An intriguing question rolls in from a reader:

(not sure if he wants me naming him, so keeping him anon)

It seems to me that it’s much easier for junior colleagues or very senior colleagues to be mobile / agile in their careers, but for those of us in the middle - much harder. Why is that? Do our employers want established performers to stay in their seats delivering rather than challenging themselves? If you want to try new things in the middle of your career, how to go about it? 

There’s a lot of truth to this. 

In fact, there's a broader pattern at play here.

Behaviour naturally polarises. There will be exceptions of course. But this is why most people are left wing or right wing, why most parents are hands-on or hands-off, and so on. It’s rare to find anyone who adopts the Buddhist idea of “The Middle Way” (i.e. who recognises that life pulls us to extremes and that clarity comes from seeing this pattern and finding a more balanced middle way instead).

The mid-career gridlock trap is no different.

Sure, it’s structural polarisation rather than individual polarisation.

But it’s still textbook polarisation.

And I’d argue polarisation runs riot in the workplace.

Why do I say that?

Well, take the bright eyed and bushy tailed juniors. They’re hungry and full of potential. A total blank canvas. So they’ve got permission to try stuff, make mistakes, break things, explore, be agile, move around, learn out loud and smudge the paint (so to speak). In fact, they’d raise eyebrows if they didn’t.

Then there’s the senior bods.

They’ve got gravitas, status and credibility on their side. So they can recast their roles and rewrite their scenes whenever they want. And nobody questions these script changes because that’s what the senior colleagues are there for. Their job (amongst other things) is to challenge the status quo.

Then we come to the mid-career professionals.

These colleagues have a track record now. They’re too established to be labelled as “potential”. So their value is all about that stable, predictable, output-driven track record. Which means anyone trying to shift lanes is pushing back against their own output (an output the system has already priced in).

That’s how it looks to me.

But here’s what interests me more:

Is the corporate system really the villain? After all, the logic seems to stack up.

Or does the gridlock operate more like a self-fulfilling prophecy in the sense that thinking “this is just how it works” makes the gridlock feel more real than it is?

I happen to think it’s the latter.

That’s not me saying the system has nothing to answer for.

It absolutely does.

But it is me saying the mid-career crew are nowhere near as boxed in as they think they are. I discovered this first hand when, as a tasty sandwich filling myself (I’m a not-too-junior and not-too-senior colleague i.e. wedged nicely in the middle), my employer said yes to a career detour and sponsored me on a 15 month Executive Coaching Apprenticeship at the end of the last year.

Certainly not a common result. 

Especially when I work in a banking team which has diddly squat to do with HR, People or L&D.

And yet, agree they did.

Which takes us to the second part of the reader’s question:

If you want to try new things in the middle of your career, how to go about it?

Soon, I’ll be publishing an interview with the authors of the Sunday Times Bestseller Squiggly Careers on this very topic. So if you’re pondering a similar question, I suggest keeping an eye on this newsletter.

Having said that, snagging the Coaching Apprenticeship has taught me a few things about how to shift lanes in the middle of a career. The Buddhist’s “Middle Way” concept had a big part to play here too (I don't call myself The Buddha of Banking for nothing!)

Tomorrow, I’ll spill the beans on how I pulled it off and what I suggest if you’re looking to try something new without derailing your career.

Until then.

To fulfilment,

Tom