Thriveherd blog
Get practical insight on career change, confidence and purposeful work.
Short, thoughtful emails without noise. Unsubscribe anytime.
If you're thinking about a career change, the first thing to say is this: it usually isn't that helpful to start by scrolling jobs boards and trying to match yourself to whatever seems available.
That sounds practical, at some point of course it can become important – but if fulfilment is a real priority for you, that approach will often keep dragging you back towards the same kinds of work, the same kinds of responsibilities, and the same kinds of compromises that made you want to change in the first place.
Career change usually works best when you start with you, not with the labour market. In other words, before you get too far into job titles, vacancies, qualifications and application tactics, it helps to work out what actually needs to change, what you want more of, what you want less of, what you're willing to trade for something better, and what kind of future would genuinely feel worth building.
That's because career change is nearly always messier than people want it to be. It's shaped partly by two important streams:
Career change must pay attention to both of these streams if it's to be successful and robust. Ignore either at your peril.
So yes, career change is possible. But it usually goes well not when someone finds the perfect answer overnight, but when they take a better route into the problem.
This is a more important question than it sounds, because a surprising number of people make life harder for themselves by asking the wrong one.
Sometimes the answer really is yes. Sometimes the field itself no longer fits, or there's a stronger pull towards something else, or the gap between the work you're doing and the life you want has become too wide to keep explaining away.
But sometimes the answer is more complicated than that. Sometimes what looks like a career problem is actually a role problem, an environment problem, a boss problem, a scope problem, a confidence problem, a burnout problem, or a "I've outgrown this version of my working life" problem. In those cases, a full career change may be one possible answer, but it isn't necessarily the only option (or even the best one).
That's why, for some people, it helps to slow down and ask slightly more pointed questions than "What else could I do?" or "What jobs might suit my skills?"
You might ask:
This is especially worth thinking about if something difficult or unsettling has happened recently.
Some push factors are really strong and influential. A bad experience at work, a period of burnout, losing your job, being managed badly for too long, being humiliated, sidelined or just ground down over time... all of these can have a very strong influence on what you want next, and understandably so.
Thing is, a powerful push factor can be completely real and still be temporarily over-represented in your decision-making. In other words, what feels unbearable now may shape your idea of the future more heavily than it will a year or two from now. That doesn't mean you should ignore it; quite the opposite. But it does mean you need to handle it with a bit of care.
Otherwise, there is a risk of defining a long-term path around a short-term need.
You might end up convinced that you need something radically different, when what you really need is distance from a specific experience, a different environment, or a period of recovery before you can tell more clearly what is enduring and what is reactive.
Equally, you might discover that the thing you need now really is the beginning of a much bigger and longer-term shift.
Either way, the point is not to guess. The point is to separate those elements as honestly as you can.
So it helps to ask yourself three questions quite consciously:
This is one reason it often makes sense to think in terms of career avenues, not just roles. If you define a path too narrowly, you can end up needing another complete change as soon as your needs evolve again. But if you define a broader area of growth – one that gives you room to flex, specialise, rebalance or reposition over time – you're much more likely to build a working life that can move with you rather than trap you again.
A lot of career change advice makes the process sound easier or neater than it really is. I don't want to do that here, because empty motivation doesn't help when push comes to shove. Realism does.
Most advice says something like: reflect on your skills, identify your transferable strengths, update your CV, start networking, maybe do a course, and off you go. There are bits of truth in that, obviously, but it's also how people end up going round in circles for years.
One of the biggest problems is starting in the wrong place. People feel unhappy or stuck, so they go straight to vacancies, career quizzes, jobs boards and lists of alternative roles. The trouble is that this often becomes a kind of panicked skills-matching exercise, where you're not really trying to discover what fits you, you're just trying to find something that looks sensible enough on paper to escape into.
Another problem is over-relying on transferable skills. That advice isn't wrong, exactly, but it is definitely incomplete.
Transferable skills can be incredibly useful, especially if the move you're considering is relatively small, adjacent or tactical. But they can also keep you tethered to the past. If all you ever do is ask, "What else can I do with these skills?", there's a decent chance you'll keep landing in old wine in new bottles.
Then there's the problem of perfection. Quite a few people get stuck because they keep waiting for a move that improves everything at once (salary, interest, flexibility, status, meaning, ease, certainty, commute, lifestyle, future prospects) and doesn't ask much of them in return. That move does exist from time to time, but not often enough to build a sensible strategy around it.
And then, on the other side, there are people who move too fast. They feel urgency, discomfort or resentment, and because that discomfort is real, they assume the fastest move must be the best one. It often isn't. A new job can be different without being better. A career shift can look exciting on paper and still turn out to be a bad fit in reality. If you move on a best-guess basis, without enough due diligence, you may simply kick the problem a short way down the road.
Career change also tends to go wrong when people underestimate time. They give themselves an imaginary deadline, panic when they haven't solved the whole thing quickly, and then either panic-jump into a poor decision or lose confidence because the process feels slower than expected. In truth, most thoughtful career changes take longer than people think they should, partly because the informational side takes time, and partly because the internal side does too.
There isn't a single formula that works for everybody, but there is a better way to approach it than crossing your fingers and hoping a better vacancy wanders past.
Start by being more exact than your first instinct may want to be. "I need a career change" is too vague to be useful. What, specifically, feels wrong? Is it the kind of work, the environment, the people, the level of pressure, the lack of meaning, the lack of growth, the politics, the mismatch with your strengths, the erosion of your energy, or the sense that you've become a stranger to yourself in your work?
In practice, different problems produce very different next steps.
This is where you stop focusing only on what feels intolerable and start paying attention to what a better working life would actually contain. Not in a glossy, fantasy-career way, but in a more human and useful sense.
What kinds of tasks do you enjoy enough to want more of them? What sorts of problems do you like solving? What environments tend to bring out your better self? What drains you? What kinds of conversations, rhythms, responsibilities and outcomes leave you more alive rather than less?
For most people, defining what you don't want is easier than defining what you do want – especially if you've been in one role or industry for a long time.
But if you don't do this, you can easily end up falling into a new career just because it "makes sense" or feels different, which aren't the same thing as better.
A lot of advice says, quite blandly, "identify your (transferable) skills". The problem is that skills alone can be too dry, too narrow and too backward-looking. They can lead you to a new career where you're competent but miserable.
A more useful question is: what do you love being great at?
Not what are you competent at in a technical sense, and not what have you been paid to do most often, but what kinds of capability feel satisfying, energising or meaningful when you use them well? What kind of thing in the past have you been proud of?
Perhaps you love making complexity clearer, helping people think better, building order from chaos, spotting patterns, improving systems, listening deeply, persuading carefully, translating ideas, structuring ambiguity, designing better experiences, or leading people through difficult change.
Once you have those, the next step is to translate them into broader language so they can apply in other sectors. That's what makes them transferable in a useful way. You're not just carrying forward a narrow skill from one industry to another; you're identifying a more general capability that can show up in many forms.
It's really common to want a lot of transfer in a career change. By that I mean there's often a sense that you don't want to "waste" the skills and experience you have – and the years you've invested in them.
That can make sense if your forward path genuinely does require a lot of career assets you already own, or if you need to move quickly or over a few steps and can't afford to pause and retrain (more of which below).
More often, a lot of this is driven by the sunk cost fallacy: this is where we plan for the future based on what we've invested into our past – even when those things no longer serve us. In a career change context, it can mean we stick with a misaligned career just to validate our past choices, meaning we're limiting our future fulfilment just to feel better about the past.
Thing is, career change isn't always about preserving as much as possible. Sometimes it is. Sometimes it isn't. Sometimes the more exciting or more fitting path will involve new skills, new evidence, lower status for a while, a slower rebuild, or a period of feeling less established than you'd prefer.
That doesn't automatically make it a bad idea; in fact it can be something your future self will thank you for. Right now, it just means the decision has to be based on something more substantial than ease, reassurance or comfort.
At this point, you don't need "the answer". You need options worth investigating.
A shortlist is enough. You'll never identify all the possible roles and paths that exist in the world – and even if you do, there'll be ten more tomorrow.
A shortlist is also** much** better than trying to identify the one perfect future from a standing start. You might end up with a few adjacent moves, a couple of more ambitious pivots, and one or two directions that initially seem less obvious but more alive.
This is also where it's worth resisting the pull of job boards as your main compass. Jobs boards can tell you what's currently being advertised. They are much less useful for helping you understand what genuinely fits and what you could grow into over time.
This is one of the most important career change questions there is, and not enough people ask it explicitly.
A career change is rarely decided by choosing the perfect match over all the inferior options. More often, it's decided by choosing one collection of pros and cons over another collection of pros and cons.
In other words, every path costs something.
One route may offer more meaning but need a pay cut. Another might maintain your ideal income but keep you closer to the kind of work you're trying to leave. Another may open a more interesting future but ask for a longer commute, extra study, or a period of rebuilding confidence. Another may be easier to explain to other people but still feel less like your own choice.
That doesn't mean the whole process is grim. It just means it is grown-up. The better question isn't, "Which option is perfect?" It is, "Which destination is worth the journey it asks of me?"
That way of thinking also helps with compromise. A lot of people treat compromise as something to avoid, or proof that a path is wrong. The truth is, compromise is just proof that a path is real. If the trade-offs are acceptable, purposeful and connected to a better longer-term direction, they might be exactly what opens the door to a future career that you actually want.
In reality, most career change advice ends with ideas, or answers on paper.
But as many people have learnt the hard way, the idea of a role or career can be very different from the reality. This means it's very, very easy to change your life because things seem to make sense in theory – and then when you get there, you realise it's completely different from what you expected. So you're back at square one.
Now, some people are OK with that – they're happy to follow their nose and see what happens. But for most people considering a career change, the stakes are higher and there's a sense that you want to do this properly and do it right.
And if you're especially risk averse, or if have a habit of procrastinating, allow more time than you think you need here. Due diligence isn't a delay to the process. It is the process.
In practice, this means talking to people doing the work, and asking better questions than the usual ones. Ask what the job is actually like when the novelty has worn off. Ask what surprised them and what the hard bits are. Ask what kinds of people thrive and who struggles. Ask who they know that you don't.
Then, where you can, test things. That may mean volunteering, shadowing, freelancing, taking a short course, building a small portfolio, trying a stretch assignment in your current role, or using a side project to gather evidence. You are not trying to create total certainty (you probably won't). You are trying to reduce avoidable ignorance.
And sure, this may feel uncomfortable. Networking can feel awkward, particularly for many Brits. Research can expose how much you really don't know. Experimentation can make you feel temporarily less competent than you want to feel. Some people dislike anything that sounds emotional, and prefer to imagine career change is a purely logical exercise. It definitely isn't – no matter how much you wish it were. And many of these things need you to put in time and effort without any guarantee they'll bear fruit.
In short: the more willing you are to work with discomfort, the more opportunities you'll find and the better your outcome is likely to be.
This might seem obvious, but it isn't always done right.
Some people are so strongly focused on practicalities that they miss deeper alignment drivers and end up with a career that ticks the realism box but turns out to be soul-sucking.
Other people are so fed up, or desperate to find work that's fulfilling, that they don't pay attention to the system work has to belong in. Case in point: many charity workers end up dissatisfied despite being in impactful work that matches their values and which they love in theory – but the high turnover, tricky environments and low pay ceiling make it unworkable for them.
(To clarify: many charities are brilliant places to work and many people have long, fulfilling and rewarding careers in the NFP sector; my example was drawn from a specific subsection.)
So the advice is this:
Work out what kind of transition you can realistically absorb. This is far better for an achievable career change that simply setting a threshold to pass or fail.
Could you tolerate a temporary drop in earnings? For how long? Would a staged move be wiser than a clean break? Could a less glamorous next step create a much better step after that? How much time do you need to test things properly before making commitments? What amount of uncertainty could you handle without turning your whole life into a stress response?
Be as open as you can to achieving your full checklist over time, rather than in one fell swoop. Sometimes one step back really does open up many better steps forward. Not always, of course, but often enough that it should be part of the conversation.
You don't need perfect certainty before you move – even if that's what you would prefer. In fact, if you set your goal as perfect certainty, it's highly likely you'll never make the change you need.
At the other end of the scale, you do, however, need more than wishful thinking.
By the time you act, you want enough evidence to know that the move isn't just a reaction, a fantasy, or a desperate attempt to feel like you're doing something. You want enough evidence to believe, with some evidence and seriousness, that the path makes sense for who you are, what you want, and what you're prepared to give in order to get there.
Starting a new career can feel as though you ought to be brave, decisive and somehow fully convinced before you begin. Most people aren't.
Quite a few people are interested, half-ready, wary, curious, uneasy and unconvinced all at once. That's normal.
If you're starting from scratch, or even partly from scratch, that doesn't mean you've failed to use your past properly. It may simply mean the path you're moving towards is far enough away from what you've done before that a bigger rebuild is appropriate.
At the same time, starting from scratch isn't the only route. Sometimes the smartest move is staged. Sometimes you build credibility gradually. Sometimes you take a role that isn't your final aim but gives you access to a better medium-term direction. Sometimes you gather proof before you gather permission.
This is where openness matters. If you insist that the next move must immediately deliver the full checklist (right money, right level, right flexibility, right meaning, right pace, right status, right future, right everything) there is a good chance you will keep rejecting viable paths because they don't feel tidy enough.
Sometimes a partial move is not a compromise in the depressing sense. It is simply the bridge.
Then you are in a very common stage of the process, not a hopeless one.
Not knowing what to do next doesn't mean you're incapable of changing career. It usually means the problem isn't yet ready for applications. It needs interpretation first.
That may involve elimination before commitment, conversations before conclusions, experiments before declarations, and a bit more patience than your restless part would prefer. If you're here, the task is not to pretend you know the answer. It's to build better information and better self-understanding until your options stop being a blur.
This is also where many people get tripped up by other people's certainty. Friends, family and colleagues often like neat answers. They may push you towards what's obvious, what sounds secure, what they can picture, or what makes most sense to them. That doesn't make them wrong, but it does mean you have to be careful. Career change is partly external, but it is also intensely internal. What frightens you, what excites you, what you are willing to risk, and how much other people's opinions still govern your choices all matter more than most broad guides admit.
Can you? Yes.
Do you want to? It depends.
The reality is that some routes require formal training or accreditation, some are much more transferable, and some sit somewhere in between (where what really matters is building the right evidence through a short course, a licence, a portfolio, project work, practical experience, or simply proof that you can already operate in a different context).
That’s why retraining shouldn’t be treated as the automatic answer to career change. Sometimes it’s genuinely needed and worth the investment. Sometimes the real need is not reinvention, but repositioning, evidence-building or targeted upskilling.
The important thing is not to assume that university is either always necessary or never necessary. It’s to check what kind of evidence your target role (and the kinds of employers you’re aiming at) actually demands, and then work backwards from there. In addition to this, you also need to assess what kind of transition you're open to. For example, many people changing career in their 40s are open to retraining of some form – but those changing career in their 50s are less likely to want longer retraining periods, simply because there are fewer working years left.
And do watch out for one trap here: if you’re prone to procrastinating, retraining can sometimes become a beautifully respectable delay tactic. It can feel like progress while postponing the harder questions about direction, trade-offs and whether you’re actually prepared to move.
Going back to university can be the right route into a new chapter. It just isn’t the only respectable one. The point is to choose the route that fits the destination, not the other way round.
Most people who say they have no experience don't literally mean no experience. They mean no direct evidence in the field they are considering.
That's an important difference.
You might have no formal background in that field, but still bring useful judgement, capability, working habits, commercial awareness, communication, analysis, leadership, care, resilience or systems thinking that can matter a great deal once you know how to position and extend it.
The task then is not to panic about your lack of direct experience, but instead to focus on building proof and value narrative.
By which I mean: sometimes you can actually add tangible proof fairly quickly to your CV in a way that counts in the eyes of the hiring manager. Sometimes, you can reframe the story of value you're selling in your branding and application materials in a way that convinces. Often, you can do both.
Proof may come from small experiments, short projects, volunteering, freelance work, side work, a portfolio, training, community involvement, or conversations that lead to opportunities you would never have found on a job board. Value narratives can be built across your online profiles (notably LinkedIn), your CV profile, your cover letter, and in your outreach and relationship-building.
No (relevant) experience is absolutely a challenge, but it doesn't have to be a dead end.
If you're exploring career change in the UK, it is worth making use of the fact that not every route has to be privately invented from scratch.
The National Careers Service is worth knowing about, as are Skills for Careers resources, adult education options, apprenticeships in some fields, short courses, and more local or sector-specific routes where they exist. These may not solve the whole problem for you, but they can help with information, structure, options and in some cases the practical route into a new field.
That said, support doesn't only mean qualifications. Sometimes the issue isn't access to courses, but interpretation. In other words, you're not short of information, you're short of clarity, prioritisation and a route through the fog.
That's where more tailored support can help as well.
Career change support tends to be most useful when the problem isn't just information, but meaning.
You may already know quite a lot, and still feel stuck. You may have too many possible directions and no reliable way to narrow them. You may not know whether you need a full career shift or a more intelligent version of your current path. You may understand the pros and cons of several options and still feel paralysed because you don't trust your own judgement, or because the weight of other people's views is louder than your own.
You may also find that the internal side of the process is what keeps slowing you down. Fear, self-doubt, discomfort with networking, avoidance of emotional honesty, difficulty tolerating uncertainty, resistance to compromise, shame about starting again, or simple fatigue after years of trying to think your way through it alone — all of that matters.
In those situations, structured support can help you interpret your position more clearly, test options more intelligently and move with more confidence than you would by endlessly looping through the same thoughts.
If that's where you are, you may find it useful to explore career change coaching or start with the Career Clarity Review.
Start by asking whether the problem is really the career, or whether it is the role, environment, employer, pace, scope or level of burnout. A wrong diagnosis usually leads to a wrong move.
Treat that as an early stage, not a failure. The task is to interpret, narrow and test, rather than applying randomly or waiting for certainty.
Often yes, but usually not without proof-building. What you may lack is direct evidence, not all relevant value.
Sometimes, yes. Sometimes not. The useful question is whether retraining is genuinely required for the destination and whether it is worth the investment.
Often yes, at least partly. But not always. Some paths allow you to carry more forward than others, and some worthwhile moves involve a bigger rebuild.
That is normal. Career change is usually about choosing one collection of pros and cons over another, not discovering a perfect option with none.
Often yes. It depends on the field. Some paths need formal study; others need practical evidence, shorter training or a staged way in.
Even though we can be tempted to see career change as an exercise in logic, it usually doesn't turn out that way. But it doesn't have to be a leap of faith either. In reality, a successful change requires both practical sense-making and emotional investment.
You need:
But if you approach it properly, with enough realism and enough openness, you give yourself a much better chance of building something that actually fits – not just escaping something that doesn't.
Follow us on social media:
