside organizations continues to evolve. AI tools are being integrated into daily workflows. Teams collaborate across geographies and time zones. Data fluency is becoming expected rather than optional. If you are out of work, you have something many employed professionals lack: time to learn deliberately.

Employers are far more likely to hire someone who can elevate the team's capabilities, not just fill a slot. That means demonstrating familiarity with emerging tools, new operating models and the changing language of your field.

In a market that rewards learning velocity, forward motion signals adaptability. Experiment with AI tools in your domain. Take on short-term or project-based work that stretches your exposure. Volunteer in a nonprofit navigating digital transformation. Write publicly about how your field is evolving. Teach what you know in new contexts.

Even modest forward moves signal adaptability. And adaptability is increasingly the currency of employability.

How To Make Money And Stay Motivated During Long-Term Unemployment

Financial pressure is real. If you are asking how to make money while unemployed, the answer may not be waiting for the next full-time role.

Project-based consulting, fractional roles, teaching, advisory engagements and contract work can generate income while expanding your network, exposing you to new challenges and accelerating your learning. You do not need to decide that you are done with salaried employment. But you also should not confine yourself to one narrow version of what your next step is supposed to look like.

Careers are becoming more portfolio-based over time. Many professionals will combine employment and independent work across a lifetime. Long-term unemployment can become the moment that opens that broader model.

The key is to treat interim work as strategic, not temporary. Instead of asking, "How do I get back to where I was?" begin asking, "Where does my capability create leverage in the opportunity that is emerging?"

Those who treat this period as repositioning rather than waiting often discover it becomes an inflection point. In a world where careers will stretch across multiple identities, industries and models of work, learning to reposition may be the most important skill of all. more

1

Immanuel Mathari
Pro
8m
Nicely put!
Perspective shift is critical in navigating long-term unemployment.
Thank you for such great insights.

Mina Clove

Career development

1w

Hi everyone! I need some advice. The director of our company thinks you should only stay home if you have a very high fever. If I just have a cough and a runny nose but no fever, he makes me come to work.
I’ve already worked two days like this and feel like I’m about to collapse from exhaustion. Clients and coworkers are giving me weird looks because I’m coughing all the time. But my boss still... won’t let me go home.
Is there any way to deal with this? Thank you.

more

4

Doris Higgs
18m
Go to the doctor, or the hospital.
Ancilla Ashiley
1w
Your colleagues are at risk too...see a doctor and get an excuse ..A healthy mind and body lead to optimal performance.

Jena Yasava

Career development

3d

I’m new and have only worked at the company for 2 weeks, but the rule that everyone has to go to lunch together is really bothering me. I’d like to spend my lunch break alone - eat quietly, relax and think.
But in our team that doesn’t seem okay. One time I went to lunch by myself and five minutes later they called me saying they couldn’t find me.
How can I tell my coworkers that I prefer to... have lunch alone without hurting their feelings?
Thanks

more

2

Doris Higgs
29m
Don't say anything, go to the bathroom, go to your car. It's easy to kill time. Get on your phone with head phones, or listen to music to drown out... the noise. Lunch isn't a long time. There easy ways to use up time. It's not that bad. You still have a job. more
Innocent Innocent
23h
Follow your heart, and utilize your time productive but do not exclude yourself from others thought it might be bothering ... Get them some time where... you share feelings, talks, meals ect.... but not every day.
Without a company .... Life is nothing ! more

Career development

5h

Cooperation and Competition: The Hidden Tension Inside Software Teams

Cooperation and Competition: The Hidden Tension Inside Software Teams

Organizations are built for collaboration, yet individuals are promoted, evaluated, and hired in competitive markets. This essay examines the structural tension between team-first cooperation and individual career survival in a global job market. It explores whether internal competition is inevitable, whether suppressing it... harms excellence, and how excessive rivalry corrodes trust and system health. By analyzing how recognition systems translate contribution into advancement, the essay argues that the real problem is not competition itself but misalignment: when organizations fail to reward the work that actually sustains teams, individuals are forced to choose between collective success and personal viability. The solution lies in designing environments where advancing oneself and strengthening the team are not opposing strategies but reinforcing ones.

When we put people into teams inside organizations, we usually say the purpose is cooperation. We say that together they can do what none of them could do alone. That is often true. A modern software system is too large, too interdependent, too exposed to changing markets for a single person to carry it in their head. So we create teams, define roles, and talk about collaboration.

But we rarely ask a simple question: is cooperation the whole story?

If you look closely, you see another force running underneath it. Individuals are not promoted as teams. Salaries are not negotiated by collectives. When layoffs happen, it is not "Team Delta" that leaves; it is names on a list. And in a global job market, especially in software, people are constantly compared with others they have never met. Their reputation travels through résumés, LinkedIn profiles, conference talks, GitHub repositories, and private references.

So while the organization speaks the language of collaboration, the individual lives in a world of competition.

Is that a problem? It might be. But before we decide, we should examine the structure carefully.

Imagine a team where everyone truly puts the team first. They share credit, they avoid visible heroics, they help others quietly, and they make sure that success is collective. Inside the organization, this looks healthy. There is little internal friction. Knowledge spreads. No one is hoarding information.

Now imagine the same individuals in the external job market. Recruiters do not promote teams; they hire people. Hiring managers look for signals: what did you lead, what did you build, what impact can be attributed to you? If someone answers every question with "we did this," it may sound noble, but it is hard to evaluate. The market rewards identifiable contribution.

This creates a tension. If you fully dissolve yourself into the team, you may weaken your personal market position. But if you optimize for personal visibility -- choosing tasks that are high-profile, avoiding unglamorous maintenance work, guarding expertise to stay indispensable -- you may weaken the team.

It is tempting to moralize this. Some will say competition is bad; others will say it is natural and healthy. But neither reaction helps us understand the mechanism.

The first step is to ask: is there really competition inside teams, or is this exaggerated?

There is competition for scarce things: promotions, raises, recognition, influence. Even in organizations that claim to avoid internal rivalry, these resources are limited. If one person becomes a principal engineer, another does not. If one person gets the visible project, another does not. So even if people are polite about it, there is selection happening.

Now consider what happens when this competition is suppressed entirely. Suppose management insists that everything is purely collaborative and discourages any individual differentiation. Promotions become opaque. Feedback becomes vague. Recognition is evenly distributed regardless of contribution.

In such a system, high performers may quietly reduce effort. If extra effort yields no additional recognition or reward, rational people adjust. The team may look harmonious, but its performance can flatten. The most capable individuals either disengage or leave for environments where their contribution is visible.

On the other hand, consider a system with intense internal competition. Rankings, stack ratings, forced distributions, constant comparison. Now individuals optimize for themselves. They choose work that maximizes measurable impact, even if it fragments the architecture or burdens others. Knowledge sharing declines because knowledge is leverage. The team becomes a set of loosely cooperating individuals, each guarding their own position.

In both extremes, the organization suffers.

So perhaps the question is not whether competition exists, but at what level it becomes productive rather than destructive.

There is another layer to this. The market outside the organization is not neutral. It is increasingly global. A developer in London is competing, indirectly, with developers in Warsaw, Bangalore, São Paulo, and San Francisco. Salaries, opportunities, and reputations circulate internationally. This external competition shapes internal behavior. Even if a company tries to create a purely cooperative culture, individuals know they must remain employable beyond the company's walls.

Now here is the paradox: could someone who fully puts the team first actually limit their own career prospects, and by doing so, ultimately weaken the team and organization?

Let's examine that carefully.

Suppose an individual consistently takes on invisible but essential work -- refactoring, mentoring, stabilizing systems, documenting knowledge. The team benefits enormously. But if these contributions are not legible in the promotion system or visible to the market, the individual's growth stalls. Over time, frustration builds. They may leave. The team then loses precisely the person who made collaboration possible.

In that sense, self-sacrifice that is structurally unrecognized is unstable. It depends on personal virtue rather than system design. When that person leaves, the organization is surprised and says, "We didn't know how much they were doing." That is already a sign of failure.

So the real issue may not be competition itself, but misalignment between how value is created and how value is recognized.

If organizations reward only visible, high-impact features, individuals will gravitate toward them, even if the long-term health of the system requires maintenance and coordination. If organizations reward only individual metrics, collaboration becomes costly. If they reward only collective metrics, individual excellence becomes invisible.

A stable arrangement likely requires a balance: individuals must be able to build identifiable reputations while contributing to collective success. This means recognition systems that make invisible work visible. It means promotion criteria that include mentorship, architectural stewardship, and long-term system health, not just feature count.

It also means intellectual honesty about competition. Pretending it does not exist does not remove it. It only drives it underground, where it manifests as politics and subtle sabotage.

There is another important test. Can an individual advance by making others stronger? If the answer is yes, then cooperation and competition are partially aligned. If the answer is no -- if advancement requires standing out at the expense of others -- then the system encourages zero-sum behavior.

We should also question one assumption: that putting the team first necessarily harms the individual. In many cases, deep expertise, reliability, and the ability to elevate others are precisely what make someone valuable in the market. The problem arises when those qualities are hard to signal externally. If the industry values only visible artifacts and titles, then individuals adapt to that valuation.

So the conflict is not simply psychological. It is structural. It emerges from how organizations allocate rewards and how the external market interprets signals.

In conclusion, cooperation and competition are not opposites; they are intertwined forces. Eliminating competition entirely is unrealistic and may suppress excellence. Allowing it to dominate corrodes trust and collective performance. The paradox of the selfless individual arises when recognition systems fail to capture the real sources of value. A well-designed organization does not ask individuals to choose between personal survival and team success. It aligns them so that strengthening the team is one of the most reliable ways to strengthen one's own position. When that alignment breaks, both the individual and the organization pay the price. more

Career development

8h

AI-written résumés frustrate employers, blur talent

Job seekers remain divided, with some crediting AI for efficiency and others finding more success after abandoning it.

As part of a job search, outsourcing and offshoring company Oceans asked candidates to make a video answering one question: What is your most controversial personal conviction about the workplace? The company received more than 300 responses and most of them were eerily... similar.

"It was abundantly clear it was [artificial intelligence]," Matt Wallaert, Oceans' chief experience officer, said of the repeated answers, which also followed the same structure. It was like "you did the laziest possible ... you failed the basic task of sharing your personal beliefs."

The situation left Wallaert and the hiring team bewildered on how to evaluate the candidates, as even some of the most qualified blended together.

Job seekers are turning to AI to help them land jobs more quickly in a tough labor market. With a plethora of AI tools, some employers may be screening applicants' résumés, deprioritizing them as candidates. Employers say that's having an unintended consequence: Many applications are looking and sounding the same. AI has complicated the process for both employers and job seekers leaving both sides at odds over how to get what they want.

It's easy to spot when candidates over-rely on AI, some employers said. Oftentimes, executive summaries will look eerily similar to each other, odd phrases that people wouldn't normally use in conversation creep into descriptions, fancy vocabulary appears, and someone with entry-level experience uses language that indicates they are much more senior, they added.

It's worse when they use auto-apply AI tools, which will find jobs, fill out applications and submit résumés on the candidate's behalf, some employers said. Those tend to misinterpret some of the application questions and fill in the wrong information in inappropriate spots. If these applications were evaluated alone, employers say they'd have a harder time identifying AI usage. But when hundreds of applications all have the same issue, they said, AI's role in it becomes obvious.

Joseph Eitner, chief human resources officer for New York-based investment firm Eaton Capital Management, said he has no issue with candidates turning to AI to add some keywords, clean up their grammar, or even help them think through a question on the application. But ultimately, he said, candidates should do the writing themselves, express their own ideas and personalities, and take the time to manually submit their applications.

"If that's how you apply and how you work, I don't want to hire you," he said. AI auto-apply services are "snake oil. It's a disservice to yourself and to the people you're applying to."

Not all employers rely heavily on AI to screen applicants, according to Ron Sharon, chief information security officer in Denver at financial advisory firm PTMA Financial Solutions, and some only use it to help them prioritize people with the necessary experience. Sharon said he uses an AI tool that assigns percentages to candidates based on their qualifications. Anyone who hits a 75% or above will be considered for the job, he said, but AI never automatically rejects a candidate.

"I use AI as a tool to help me augment what I do," he said. "Job seekers should use it to help them augment what they do. They shouldn't use AI for the complete process."

But some job seekers say the ways that employers started using the technology to rank candidates prompted them to adopt it.

Stephen Harris, a 37-year-old in San Antonio who's seeking a job as a tech support specialist, said he'll stop using AI to write his résumé once recruiters stop using AI to evaluate it.

"You're saying, 'You shouldn't be doing this' when I know a good chunk of them do this," Harris said.

Employers are often focusing too hard on finding the perfect candidate and losing some of the most adaptable ones in the process, he said. And while he still tries to stand out by sending his résumé via mail, he says using AI to quickly tailor his résumé makes it easier to be among some of the earlier applicants.

Job seekers say one of the benefits of AI is it can help people make ideas flow better, punch up their words and fill in blanks they may struggle with. But some employers say they'd much rather see the person as they are.

Prateek Singh, founder and CEO of the start-up LearnApp in New Delhi, said when candidates use AI for their applications, it doesn't allow him to evaluate what excites them about the job and what they're less interested in. In their cover letters, candidates are asking him to "chat over coffee," a phrase he said isn't common in India.

"This is the best time for you to stand out based on all of your flaws and eccentricity," he said. "If 100 applicants come to us with AI, and you are authentic, you stand out."

The advice rings true to applicants such as Sneha Sharma, who said when she stopped using AI for her résumé, she started to gain more traction in her job search.

In the course of about six months she had applied to up to 300 jobs, using AI tools such as ChatGPT and some that helped her find leads. She briefly tried an AI application that auto-applied to jobs for her but gave up on that in a couple weeks. But she couldn't land any interviews.

After taking a break, she adopted a new approach: She stopped using AI, built a couple of résumés from scratch, adding a little personality such as including details about her move to the United States, cold calling and emailing recruiters. Within two weeks she landed seven interviews, and in less than two months, she had a job.

"Don't be blinded by the internet and that ChatGPT will do everything," she said. "Use your brain, keep changing and experimenting."

Wallaert, the Oceans executive, said the company planned to reach back out to qualified candidates who used AI to tell them to try again. The company also plans on updating the application's instructions to ask that candidates not use AI for their video response. Wallaert has faith that eventually the problem will solve itself, but in the meantime, he feels badly for candidates who may lose out because of relying too much on AI.

"This gap will close over time but at what cost?" he said. "That's the bummer." more

Terry Swift

Career development

1d

Hi! Is every job interview this weird now or was I just unlucky? Yesterday I went to an interview at an insurance company and they asked me “What can you do with a regular pencil?” So I started coming up with random ideas.
Then they asked “What’s the difference between a yeti’s ears and a human’s ears?”.
I was shocked. Is this really how they choose candidates now?

1

Juliet Mitchell
11h
Durable drinkware or "legendary monster/creature?"
Sue Fernandes
13h
And what difference would your answer made to the job you were applying.
1

Career development

11h

Gen Z parents are calling recruiters, joining job interviews and negotiating salaries

Getting a job earlier meant "adult enough" to handle responsibilities. But the situation at present is definitely not a rosy picture to be cherished but a murkier one, where everything seems to be uncertain. At a time like this, parents are turning into saviors for their kids.

Gen Z, much renowned for its not-so-ubiquitous gimmicks, has once again been in the headlines for its frivolous talks. We... all do remember when we used to accompany our parents to school to complain about that bully friend of ours. What if we could walk with them inside a job interview hall and let them do the talking? Well, you might giggle at the idea, but the present generation has taken this seriously.

According to Zety's Career Co-Piloting Report, nearly half of Gen Z workers, 44%, say their parents helped write or edit their CVs. More strikingly, one in five admits a parent has contacted a potential employer or recruiter on their behalf. "Will talk to your parents" seems to be a new normal for the corporates. The question is not only how it is changing the colours of boardrooms, but the concerning point is the over-dependence of the present generation on their guardians.

Getting a job earlier meant "adult enough" to handle responsibilities. But the situation at present is definitely not a rosy picture to be cherished but a murkier one, where everything seems to be uncertain. At a time like this, parents are turning into saviors for their kids.

Zety career expert Jasmine Escalera describes the phenomenon as "career co-piloting," a model in which parents play an active, hands-on role in shaping early professional decisions. In an uncertain labour market marked by layoffs, contract roles, and rising expectations, many Gen Z graduates appear to see job hunting as a collaborative family project.

The numbers underline the scale.

It is easy to mock this trend as "helicopter parenting." But that would be simplistic. Many Gen Z graduates entered adulthood during a pandemic, watched hiring freeze overnight, and saw stories of AI reshaping industries. Their caution is not entirely misplaced.

The pattern continues beyond interviews. Nearly 28% report parental involvement in salary discussions,18% received advice, while 10% say their parents negotiated directly with employers.

Negotiation has always been uncomfortable, particularly for first-time job seekers. But the data suggests that Gen Z may feel especially underprepared for conversations about pay and benefits. Parents many with decades of work experience are stepping in to fill that knowledge gap.

This raises a pressing question: Are parents empowering their children, or delaying their independence?

There is a thin line between guidance and substitution. Advice strengthens confidence. Direct intervention can weaken it.

Perhaps the most telling statistic is this: when asked who has the greatest influence over their career decisions, 32% of Gen Z respondents chose their parents, 35% chose their boss, and 34% said both had equal influence.

In effect, parents rival managers as career anchors.

Even more revealing, 67% say their parents regularly provide career advice, and more than half have had parents visit their workplace outside formal events. Yet, Gen Z also draws boundaries: 55% would feel embarrassed or upset if their parents contacted their boss without their knowledge.

To understand this shift, one must look beyond the job market. Gen Z was raised in an era of hyper-involvement -- parents monitoring school portals, tracking grades in real time, guiding extracurricular choices, and even shaping university applications. Career co-piloting may simply be the continuation of a long-standing dynamic.

But the workplace operates on different rules. Employers expect autonomy. Professional credibility is built on direct communication. When a recruiter receives a call from a parent, it can subtly alter perceptions. Fairly or unfairly, independence is often equated with readiness.

This is where the generational tension lies. Parents see involvement as protection and mentorship. Employers may interpret it as immaturity.

It would be unfair to reduce this to overprotective parenting alone. The modern job market is brutal in ways previous generations did not face. Entry-level roles often demand experience. Salaries lag behind living costs. Career ladders are less linear.

In such an environment, parental support can act as social capital. Families with professional networks, negotiation skills, and industry insight provide an invisible advantage.

That advantage, however, is not evenly distributed. Career co-piloting may widen inequalities between those with informed, resource-rich parents and those without such backing.

At its best, parental involvement can be a bridge, helping young workers decode corporate norms, understand compensation, and build confidence.

At its worst, it risks becoming a crutch, postponing the uncomfortable but necessary growth that comes from making mistakes alone.

The data suggests Gen Z itself is aware of this balance. Most draw lines around employer contact without consent. Many seek advice rather than direct intervention. The majority, 72%, handle negotiations without parental involvement.

In other words, while the co-pilot is present, the young professional is still in the cockpit.

Every generation enters the workplace under scrutiny. Baby boomers were called rigid. Millennials were labelled entitled. Now Gen Z faces questions about resilience and independence.

Yet, perhaps what we are witnessing is not weakness, but adaptation. In a volatile economy, collaboration has become a survival skill. Family, once confined to the personal sphere, now spills into professional terrain.

The recruiter's phone ringing with a parent on the line may feel unusual. But it reflects a broader cultural truth: the boundaries between home and work are shifting.

The deeper issue is not whether parents should be involved. It is whether institutions, schools, universities, employers, are doing enough to prepare young adults for the realities of work before that first interview. If negotiation feels frightening, perhaps career education has failed.

If independence seems delayed, perhaps transition systems are weak. Gen Z is not rejecting adulthood. It is entering it with a support system close at hand.

The real test will come later -- when the co-pilot gradually steps back, and the young professional must fly solo. more

Career development

11h

Why Your Best Angel Investors Are Founders Who Just Raised Their Series C

The right operator angels unlock signal, customers and future capital you can't manufacture after the round closes.

Early-stage founders tend to raise angel money from the easiest people to reach instead of the most useful ones.

You start with wealthy individuals, friends of friends or local angel groups. It's usually enough to close the round. But it rarely shifts your company's... trajectory.

There's one overlooked group of angel investors that consistently delivers outsize value: Founders who are two or three stages ahead of you and have just raised a significant round.

At Nacelle, I leaned heavily into this strategy across our pre-seed, seed and Series A rounds. The impact wasn't subtle. One angel helped reshape our product strategy. Another introduced us to the VC who led our $50 million Series B. A third brought us our first paying customer.

That experience changed how I think about early-stage fundraising. It has to be about more than closing a round. If you want to build something big, you need to think about assembling leverage.

Sign up for Entrepreneur's Franchise Bootcamp, a free, 5-day email course on how to find and invest in your first profitable franchise -- no business experience required.

Traditional angels often bring impressive résumés. Many come from finance, legal or corporate leadership backgrounds. They can add value and open doors. But most haven't recently built a company through the terrain you're navigating now.

A founder who just went from Series A to Series C has current, relevant insight. They know when to hire executives, how to test sales strategies under pressure, what boards do in tough moments and which product bets actually pay off.

They also know the common mistakes. J.P. Morgan's Vice President in Startup Banking notes that there are "infinite mistakes a founder can make, and the best thing startups can do is surround themselves with networks including investors, advisors, law firms, financial institutions and peers -- that understand common pitfalls."

Use this simple filter when considering angels: Would this person's operating experience help us avoid a major mistake in the next year? If not, the check size matters less than you think.

Founders at later stages understand dilution. According to Carta, founding teams own 56.2% of their company after raising a seed round. That drops to 36.1% at Series A and falls again to just 23% by Series B. These founders have felt real dilution. Many have also taken some secondary capital along the way to offset that exposure and derisk personally.

That doesn't make them short-term focused. It often does the opposite. As Brian Halligan, co-founder and chairman of HubSpot, shared after his own experience with secondary during a later-stage round: "It 'stiffened' our backbone when it came to acquisition interest and kept us focused on building a company our grandkids would be proud of." He added, "It was likely one of the worst financial decisions I've ever made, but I don't regret it ... the pie's plenty big."

SaaStr featured the quote above while echoing that "Secondary sales done right truly align founders and the company and incent them to go long."

These founders tend to back early-stage companies where they can offer more than money. They invest where their experience can make a real difference.

You're also giving them access. You're offering a deal they might not otherwise see, at a stage where their input can shape outcomes.

When a respected founder invests in your company, others notice.

This isn't the same as a passive angel who writes dozens of checks. Operator angels bring domain expertise and hard-won credibility. VCs take that seriously. It compresses diligence, reframes risk and changes the tone of the conversation.

Founders talk. One high-signal name on your cap table can quietly open the door to a new tier of investor meetings.

If you're optimizing your angel round purely for check size, you're missing the compounding value of credibility.

There's a practical benefit that doesn't show up in pitch decks: actual business traction.

If your angel runs or has recently run a company in an adjacent space, you've built optionality. Whether through partnerships, integrations or customer intros, there's a real chance your angel can accelerate your go-to-market.

As J.P. Morgan says, there are many things to consider in your due diligence, and key public information "includes the investor's reputation in the startup community, areas of expertise and preferred level of involvement." That's not a nice-to-have. That's leverage you can't build later.

This strategy only works if you're deliberate.

Before you open your next round, build a list. Identify 10 to 15 founders who've recently raised Series B, C or D rounds. Look for operators two or three stages ahead of you, ideally in adjacent spaces. Crunchbase and tech press are useful tools, but your current investors and advisors are often the fastest path to warm introductions.

Warm intros matter. These founders are busy. Cold outreach sometimes works, but conversion rates are low. Be clear with your network about who you want to meet and why.

When you get to the meeting, lead with your product. A demo is more powerful than a deck. You're not asking for a favor. You're inviting them to engage with something interesting.

And a tip from experience: don't pitch the tax angle. Sophisticated founders already understand QSBS and secondary. If you have to explain it, you're probably talking to the wrong person.

Sign up for How Success Happens and learn from well-known business leaders and celebrities, uncovering the shifts, strategies and lessons that powered their rise. Get it in your inbox.

Most of these checks are modest, usually between $10,000 and $50,000.

The value is in insight, signal and leverage. Some angels may become active. Others might make one key introduction and step back. Both outcomes are valuable. Just be clear upfront about what kind of involvement you're hoping for.

What compounds is momentum. One smart, well-placed operator angel makes the next conversation easier. And the one after that.

Fundraising at the early stage isn't about stacking as many checks as possible. It's about surrounding yourself with people who increase your odds of success.

Series C founders are an underutilized category of angel investor. They're liquid, relevant, experienced and often eager to stay close to the early-stage building process.

Before you close your next round, take a hard look at your target list. If it's filled with people who can write checks but can't shape outcomes, you're leaving leverage on the table.

The best angels aren't always the wealthiest people in the room. Often, they're the ones who were in your shoes just a few years earlier. more

Career development

13h

Top Tech Role Pays $775,000 Without Programming Skills

Master the web with Free Tools that work as hard as you do. From Text Analysis to Website Management, we empower your digital journey with expert guidance and free, powerful tools.

Increased Demand for Communication Skills Amid the Rise of Generative AI

The surge in generative artificial intelligence (AI) has made vibe coding and AI proficiency sought-after qualifications on résumés.

Yet, an... intriguing trend has emerged: technology firms are increasingly willing to offer premium salaries for expertise in a timeless skill that transcends AI -- effective communication.

Last year, Andreessen Horowitz unveiled its New Media team with the objective of arming founders with strategies to "succeed in the narrative battle online." Similarly, Adobe is on the lookout for an "AI evangelist" to spearhead its "artificial intelligence storytelling" initiatives.

Netflix, which curates narrative experiences, recently advertised a director of product and technology communications position with a salary cap reaching $775,000. Microsoft also ventured into print by launching a magazine titled Signal, aiming to counterbalance the fleeting nature of digital content.

In a related move, Anthropic expanded its communications division, increasing its workforce to approximately 80 and continuing to hire, offering roles with salaries of around $200,000 or more.

OpenAI's communications postings list salaries exceeding $400,000. By contrast, the average director of communications in the United States garners approximately $106,000, as reported by Indeed.

In the wake of ChatGPT's mainstream adoption three years ago, outcomes have been varied: within tech entities, vibe coding appears to be diminishing the demand for entry-level software developers.

Across various industries, some employees resort to producing verbose and lackluster content rapidly generated by AI, leading to inefficiencies and fractures in workplace trust.

Sam Altman, OpenAI's CEO, remarked last year on the emergence of an "AI accent" affecting digital discourse, which many now perceive as disingenuous.

Amid widespread concerns regarding generative AI potentially displacing jobs, the ease with which AI produces content has paradoxically intensified the need for skilled human communicators.

Gab Ferree, founder of Off the Record, a community aimed at communications professionals, notes that one would expect the surge in AI-generated content to reduce the need for communications specialists. However, the opposite is unfolding.

Technology firms are actively recruiting writers, editors, and chief communications officers who collaborate closely with CEOs and so-called "storytellers."

According to a recent report by The Wall Street Journal, mentions of "storyteller" in job postings on LinkedIn have doubled between 2024 and 2025.

In an industry characterized by fierce competition, where startups strive for viability and major technology players vie for supremacy, a compelling narrative serves as a crucial asset. Ferree posits that consumers are willing to invest in authentic narratives due to the overwhelming volume of subpar content available.

The trend towards valuing storytelling and lucrative communications roles has been resonating for some time, according to Jenna Birch, founder of SISU, a consultancy for startups and venture capitalists.

As Silicon Valley's prominence has soared over the last two decades, tech companies have been poised to offer remarkable salaries amidst declining employment for journalists.

The rise of content marketing has underscored the necessity of building a strong brand presence on social media and optimizing blog entries for search engine visibility.

Recently, the demands placed on communications professionals have broadened considerably. They are now required to navigate large language models, oversee company blogs, develop comprehensive narratives that distinguish a firm from its competitors, and articulate their CEO's voice across platforms like LinkedIn and Substack.

A report from the Observatory on Corporate Reputation indicates that roles for chief communications officers, with expanded responsibilities incorporating marketing or human resources, grew from 90 in 2019 to 169 in 2024.

The median salary for a CCO at a Fortune 500 company now stands between $400,000 and $450,000 -- a notable increase of $50,000 from 2023, as noted by a Korn Ferry survey.

If everyone's a writer, then nobody's a writer, and I think it's very evident right now.Cristin Culver, founder of Common Thread Communications

As the nature of communications roles evolves and the demand for narrative craftsmanship escalates, experts contend that the pool of professionals capable of adapting to rapidly shifting landscapes may be limited, prompting companies to offer substantial compensation to attract top-tier talent.

Similar patterns are emerging in the realm of AI specialists, further incentivizing tech companies to lure elite professionals from competing organizations.

While the salaries for communicators may not rival the astronomical figures seen in AI, Birch observes that creatives are progressively becoming "the high-value individuals in tech."

Historically, software developers were once viewed as the industry's most prestigious talent. Educational institutions and coding bootcamps sought to address workforce shortages, emphasizing coding as a pathway to lucrative careers.

However, as of 2023, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York reported a 6.1% unemployment rate for recent computer science graduates, juxtaposed with a 4.5% rate for communications majors.

Additionally, the number of job openings for software engineers witnessed a decline of over 60,000 from 2023 to late 2025, according to CompTIA. Some assert that obtaining a liberal arts degree may provide a robust shield against automation.

While AI simplifies content generation, it has yet to match the artistry of effective writing.

"If everyone's a writer, then nobody's a writer, and I think it's very evident right now," remarks Cristin Culver. The prevalence of AI-generated posts on LinkedIn often induces a sense of monotony for readers.

"Ironically, during this age of AI, the most compelling storytelling often emanates from those who have recognized the oversaturation of mediocrity and adapted to deliver targeted narratives," Culver states.

Anthropic has embraced such tactical storytelling, recently launching a pop-up venue dubbed the Claude Cafe in New York, designed to establish the chatbot as a collaborator and intellectual partner.

This initiative encourages in-person engagement, fostering a connection within a setting enriched by books and publications rather than screens (although the firm has also previously destroyed and scanned numerous books for training its model, a decision upheld by a judge as lawful).

According to Sasha de Marigny, promoted to the company's first CCO after heading communications, "Claude is a pivotal member of the team, with communications professionals acting as detectors of superficiality."

She emphasizes that critical thinking remains a distinctive advantage for humans. "I seek exemplary strategists who comprehend the evolving landscape and devise comprehensive plans to engage our target audiences." Anthropic chose not to elaborate further on its communications strategies for this article.

"We're witnessing a golden era for individuals who genuinely appreciate the art of communication," states Steve Clayton, CCO of Cisco.

Initially apprehensive about the potential ramifications of ChatGPT, Clayton has grown optimistic, recognizing generative AI as a means for communicators and storytellers to cultivate content that resonates authentically with audiences.

"In an environment where no one is wishing for more emails or podcasts, the real challenge lies in crafting something truly deserving of attention and engagement," he adds.

Positions where brands develop their own newsrooms are likely to be among the last to experience AI's encroachment into writing, asserts Noah Greenberg, CEO of Stacker, a content distribution firm.

Unlike traditional media, which hinges on clicks and advertising for revenue, "brands focused on strategic storytelling prioritize crafting several exceptional narratives monthly that establish their authority in their respective domains."

As with coding and image generation, large language models are poised to continue evolving. While LLMs may one day emulate human-like qualities in their writing, they inherently lack true cognitive processing.

A 2025 study from Columbia Business School indicated a bias in LLMs favoring initial options when selecting from multiple choices. For those engaged in communications, AI may increasingly serve as an ally rather than an adversary, as it enhances the visibility of their work. more

Career development

13h

Doorbell cam captures toddler's reaction as dad returns from two-week trip

The heartwarming moment a toddler was reunited with her dad after he had been on a two-week business trip has been captured on camera.

Ring shared footage with Newsweek of the magical moment that was recorded on one of the doorbell cameras outside a home in Los Angeles.

Rebecca, a Ring customer and the owner of the doorbell cam, shared the story behind the heartwarming clip.

"My husband, Brock,... had to go to a work training in Ohio for two weeks -- the longest we've been apart since being married and having Rylee, our 1-year-old toddler," she told Ring.

"He finally got home after two long weeks and was reunited with us. Rylee ran out the door so excited to see her dada."

The life of a working parent is not an easy one. Finding the balance between building relationships with your family and providing for them is difficult and something many moms and dads struggle with.

In 2018, a Harris Poll of just over 1,000 U.S. adults in full-time work commissioned by job search platform CareerBuilder found that 38 percent had "missed a significant event in their child's life due to work in the last year."

Though being away from Rylee for such a long time would have undoubtedly been a wrench for Brock, seeing her reaction on his return would have made him feel so much better.

It was a reminder of the special bond they share and may well have served as a reminder to Brock of exactly why he makes the sacrifices he does to provide for his family: it's all for Rylee.

The footage certainly had an impact on Rebecca, who felt compelled to share the footage with Ring in the hope it might be seen elsewhere.

She told Ring how her "heart absolutely melted" when she watched it back and it's a video that the family have revisited many times since. "I sent it to our family and watched it over soooo many times," she said.

This isn't the first time a heartwarming family moment has been captured on a Ring video device.

In May 2025, a father-of-two heading out to work was stopped in his tracks after hearing "Wait!" coming from behind him.

Earlier this month, a new dad was tidying up after his toddler son when he spotted him doing something that stopped him in his tracks.

Then there was the dad who described the "overwhelming joy" he felt at finding a way to connect with his two young daughters while away with work. more

Career development

14h

Joining The 5% Club - Paragon Traffic Management Ltd

We are proud to have joined The 5% Club, a nationwide movement of employers committed to developing skills, creating opportunity and strengthening the UK workforce through structured training and early career development.

For a company built around people, safety and long-term partnerships, this step feels like a natural fit. Our growth has always been about more than expanding depots and fleets,... it's about investing in people and building a stronger future for the industry.

The 5% Club brings together organisations that believe in creating real pathways into skilled careers. Members commit to developing talent through apprenticeships, graduate programmes and other "earn and learn" opportunities that allow people to build experience while gaining qualifications.

It's about giving people a way in, supporting their development and helping them build a career rather than simply filling a role.

While members aspire to have at least 5% of their workforce in structured training roles, we are proud to already exceed that benchmark.

Around 10%of our workforce are currently apprentices.

That isn't a statistic we chased it's a reflection of how we believe a business should grow: by bringing people in, supporting them and helping them develop lasting careers.

Traffic management plays a vital role in keeping infrastructure projects moving safely and efficiently. Developing new talent ensures the industry maintains high standards and continues to evolve.

For those joining Paragon, apprenticeships offer a practical, supported introduction to the industry. People learn on real sites, gain recognised qualifications and receive mentoring from experienced professionals who understand the realities of the job. More importantly, they gain confidence, purpose and a clear pathway forward.

Social value is often talked about in broad terms, but for us it starts with creating opportunities.

Providing structured entry points into skilled work supports local communities, improves social mobility and helps address the industry's skills gap. It also strengthens the teams delivering projects every day.

When people are given the chance to learn, progress and build a career, the benefits ripple far beyond the workplace.

Demand for safe, compliant and efficient traffic management continues to grow across the UK. Meeting that demand requires more than equipment and systems, it requires skilled, motivated people.

By investing in apprenticeships and early career pathways, we are helping ensure the industry remains strong, professional and future ready.

Joining The 5% Club reinforces what has always been central to Paragon: growth driven by people.

We believe businesses perform better when they invest in their teams, create opportunities and support progression at every stage. This commitment helps us deliver reliable service for clients while building a culture where people feel supported, valued and able to thrive.

Whether you're looking for a dependable traffic management partner or exploring a future in the industry, Paragon Traffic Management is committed to delivering safe, professional and people-focused solutions. more

Neal Donovan

Career development

2d

A couple of days ago I had a job interview, and they asked me to draw a mountain I can’t climb. I drew Mount Kosciuszko because I don’t have the chance to go to Australia (I’m actually into rock climbing and mountaineering).
When we started talking about what mountain it was, their HR person didn’t believe that such a mountain even exists.
That’s when I decided I don’t want to work for that... company.

more

3

Pamela W
1d
Doesn’t that mean there’s no mountain in existence that you can’t climb?
Rael Joan
1d
Talked down to
Not listened to
Corrected without curiosity