Career decisions are easier to distort when pressure is high. A simple safeguard is to decide what must be true before you start deciding which option wins.
Why this order?
When options come first, people often evaluate the adjacent role, the familiar system or the opportunity a colleague mentioned. The criteria then become explanations for why that existing option is acceptable.
By making criteria explicit first, you create a standard that can rule options in or out—including options you have not thought of yet.
Write 3–5 criteria.
Each criterion should be specific enough to change a decision. Avoid words that almost any attractive role could satisfy.
Impact.
I need to see how my work changes a real institutional decision within the same year.
Flexibility.
No more than four nights of work travel per month, with substantial control over my weekly schedule.
Only then generate hypotheses.
A hypothesis is not a life plan. It is a plausible direction specific enough to be tested and weak enough to be abandoned when evidence says it does not fit.
Criterion: “I want analytical autonomy, visible contribution, strong collaborators and limited travel.”
Hypotheses might include: portfolio role in a foundation; operations role in a mission-driven company; independent advisory with a defined client mix.
Test before committing.
- Choose one hypothesis.
Name what you believe would fit. - Name the uncertainty.
What would make the hypothesis wrong? - Design a cheap test.
A conversation, short assignment, shadowing day or evidence review. - Update the criteria if the evidence changes them.
The sequence is structured, not rigid.
This public page does not collect your answers.
Career Reset develops these criteria across a fuller Career Compass, then uses them to frame experiments and a 30/90-day plan.
Explore Career Reset