Why “Smaller” Careers Overtake “Bigger” Ones

Career progression is often explained through size indicators: seniority, scope, years of experience, or role complexity. Yet again and again, we see professionals with seemingly “smaller” profiles advancing faster than peers with deeper understanding, stronger résumés, or broader responsibility.

This pattern is not accidental, and it is not unfair in a simple sense. It reflects a structural shift in how modern careers actually move.

The core differentiator is rarely competence. It is the reaction speed under uncertainty.

Research in organizational behavior increasingly shows that careers today are shaped less by linear accumulation and more by how individuals respond when structures change, signals blur, and rules become implicit rather than explicit (Arthur & Rousseau, 1996; Hall, 2004).

Career stagnation is rarely about capability.

Most professionals who feel “overtaken” are not underperformers. Empirical studies consistently show that performance and advancement are only weakly correlated beyond a certain threshold of competence (Ng et al., 2005).

What separates trajectories is not how good someone is, but how they respond when expected pathways stop working.

People who stagnate often share similar assumptions:

• That readiness precedes movement

• That recognition follows contribution

• That stability will return before action is required

  
  

However, boundaryless career research demonstrates that contemporary careers are increasingly non-linear, shaped by proactive behavior rather than organizational planning (Arthur, Khapova, & Wilderom, 2005).

When disruption occurs — restructuring, leadership change, market volatility — some individuals pause to re-evaluate. Others move immediately, even with incomplete information.

Over time, this difference compounds.

Momentum beats size in modern career systems

Career systems today reward momentum, not mass.

Visibility often emerges before authority. Influence forms before formal power. Opportunities circulate through networks long before job descriptions appear.

This aligns with social capital theory, which shows that access to opportunities is driven less by hierarchical position and more by network activation and perceived relevance (Burt, 1992; Seibert, Kraimer, & Liden, 2001).

Professionals who act quickly:

• Signal adaptability

• Create narrative continuity

• Remain cognitively “top of mind.”

  
  

Those who hesitate - even briefly - risk losing momentum, which research identifies as a critical but fragile resource in career advancement (London & Stumpf, 1982).

Once momentum breaks, regaining it requires more energy than maintaining it in the first place.

The psychological cost of being overtaken

Being surpassed unexpectedly not only affects external outcomes. It reshapes internal self-perception.

Studies on career shock show that sudden misalignment between expectations and outcomes often leads to reduced self-efficacy, increased risk aversion, and narrative withdrawal (“maybe I misjudged my value”) (Akkermans et al., 2018).

This creates a paradox: The moment that demands bold repositioning is often the moment when confidence is lowest.

Meanwhile, individuals who move ahead are not necessarily inherently more confident. Research on proactive personality suggests that minor behavioral differences in initiative-taking can produce considerable long-term divergence in outcomes (Bateman & Crant, 1993).

In other words, careers shrink less from failure and more from delayed adaptation.

Rebuilding momentum: career positioning as a learned capability

Momentum is not a personality trait. It is a skill set.

Career construction theory emphasizes that individuals can actively reshape their professional trajectories by revising their narratives, signals, and visibility — even after periods of stagnation (Savickas, 2005).

This is the foundation of my career-coaching and LinkedIn-management practice.

I work with professionals who feel that their experience no longer translates into movement, helping them to:

• Reframe their career story into a straightforward, future-facing narrative

• Build a LinkedIn presence that creates strategic visibility, not performative noise

• Re-enter opportunity flows after career pauses, plateaus, or shocks

• Shift from passive readiness to intentional positioning

  
  

Careers do not stall because people are “too small.”They stall because momentum fades — often quietly.

Rebuilding it does not require becoming louder or more aggressive. It requires learning how modern career systems actually move — and choosing to move with them.

References

Akkermans, J., Seibert, S. E., & Mol, S. T. (2018). Tales of the unexpected: Integrating career shocks in the contemporary careers literature. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 106, 1–5.Arthur, M. B., & Rousseau, D. M. (1996). The boundaryless career: A new employment principle for a new organizational era. Oxford University Press.Arthur, M. B., Khapova, S. N., & Wilderom, C. P. M. (2005). Career success in a boundaryless career world. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(2), 177–202.Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. (1993). The proactive component of organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14(2), 103–118.Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Harvard University Press.Hall, D. T. (2004). The protean career: A quarter-century journey. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65(1), 1–13.London, M., & Stumpf, S. A. (1982). Managing careers. Addison-Wesley.Ng, T. W. H., Eby, L. T., Sorensen, K. L., & Feldman, D. C. (2005). Predictors of objective and subjective career success. Personnel Psychology, 58(2), 367–408.Savickas, M. L. (2005). The theory and practice of career construction. In S. D. Brown & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Career development and counseling (pp. 42–70). Wiley.