the architecture of choice: understanding what really shapes our career decisions
Early in my career, I was convinced that every decision was a real choice. Compensation discussions? Just prepare your case well enough. Career moves? Simply choose your preferred path. I believed that with enough experience, data, and preparation, I could influence any outcome.
I was wrong.
The Illusion of Options
Let me share something about compensation discussions - a reality that hit me hard in my early career. I walked into these meetings believing I could influence the outcome through carefully crafted arguments and clear performance data. I didn't understand then that the decision was often made long before I entered the room.
My "choices" were simply how I would engage with an already-determined outcome.
Beyond Yes and No
I used to tell people "you only ever have two choices - yes or no." But this fundamentally ignores power structures. Think about the last time you were offered a "development opportunity." Was it really an opportunity? Or was it a predetermined path dressed up as a choice?
This becomes particularly clear when you consider classic scenarios I've witnessed in my strategic advisory work:
The DEI initiative you're "perfect to lead" (despite your technical expertise lying elsewhere)
The lateral move that's "great for your development" (but takes you off your intended path)
The flexible arrangement that comes with hidden penalties
The promotion that requires a complete deviation from your goals
The Power Pattern
Here's what fascinates me: these aren't random occurrences. Through my work, I've seen how choice architecture aligns perfectly with existing power structures. It's why certain groups consistently face more constrained options than others.
This pattern reveals itself most clearly in who gets to truly chart their own path. It's not surprising that so many women, particularly Black women, either leave corporate roles or maintain side hustles. When choice is predominantly an illusion, agency demands alternative paths.
Finding Agency in Constraint
But here's what I've learned through both personal experience and working with leaders: understanding this architecture doesn't mean accepting it. While we might not always have choice, we do have agency.
I remember a pivotal moment when I realised this distinction. Facing a career decision where neither "yes" nor "no" served my goals, I discovered that real power lay not in the choice itself, but in how I navigated the predetermined outcome.
Strategic Navigation
So what does this mean for those of us facing these decisions? Here's what I've learned:
When someone demands an urgent decision, ask yourself why. Real choices need time. I've learned to question the urgency - it often reveals the predetermined nature of the outcome.
When faced with options that feel misaligned, look beyond the immediate choice. What's the real outcome being engineered? Understanding this helps us navigate with intention rather than just reaction.
Sometimes, the most powerful move isn't choosing between given options - it's creating new ones. This might mean building strategic support networks, finding alternative pathways, or using our agency to shape outcomes even within constraints.
Moving Forward
As I reflect on my journey and the leaders I work with, I've realized something crucial: the goal isn't to fight every predetermined choice. It's to understand the architecture so well that we can navigate it strategically while working to transform it.
This isn't just about individual decisions - it's about understanding how power structures shape our choices and using that knowledge to create new possibilities, not just for ourselves but for those who come after us.
Want to explore more about how we can architect real change?
Join me every Friday for Architecture of Change, where we continue to deconstruct systems and design solutions for a more equitable future.
