Author: Katarzyna Kwiatowska

28May

I Don’t Pick Up the Phone for Recruiters Anymore

I Don't Pick Up the Phone for Recruiters Anymore | Smart People Blog

I Don't Pick Up the Phone for Recruiters Anymore

By Katarzyna (Kasia) Kwiatkowska | CEO, Smart People

If you've been in the HCM ecosystem long enough, you've heard this — at conferences, in conversations with other consultants, in LinkedIn comments. Experienced professionals with certifications and real implementations under their belt — they've had enough.

Enough of recruiters offering "some SAP thing" without knowing if it's SuccessFactors or S/4HANA. Enough of 40-minute calls that end with the discovery they're looking for someone completely different. Enough of sharing your rate only to watch it circulate across the market without your control.

But there's something worse than bad offers. It's the moment when your current project ends in three months — and you have to start looking. You update your LinkedIn status. You write posts. You send messages. Suddenly the whole market knows you're looking. Your client might find out too. And instead of calmly finishing the job — you're stressing about what comes next.

That's exactly why we built something to solve this problem.

Why HCM Consultants Hate Looking for Projects

Not because they're lazy. Because the process is embarrassing.

You get LinkedIn messages from recruiters who can't tell Employee Central from SAP Basis. You waste time on phone calls only to learn after 40 minutes that they need someone completely different. You share your rate — and you have no idea where it ends up or who sees it.

Or you reply to a "Senior SAP Consultant — exciting global project!" post, and it turns out to be a support role at half your rate, full-time, on-site somewhere you don't want to go. Sound familiar? Most consultants we talk to know this all too well.

Looking for a Project Shouldn't Be a Project in Itself

At Smart People, we have a network of SAP SuccessFactors, Workday and Oracle HCM consultants from across Europe and beyond. We built something we needed ourselves — because we've been training, advising and connecting people with projects in this ecosystem for years.

It's called the Smart People Consultant Network, and here's how it works:

How the network works

You register once. You enter your modules, certifications, payroll experience by country, preferences (remote, hybrid, on-site), and availability. 5 minutes.

Your data is yours. We don't publish your profile anywhere. We don't share your rate with anyone without your consent. Clients see an anonymised competency card — no name, no rate. Only when both sides want to talk do we arrange a meeting.

When a project comes up for you — we reach out. You decide whether you're interested. No spam with offers that have nothing to do with your profile.

Nobody has to know you're looking. Your current client won't see your profile on any portal. You don't have to change your LinkedIn status to "open to work". You're in our network — and when the right moment comes, we reach out.

This Is Not a Job Board

We match people to projects by hand.

We don't have a "Browse 5000 consultants" tab. We don't collect CVs for stockpiling. We don't send mass emails with offers.

Every consultant in our network is either known to us personally or verified through real projects. A consultant with EC certification and DACH payroll experience is not the same as a consultant with EC certification who's only done core HR in one country. A recruitment agency can't see that difference. We can — because we've been operating in this space for years and we know it inside out.

Where Are the Projects

Europe from Scandinavia to the Balkans — Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Benelux, UK, Poland, Czech Republic, Romania, Hungary. A growing number of projects in the US, Brazil, India, UAE and Australia.

Remote, hybrid, on-site — it depends on the project. But you always know upfront, before you decide.

5 Minutes Now, Peace of Mind for Months Ahead

Registration doesn't commit you to anything. You don't sign a contract. You don't pay commission. You leave your profile — and we do the rest.

Next time your project is coming to an end, you won't have to look for anything. Because the right project will find you.

Let's Talk

Join the Smart People Consultant Network — register in 5 minutes and let the right project come to you.

Or reach out directly with any questions. It's a conversation, not a pitch.

Join the Network
28May

What HR Leaders Get Wrong About Upskilling Their Teams on SuccessFactors

What HR Leaders Get Wrong About Upskilling Their Teams on SuccessFactors | Smart People Blog

What HR Leaders Get Wrong About Upskilling Their Teams on SuccessFactors

By Katarzyna (Kasia) Kwiatkowska | CEO, Smart People

Every few months, I speak with an HR leader who is frustrated.

The SuccessFactors implementation went live. The vendor delivered training. People attended. And yet — six months later, the system is being used at a fraction of its potential, workarounds are spreading, and the HR team is quietly going back to Excel.

The technology isn't the problem. The way organizations think about upskilling their people around the technology — that's where things go wrong.

After years of advising organizations on SAP SuccessFactors implementations and building competency frameworks around HR tech, I've come to recognize a pattern. Here are the most common mistakes I see — and what to do instead.

Mistake #1: Treating Training as a One-Time Event

Implementation projects have timelines. Training gets scheduled into that timeline — usually in the final sprint before go-live, when everyone is already exhausted and overwhelmed.

People sit through hours of system walkthroughs. They nod. They pass the sign-off checklist. And then they return to their desks and can't remember half of what they learned, because they have no immediate context to anchor it to.

Learning doesn't work that way. Competence is built through repetition, application, and reinforcement over time — not through a single dense session squeezed between data migration and UAT.

The organizations that see lasting adoption treat training as an ongoing process, not a project deliverable. They build internal knowledge infrastructure. They invest in people who can continue developing the team after the implementation partner has left.

Mistake #2: Training the Wrong People

There's a version of "we trained our team" that means: we trained two super users, who were then expected to cascade knowledge across the entire HR department.

Super users are not a substitute for broad competency.

When only a handful of people truly understand the system, you create bottlenecks. You create dependency. And when those people leave — and they do leave, often precisely because their market value has just increased — the institutional knowledge walks out the door with them.

Effective upskilling means building a wider base. Not everyone needs to be an expert, but everyone who touches the system needs to understand it well enough to use it confidently, escalate intelligently, and recognize when something isn't working as it should.

Mistake #3: Separating HR Knowledge from System Knowledge

This is perhaps the subtlest mistake, and the most damaging.

SuccessFactors is not a neutral tool. It has logic embedded in it — about how organizations structure compensation, how performance processes flow, how talent data connects across modules. To configure it well, to use it well, to troubleshoot it well — you need to understand both the system and the HR domain it operates in.

The gap that costs the most

I've seen teams who are technically proficient in navigating the interface but have no idea why a particular workflow is set up the way it is. They can click the buttons. They can't question whether the buttons are leading them anywhere useful.

The gap between "knowing the system" and "understanding what the system is supposed to do for your organization" is where most SuccessFactors frustration lives.

Mistake #4: Waiting Until Something Breaks

Reactive learning — training people after a problem has already surfaced — is expensive. It's expensive in time, in morale, and often in data quality that has to be manually corrected.

Proactive capability building means identifying the knowledge gaps before they create operational problems. It means building your team's understanding of upcoming modules or configuration changes before they're rolled out. It means having a place your HR team can go to deepen their skills on their own schedule, without waiting for a formal implementation project to justify it.

What Actually Works

The organizations I've seen handle this well have a few things in common.

The pattern behind lasting SuccessFactors adoption

They think about their HR team's SuccessFactors competency as an asset — something to be built deliberately and maintained over time, the same way they think about the system itself.

They invest in quality training that connects process logic to system functionality — not just screen-by-screen navigation.

And they create the conditions for continuous learning: internal knowledge sharing, access to good external resources, and people who are genuinely skilled at transferring that knowledge.

The system is only as effective as the people using it. That's not a limitation — it's an opportunity, if you treat it like one.

Let's Talk

If you want a good foundation — the Smart Knowledge Hub has the materials. Quality resources, real depth, built for HR professionals who take this seriously.

If your team needs more than resources, the Smart People Global Academy is the next step — structured training, taught by practitioners who know both the system and the HR domain.

Or reach out directly. It's a conversation, not a pitch.

Write to Me
22Apr

What SuccessFactors Decision-makers Read Over the Weekend — And Why It Didn’t Surprise Me

What SuccessFactors Decision-Makers Read Over the Weekend | Smart People Blog

On Thursday we launched the Smart Knowledge Hub. I didn't write anything about it over the weekend — I wanted to see what people were actually reading before I started commenting on it.

Today, Monday morning, I know a little more.

The most-opened resources aren't for those just starting their SuccessFactors journey.

They're for decision-makers in the middle of an implementation.

The partner selection framework, the questions to ask before signing a contract, the go-live readiness checklist. The e-book — the one with 27 chapters walking you step by step through the entire implementation path — is also getting significant attention.

And that doesn't surprise me.

SuccessFactors Is One of the Most Complex HCM Systems on the Market

When a company implements SF for the first time, it walks into a world it had no way of learning beforehand. Modules that connect to each other in non-obvious ways. Architectural decisions whose consequences you only see two years later. Quarterly SAP releases that can change how entire processes work. Integrations with payroll, ERP, time tracking systems — each with its own logic and limitations.

A good implementation partner knows all this. They have their methodology, experience from previous projects, their own best practices. But — and this is natural, not a criticism — they look at your project through the lens of their own craft. Their own schedule. Their own consultants who happen to be available.

You look through a completely different lens. Through your business. Your processes. Your regulations. Your people who'll work with this system for the next ten years.

For these two perspectives to balance each other out, you need expertise on the client side. Someone who understands SF deeply enough to ask the right questions, evaluate proposals, recognize trade-offs — and do it in real time, during the workshop, not three weeks later when the decision is already in the project documents.

The Gap Most Companies Don't See

Most companies simply don't have this expertise. Because they're implementing SF for the first time. Because their internal HR IT team has eight other priorities. Because building that kind of competence takes years, and the project needs to happen now.

Embedded Advisor — A Model That Works for Both Sides

For situations like this, at Smart People we offer the Embedded Advisor service. Our senior consultant joins your team for 2–4 days a week, for the entire duration of the project. Not instead of the implementation partner. Alongside.

What they do:

  • Prepare you for every workshop — explaining what the implementation consultant will propose and why, so you walk into the room prepared
  • Flag risks in real time — "this solution will work now, but in two years it will block you from expanding into X"
  • Translate architectural decisions into business language
  • Build your team's competence alongside every conversation, so after go-live the system is yours, not the partner's

A Model That Works for Three Sides

The client gets an equal footing in conversations with the implementation partner. The implementation partner gets a better-prepared client, which in the long run means a better project and fewer escalations. The project gets better architecture, because decisions are made with a fuller understanding of business context.

I see this regularly — projects with an Embedded Advisor on the client side end better. Not because implementation partners work worse without us. Because the client knows better what they need.

The Hub Is the First Step

The materials in the Smart Knowledge Hub — the partner selection framework, 20 questions before the contract, the go-live checklist, the e-book about the whole implementation process — are exactly what they are. A first step. They give you knowledge, but not the context of your specific project.

Knowledge In Your Project

The Embedded Advisor gives you knowledge in your project. In your workshops. At your table.

If you've started reading the Hub and are thinking "this is exactly what I'm missing, but in my own company" — write to me. Either directly, or through the form on the page. It's a conversation, not a pitch.

The Hub has been live since Thursday. In a week, I'll know more. In a month — even more. If there are things that should be there but aren't — tell me. We're building this with the market, not apart from it.

Let's Talk

Visit the Smart Knowledge Hub or reach out directly.

It's a conversation, not a pitch.

Write to Me

Get in Touch

Katarzyna (Kasia) Kwiatkowska
CEO, Smart People
Email: katarzyna.kwiatkowska@smartpeople.com.pl
Hub: smartpeople.com.pl/en/smart-knowledge-hub/

30Mar

We Invested in the System. We Forgot to Invest in People.

We Invested in the System. We Forgot to Invest in the People. | Katarzyna Kwiatkowska

We Invested in the System.
We Forgot to Invest in the People.

Katarzyna Kwiatkowska  |  CEO, Smart People

Every year, companies spend significant budgets on HR technology. Platforms get implemented. Suppliers and contracts get signed. Go-live dates get celebrated.

And then, quietly, the same pattern repeats itself.

Adoption slows. Workarounds multiply. Someone is running parallel Excel sheets "just in case." The system that was supposed to transform HR is being used at maybe 40% of its capability — and nobody in leadership knows exactly why, because nobody is asking the right question.

The right question isn't: did we implement correctly?
It's: do the people responsible for running this system actually understand it?

The Gap

I've seen this from both sides — as a consultant and as someone who builds teams. There is a consistent, predictable pattern in HR implementations that fail to deliver on their promise. It's not the technology. The technology works. It's the fact that the humans managing it were never properly equipped to work with it.

This isn't about negligence. It's about a structural blind spot.

When a company invests in a platform like SAP SuccessFactors, the budget goes toward licenses, implementation partners, project management. What rarely makes it into the budget — or the strategic conversation — is the question of whether the internal HR team has the actual competency to own the system once the partner leaves. The other question is: do we manage somehow the change within the organization?

Implementation partners are there to deploy. They are not there to build long-term internal capability. The moment the project closes, your team is on their own — with some support from the implementation partner, but limited. And most of the time, the internal teams are not ready.

Skill Gap Hidden

Here's what makes this problem particularly hard to catch: the people running your HR system often don't know what they don't know.

They can complete the tasks they've been trained to complete. They follow the workflows. They process the data. But when something breaks, when a new module needs to be configured, when a process needs to evolve — they hit a wall. And instead of escalating it as a competency problem, they work around it. Because nobody wants to be the person who admits they don't fully understand the system their company just paid a significant amount to implement.

Leaders, meanwhile, see the dashboard. The data is there. Reports run. Everything looks functional. So there's no signal that something is quietly wrong.

Until there is — usually in the form of a project that stalls, a compliance issue, or a decision made on incomplete information nobody realized was incomplete.

Understanding is not the same as knowledge. But knowledge and competences prove understanding.

Building Knowledge

I want to be direct about something.

I'm talking about building deep knowledge and competences within the organization during the project. What matters is ensuring your HR team has the practical skills to truly understand and manage the system long-term — not just operate it superficially.

That's a different thing entirely.

Building knowledge through hands-on experience and structured training provides the clarity that matters — in project decisions, system governance, and everyday operations that shape outcomes.

What We Do — and What We Don't Claim

At Smart People Global Academy, we prepare professionals for SAP SuccessFactors certification. We design programs around real project practice, not dry theory. We teach the way the system actually behaves on implementations — because Smart People places SF consultants on global projects, and we know firsthand what the gap looks like between someone who understands the system and someone who merely operates it.

We are not the ones who certify. SAP certifies. That's their process, their standard, their badge.

What we do is make sure that when you or your team member walks into that exam — and into every project after it — they are genuinely ready. Not just to pass. To perform.

Because the goal was never the certificate. The goal was the competency the certificate proves.

Is Your Team Really Ready?

If your team is running SAP SuccessFactors and you're not sure how deep that knowledge actually goes — that question is worth asking before the next project, not after.

Let's Talk

09Mar

SAP SuccessFactors Implementation

Implementing SAP SuccessFactors? Your Partner Knows Everything. You Know Almost Nothing.

Implementing SAP SuccessFactors? Your Partner Knows Everything. You Know Almost Nothing. And That's a Problem.

Let me be direct: most companies implementing SAP SuccessFactors are alone during the process.

Yes — they have an implementation partner. They have a project manager. They have a schedule, workshops, weekly status calls. On paper, everything looks professional.

But in practice, there is one fundamental problem.

The implementation partner knows how the system works. The client knows how their company works. And between these two worlds is a gap — through which, every week, decisions fall that the client doesn't fully understand the consequences of.

Not because the partner is dishonest. But because the client has no one on their side who understands SuccessFactors well enough to ask: "Is this really the best option? Or just the fastest one?"

The Asymmetry Nobody Talks About

Every implementation project has an imbalance of knowledge. The partner has delivered many SF projects and knows where the typical traps are. The client is doing one implementation — probably their only one in the next decade.

  • The partner knows which configuration decisions will hurt six months down the line. The client finds out six months down the line.
  • The partner knows that certain workarounds technically work — but create technical debt. The client only sees that "it works."
  • The partner knows how much changes cost after go-live. The client finds out when they receive the change request quote.

This isn't a bad partner. It's simply a situation where one side has significantly more context than the other. And in that situation, even an honest partner — consciously or not — runs the project in a way that's convenient for them, not necessarily optimal for the client.

What's Missing on the Client Side

What's missing is someone who:

  • Understands SAP SuccessFactors well enough to evaluate the partner's proposals — not at the level of "that sounds good," but at the level of "what are the consequences of this approach in six months."
  • Can translate technical language into business decisions — because a Head of HR shouldn't need to understand the difference between an MDF Object and a Foundation Object in order to make a good call.
  • Plays exclusively on the client's team — with no interest in the project running longer, in adding modules, or in avoiding difficult conversations with the partner.

This is what we do at Smart People. We call it Client-Side Advisory — and in practice, it means we bring SuccessFactors expertise to the client's side of the table, not the vendor's.

Three Ways This Works in Practice

There's no single model, because no two projects are the same. But after many conversations with clients, three variants have emerged that cover most situations.

SmartScope — Before You Sign with a Partner

This is the moment where one well-informed voice can save a company from costly mistakes. A few days of focused work before the client enters any contractual commitment. We help structure the project scope, prepare the RFP, and evaluate vendor proposals.

The goal isn't to pick the cheapest offer. It's to understand what's a realistic scope versus a marketing promise. Where are the decisions that will cost double if not clarified now. Which questions are worth asking the partner before everyone signs on the dotted line.

One mistake caught at this stage can save many times the cost of our work.

SmartGuard — A Conscience for the Project in Progress

This model solves the most common problem: the client has an implementation underway, but no one looking at the project through their eyes.

A few days per month throughout the project. We join key meetings. We review configuration decisions. We translate — in the client's language, not in technical jargon — what the partner is actually proposing and what the consequences will be.

Monthly: a short summary of what's going well, what needs attention, what might blow up after go-live.

We're not auditing the partner. We're accelerating the project — because a client who understands what's happening makes decisions faster. And a partner talking to someone who knows SuccessFactors doesn't have to waste time explaining the basics.

A good implementation partner values having someone competent on the other side. A poor partner will be unhappy about it — and that reaction alone tells the client something important.

SmartSide — Our Person on Your Team

For larger projects or clients who want full presence: a dedicated SF consultant who joins the client's team for the duration of the project.

Working 2–4 days per week. Sitting at the same table as the implementation partner — but representing the client's interests only. Preparing the client's team for workshops, flagging risks in real time, helping make decisions as they happen.

And doing something no implementation partner will do: building the internal team's competence. Because after go-live, the partner leaves. The client stays with the system they need to run.

What We're Not

  • We're not an implementation firm. We don't sell our own project. We have no interest in the implementation running longer, costing more, or covering more modules than necessary.
  • We're not an auditor who arrives after the fact to say "you should have done it differently."
  • We're not competition for the implementation partner. Quite the opposite — in the best projects I've seen, both sides of the table had people who understood the system. Decisions were made faster. The project moved smoother. No one wasted time explaining the obvious.

We are on the client's side. That is our only role and our only interest.

Planning an SF Implementation?

If you're planning an SF implementation — or you're already in one and feel like you're getting lost in the technical language — reach out. Even a short conversation can clarify whether you need someone in your corner.

Let's Talk

08Feb

Why I’m Glad We’re Not Poland’s Largest SAP Training Company

Why I'm Glad We're Not Poland's Largest SAP Training Company | Smart People Blog

Why I'm Glad We're Not Poland's Largest SAP Training Company

We could be three times bigger. We consciously choose not to be.

This isn't false modesty or an excuse. We have options. We could record courses once and sell them indefinitely. We could pack hundreds of people into webinars. We could sell platform access and wish people luck.

We don't do any of that.

And this decision – this deliberate "no" – is the smartest thing we've ever done.

Not All Growth Is Good Growth

The business world is obsessed with scale. Higher revenue. More clients. Faster expansion. It's the default success metric, the number that impresses on LinkedIn.

But here's what they won't tell you: scale and quality rarely go hand in hand.

When you're teaching SAP SuccessFactors, you're not selling widgets. You're not moving boxes. You're transferring complex knowledge that will determine whether someone can actually do their job when they return to the office on Monday.

That requires something scale can't provide: attention.

What "Boutique" Really Means

When people hear "boutique," they sometimes think "small" or "amateurish." That's not what I mean.

Boutique means control. It means we know every trainer personally. It means I know exactly what's happening in every course because I'm involved. It means when a participant emails with a question three months after certification, they don't hit a ticketing system – they get a real answer from someone who remembers them.

Boutique Means Relationships, Not Transactions

Our clients don't come to us once. They return. They send colleagues. They call when they're stuck on an implementation six months later. That doesn't work when you're optimizing for volume.

Boutique means a reputation you can stake your name on. When someone asks "Where should I do SAP training?" and your graduates say "Smart People – without hesitation," that's worth more than any advertising budget.

You can't buy that. You can only build it. Slowly. Carefully. With every single interaction.

The Pressure to Grow Kills What Makes You Valuable

I've watched it happen to others. A training company starts brilliantly – passionate trainers, engaged participants, real results. Then they get popular. Demand grows. The owners want to capitalize.

So they:

  • Hire less experienced trainers (cheaper, more available)
  • Increase class sizes (more revenue per session)
  • Standardize content (easier to deliver at scale)
  • Cut "non-essential" support (like post-course Q&A)

And suddenly, what made them great disappears. Participants notice. Reviews drop. Word of mouth shifts from "you have to go there" to "it's okay, I guess."

The business is bigger. But it's worse.

Growth Ate the Value Proposition

I've seen this movie. I'm not interested in the sequel.

"No" as Strategy

Here's what we say no to:

No to the "Buy Access and Good Luck" Model

There's a popular alternative: SAP Learning Hub. Self-study platform. You buy access, get e-books, PDFs, general simulations. And... the rest is up to you.

The Result?

40% of candidates fail the exam on their first attempt. They lose €500, time, and career momentum.

Why? Because reading an 800-page PDF about MDF (Metadata Framework) is like describing color to someone who's never seen it. Without practice, without the ability to ask questions, without someone showing you "aha, so THAT'S where you clicked and why the field isn't visible."

We run 25 live sessions with a 9x certified expert (Flávio Tavares). Monday, Wednesday, Friday, 7:00-9:00 PM CET. Participants can ask questions when stuck. They can watch the trainer configure the system live. They can make mistakes with us, not with a client who'll send a corrective invoice.

No to Lack of Practice

Theory without practice is like describing color to someone who's never seen it. Our participants practice on real SAP instances – the same ones our consultants use on actual client projects. You click, you break, you fix – until you understand. Not screenshots. A live system.

No to Leaving People Alone After the Course

Completing the course isn't the end – it's the beginning. That's why we offer:

  • Bonus webinar with career expert (Sławomir Janczewski, 28 years B2B experience): "How to build your market value and negotiate rates as an SF consultant"
  • Preparation for the official SAP certification exam – practice simulations and test-taking strategy
  • Consultant community support – networking, job search assistance
  • Lifetime access to recordings of all 25 sessions

Our Philosophy

We don't want you to be "just another graduate with a certificate." We want you to be a specialist who knows how to sell your skills and pass the SAP exam on the first try.

It's a choice: easy revenue or real results. We choose results. Every time.

Why This Matters to You

You might think: "Okay, Kasia, but I don't run a training company."

Fair enough. But ask yourself: Where in your business are you being pressured to scale at the expense of quality?

Maybe it's:

  • Taking on more clients than you can properly serve
  • Hiring faster than you can effectively onboard people
  • Expanding into new markets before mastering your core
  • Automating processes that actually need human touch
  • Saying yes to projects that don't fit your strengths

The "growth at all costs" narrative is everywhere. It's tempting. It looks like success.

But sometimes the most strategic move is staying focused. Protecting what makes you excellent. Building deep instead of wide.

Our Version of Success

We're not Poland's largest SAP training company. And we're okay with that.

We're the one people come back to. The one they recommend to colleagues. Where trainers actually want to teach because they have the conditions to do it well.

And that's enough for us.

So I'm Asking You

Where in your business have you chosen focus over scale?

I'd genuinely love to hear your story. Reply or leave a comment – let's talk about what happens when you choose quality over quantity.

Because I think more businesses need the courage to stay boutique.

Ready to Transform Your SAP SuccessFactors Career?

Join our next Employee Central course – 25 live sessions with 9x certified expert Flávio Tavares.

Practice on real SAP instances. Get career coaching. Pass your certification on the first try.

Learn More About Our Courses

Questions? Let's Talk

Kasia Kwiatkowska
CEO & Founder, Smart People Global Academy
Email: katarzyna.kwiatkowska@smartpeople.com.pl
LinkedIn: Connect on LinkedIn

02Feb

Why Companies Are Losing Senior Talent

Why Companies Are Losing Senior Talent (And How to Stop It Before It's Too Late) | Smart People Blog

Why Companies Are Losing Senior Talent (And How to Stop It Before It's Too Late)

Your best senior developer just got an offer from Berlin. 40% salary increase, full remote, equity package. You have two weeks to counter.

What do you do?

If your first instinct is "match the salary," you've already lost.

Because here's what most companies miss: senior talent doesn't leave for money. They leave because staying has become more painful than leaving.

Let me show you what's really happening—and what actually works to keep your best people.

The Real Reasons Senior Talent Walks Out

Multiple studies tracking why employees quit paint a consistent picture—and it's not what most executives assume.

The Top 5 Reasons Senior Talent Leaves (In Order)

  1. Toxic or negative work environment (32% cite this as the primary reason)
  2. Poor company leadership (30%)
  3. Dissatisfaction with direct manager (28%)
  4. Lack of career growth opportunities (19–26% depending on seniority)
  5. Poor work-life balance (21%)

Notice what's NOT in the top 5? Salary. It ranks sixth at around 20%.

For senior leaders specifically, research by Gartner found that 60% cite "lack of career growth and evolving roles" as their main reason for leaving—not compensation.

What This Means in Practice

When your senior architect says "I got a better offer," what they're really saying is:

  • "I'm tired of fighting with leadership on every decision"
  • "I've been in the same role for 3 years with no growth path"
  • "My manager doesn't understand what I do"
  • "I'm burning out and nobody notices"

The salary offer from Berlin isn't the reason they're leaving. It's the excuse that makes leaving easier to explain.

The Cost of Getting This Wrong

Replacing a senior employee costs 1.5–2× their annual salary when you factor in:

  • Recruitment fees (15–25% of salary)
  • Lost productivity during vacancy (3–6 months minimum)
  • Knowledge loss (irreplaceable institutional knowledge)
  • Team morale impact (when senior people leave, others start looking)
  • Client relationship disruption

For a €90,000 senior role, you're looking at €135,000–€180,000 in total replacement cost.

And that's assuming the replacement works out. If they don't, multiply by two.

Why "Just Pay Them More" Doesn't Work

Every HR leader has tried the retention bonus. Most regret it.

Here's why salary-based retention fails:

The Temporary Fix Trap

Research shows that 19.5% of employers gave pay raises specifically to prevent someone from leaving—and it didn't work. The employee left anyway, often within 6–12 months.

Why? Because money doesn't fix the underlying problem.

If someone is miserable, underchallenged, or burned out, a 20% raise just means they're well-paid and still miserable. They'll leave as soon as the next opportunity appears.

The Equity Problem

When you give one person a significant raise to keep them, everyone else finds out. Now you have two problems:

  • The person you gave the raise to feels they had to threaten to leave to get fair pay
  • Everyone else feels undervalued and starts updating their CVs

You've just created a culture of "threaten to leave to get paid."

The Market Reality

In today's distributed work environment, salary competition is global. Your Berlin competitor can always pay more. Your San Francisco competitor definitely can.

You cannot win a pure salary war against global markets. You'll go broke trying.

What Actually Works Instead

The companies with the best senior talent retention don't pay the most. They create environments where:

  • Senior people have real autonomy and impact
  • Growth happens through expanding scope, not just promotions
  • Leadership actually listens to technical expertise
  • Work-life boundaries are respected
  • Purpose and meaning are clear

This doesn't mean salary doesn't matter. It means salary is table stakes. Once you're paying market rate (not necessarily top-of-market), other factors determine whether people stay.

What Senior Talent Actually Wants (And How to Deliver It)

Senior professionals have different needs than junior employees. Here's what matters most—and how to deliver it without breaking the bank.

1. Autonomy and Trust

What they want: "Trust my professional judgment. Don't micromanage every decision when I'm the expert."

What kills retention:

  • Excessive approval layers for routine decisions within project scope
  • Having to escalate every client question before responding
  • Being treated like a junior despite years of experience
  • Process that prioritizes control over expertise

What works:

  • Authority to make client-facing decisions within agreed project parameters
  • Trust to configure and design solutions without pre-approval (with post-facto review)
  • Direct communication with clients without constant oversight
  • Removing bureaucratic obstacles that slow down delivery

Real Example

A consulting firm had 35% turnover among senior consultants. Exit interviews revealed: "Every small decision required 2-3 approval levels, even when we were the subject matter experts."

They restructured: Senior consultants could make configuration decisions and respond to client requests within project scope—with weekly reviews instead of pre-approvals for every step.

Result: Consultants felt trusted, clients got faster responses, turnover dropped to 12% within a year.

Important: This isn't about letting people "use whatever tools they want" or bypassing security/governance. It's about trusting experts to do their job within established frameworks without unnecessary bureaucracy.

2. Growth Through Expanding Scope (Not Just Promotions)

What they want: "I want to keep learning and growing, but I don't necessarily want to manage people."

What kills retention:

  • The only growth path is "become a manager"
  • Staying in the same role for 3+ years with no evolution
  • No access to interesting problems or new technologies

What works:

  • Create IC (individual contributor) tracks that go as high as management tracks
  • Rotate senior people through different projects/domains
  • Give them ownership of strategic initiatives
  • Budget for conferences, training, certifications

The principle: Senior people don't outgrow roles—roles outgrow them. Keep the role evolving.

3. Leadership That Listens

What they want: "When I raise concerns or suggest solutions, I want to be heard—not dismissed."

What kills retention:

  • "That's not how we do things here"
  • Senior technical advice ignored by business leadership
  • Decisions made without consulting the people who'll implement them

What works:

  • Include senior ICs in strategy discussions (not just execution)
  • Create feedback loops where technical concerns influence business decisions
  • Publicly acknowledge when you change course based on their input

This is about respect. Senior people will tolerate a lot—except being treated like replaceable cogs.

4. Work-Life Boundaries That Are Actually Respected

What they want: "I'll work hard during work hours. Don't expect me to be on Slack at 11 PM."

What kills retention:

  • "Always-on" culture
  • Guilt for taking vacation
  • Weekend deployments becoming the norm

What works:

  • Set clear core hours (e.g., 10 AM–4 PM overlaps required, rest is flexible)
  • No-meeting days (e.g., Wednesdays are focus time)
  • Enforce vacation (some companies mandate minimum 2-week breaks)
  • Model healthy boundaries from leadership

Multiple studies show that 85% of Gen Z and millennials—and 76% of older workers—would consider leaving a company that doesn't prioritize wellbeing. For senior talent with options, this is non-negotiable.

Retention as a System, Not a Reaction

The best retention strategies are proactive, not reactive.

Don't Wait for the Resignation Letter

By the time someone gives notice, they're already mentally gone. Research shows employees typically decide to leave 6–12 months before they actually do.

Build early warning systems:

  • Quarterly "stay interviews" (not exit interviews)
  • Track engagement signals (meeting participation, code commits, collaboration patterns)
  • Regular 1-on-1s that ask "what would make you more excited to be here?"

The goal: identify disengagement before it becomes a resignation.

Retention Starts at Hiring

Hire for values fit, not just skills. Senior people who align with your mission and culture are significantly less likely to leave when competitors offer more money.

Ask during interviews:

  • "What made you leave your last company?"
  • "What would make you stay somewhere for 5+ years?"
  • "What's non-negotiable for you in a work environment?"

If their answers don't match what you can deliver, don't hire them—no matter how talented they are. Misalignment always leads to attrition.

Build a Culture Where People Refer Friends

The best retention metric? Referrals from existing senior employees.

If your senior people are referring their talented friends, it means:

  • They believe this is a good place to work
  • They're proud of what the company does
  • They plan to stay long enough to work with those referrals

If referrals dry up—especially from senior people—that's a red flag.

Retention Is a Competitive Advantage

In 2026, senior talent has options. Distributed work, global job markets, and skills shortages mean your best people can work anywhere.

The companies that keep them won't be the ones that pay the most.

They'll be the ones that:

  • Create environments of trust and autonomy
  • Provide growth through expanding scope and impact
  • Have leadership that actually listens to expertise
  • Respect work-life boundaries in practice, not just policy
  • Build cultures worth staying for

Your senior developer got that offer from Berlin.

The question isn't "can we match the salary?"

The question is "have we built an environment where they want to stay regardless?"

If the answer is no—start fixing that now, before the next resignation lands on your desk.

Need Help Building High-Performing, Stable Teams?

At Smart People, we help companies build distributed teams that combine senior talent with sustainable retention strategies.

Whether you need embedded teams, senior consultants, or strategic talent advisory—we've got you covered.

Let's Talk About Your Retention Challenges

Questions? Contact:

Katarzyna Kwiatkowska
Email: katarzyna.kwiatkowska@smartpeople.com.pl
LinkedIn: Connect on LinkedIn

20Jan

SuccessFactors in 2026: Why AI Won’t Replace a Team That Understands Migrations (and What You Need to Check Before It’s Too Late)

SuccessFactors in 2026: Why AI Won't Replace a Team That Understands Migrations

SuccessFactors in 2026: Why AI Won't Replace a Team That Understands Migrations (and What You Need to Check Before It's Too Late)

In 2026, hundreds of companies will wake up to a message: "Your integrations have stopped working. System unresponsive."

This won't be a cyberattack. It will be the result of deprecations – the phasing out of older features and protocols – that SAP has been announcing in release notes for many months now.

The problem? Most HR and IT teams are postponing action. Why? Because they've been promised:
  • "AI will do it for you."
  • "It'll be easier."
  • "Just click."

And yes – SAP SuccessFactors is evolving rapidly. Recent releases brought hundreds of new features, including powerful AI-powered capabilities: Performance & Goals Agent, Career Development Agent, People Intelligence Agent, HR Service Agent.

Sounds impressive. But there's a catch.

Alongside introducing new capabilities, SAP is systematically deprecating legacy infrastructure. Onboarding 1.0 is in final deprecation stages. Basic Authentication is on a clear path to end-of-support. SFAPI and older integration patterns are being phased out in favor of newer OData-based standards.

What does this mean in practice?

Companies must simultaneously:

  • Migrate away from legacy solutions (requiring deep SuccessFactors knowledge)
  • Configure new AI capabilities (requiring cross-platform expertise: SF + BTP + Cloud Identity Services)
  • Prepare job architecture and skills governance before enabling Talent Intelligence Hub

And they must do this while – as industry research shows – a majority of organizations admit their current skill tracking can't keep up with how fast work is changing.

In other words: most companies lack both the people and the processes to handle this.

And time is running out.

Technical Depth: What Exactly Must You Change Before the End of 2026?

For SuccessFactors to stay stable and ready for new AI features, technical teams must focus on four critical areas. Ignore them, and upcoming SAP releases will feel like problems, not progress.

1. API Migration: From SFAPI to Modern OData Standards

This is the silent killer of many integrations.

SAP is retiring older communication methods, meaning some "bridges" connecting SuccessFactors with other systems (payroll, ERP, analytics) will become unsupported.

What's happening:

  • SFAPI (SuccessFactors API): Is in deprecation. Integrations built on SFAPI, often used in older payroll or reporting connections, need to be redesigned to supported APIs.
  • OData v2 → newer standards: OData v2 still works today, but SAP is steering customers toward newer, more efficient patterns (including OData v4) for large-scale data operations.

Why this matters:

Once SAP ends support for these legacy interfaces, there's no guarantee your integrations will survive the next upgrade. From a business perspective: data stops synchronizing when you least expect it.

What you need to check:
  • Which integrations still rely on SFAPI or old OData patterns?
  • Are external systems (payroll, ERP, middleware) ready to consume newer APIs?
  • Who on your team can actually redesign and test those integrations?

If the answer to the last question is "no one" – you have a problem.

2. Security: Moving to OAuth 2.0 and Certificate-Based Authentication

For years, many companies used technical users and simple login/password authentication in integrations. Convenient – but risky.

SAP has been warning: Basic Authentication is being retired and will reach end-of-support in the coming years, with timelines depending on scenario and tenant type.

What this means:

Every external application connecting to SuccessFactors will need to use modern mechanisms:

  • X.509 certificate-based authentication
  • OAuth 2.0 clients registered via SAP Cloud Identity Services
Risk: When SAP stops supporting Basic Auth, integrations that depend on it will simply stop working after a security update. And support will tell you to migrate – not roll back.
What you need to check:
  • Which integrations still use Basic Auth?
  • Does your IT team know how to configure OAuth 2.0 for SuccessFactors?
  • Do you have processes for managing and rotating X.509 certificates?

If not – this isn't a "nice to have" project. It's basic hygiene.

3. Identity: SAP Cloud Identity Services (IAS/IPS) as the New Backbone

IAS (Identity Authentication Service) and IPS (Identity Provisioning Service) are becoming the central access point for identity and access in SAP's cloud ecosystem – including SuccessFactors.

What's changing:

SAP is moving away from the model where SuccessFactors handled identity in isolation. The target architecture assumes identity is centralized in the cloud via SAP Cloud Identity Services.

Why this matters:

  • Joule and AI capabilities rely on correctly resolved user identity and permissions, which IAS provides
  • New SF features are designed with IAS/IPS as the default identity layer
  • Integrations with Microsoft 365, Teams and other tools are simpler and safer with a consistent identity model
  • Old, flat integrations directly to on-premises Active Directory are increasingly a limitation
What you need to check:
  • Do you have IAS/IPS in your SF landscape – and is it actually being used?
  • Are onboarding/offboarding processes synchronized with identity provisioning?
  • Who owns cloud identity strategy in your organization?

If IAS/IPS is still "on the roadmap," it should move high on your priority list – before enabling new AI features.

4. Talent Intelligence Hub: The AI Foundation Most Companies Lack

This is the biggest data model shift in years. Without it, most promises of "AI in HR" remain marketing slides.

Talent Intelligence Hub is a unified capability and skills layer connecting:

  • Job profiles
  • Skill libraries
  • Career paths
  • Performance and goals
  • Recruiting and internal mobility

The problem:

In many organizations, Employee Central data is messy. Job Profile Builder (JPB) has never been consistently used or mapped to a clean skills model. Skill libraries are full of duplicates ("Java Developer" vs "Java Engineer"), vague descriptions, missing proficiency levels.

AI can't work miracles on this.

Joule, Performance Agent, Career Development Agent – all need clean, consistent data to generate meaningful recommendations. If your skills data is chaotic, AI will simply scale that chaos.

What you need to check:
  • Has your existing JPB content been analyzed and aligned with a TIH-style model?
  • How many duplicates and inconsistencies exist in skill libraries?
  • Do you have clear governance: who approves new skills, naming, levels?

If the answer is "we don't really know" – start with a data audit, not with flipping the AI switch.

The Real Problem: AI Requires MORE Expertise, Not Less

For years, companies have heard:

  • "AI will do it for you."
  • "It'll be easier."
  • "Just click."

Reality looks different.

AI in SuccessFactors requires MORE technical and operational expertise than ever before.

Joule won't fix:

  • ❌ Misconfigured RBP (Role-Based Permissions)
  • ❌ Poorly designed job profiles
  • ❌ Duplicates in skill libraries
  • ❌ Integrations built on Basic Auth and SFAPI
  • ❌ Missing IAS/IPS
  • ❌ Chaotic data architecture

What's more – modern SuccessFactors is no longer "just an HR system." It's an ecosystem demanding knowledge across:

  • SAP SuccessFactors (application and configuration)
  • SAP Business Technology Platform (BTP)
  • SAP Cloud Identity Services (IAS/IPS)
  • Integration Suite and modern APIs (OData, events)

If your team only knows how to "click through screens in SuccessFactors," they're not ready for 2026.

Summary: How to Start Preparing?

Preparing for upcoming changes isn't a "last-minute before deadline" project. It requires close collaboration between HR, IT and data architecture experts.

What we recommend at Smart People:
  1. Integration audit – identify where you still use Basic Auth, SFAPI and legacy patterns
  2. Data architecture review – clean up Employee Central and profiles with Talent Intelligence Hub in mind
  3. Team upskilling – ensure administrators understand OData, OAuth 2.0, IAS/IPS and new AI features
  4. Competency governance – define ownership for skills libraries and maintain a single, consistent model

Need support with the technical side? At Smart People, we work with certified SuccessFactors consultants who've guided companies through complex SF migrations and AI readiness assessments. If your internal team needs external expertise – we're here.

2026 is Not "Just Another Release"

It's a strategic moment where SAP's roadmap effectively divides companies into two groups:

  • Those who invested in teams that understand modern SF architecture and are ready for AI
  • Those who will pay premium rates next year for firefighting in production

Which group do you want to belong to?

Questions? Contact:
Katarzyna Kwiatkowska
katarzyna.kwiatkowska@smartpeople.com.pl
LinkedIn
13Jan

Job Hoppers

The Gen Z Loyalty Paradox: Why They Leave Fast and What Smart Companies Do About It

Your newest hire just submitted their two-week notice.

Sixteen months in. Third one this quarter.

Your HR director schedules a meeting about "the Gen Z problem." Your CEO forwards another article about entitled millennials—wait, Gen Z—who don't understand commitment. Someone suggests installing a beer fridge.

Meanwhile, Sarah from marketing is updating her LinkedIn. Again. She's good at her job. She'll probably be gone by March.

Everyone's asking the same question: How do we make them stay?

Nobody's asking: What if we're solving for the wrong thing?

The Numbers Don't Lie (But They're Often Misread)

Younger workers have always stayed in jobs for shorter periods than older workers. That's not new.

What is new is how quickly people interpret that pattern as a moral failing instead of a structural signal.

Across OECD countries and the U.S., early-career workers today typically stay in roles somewhere between 1.5 and 3 years, depending on industry, geography, and economic conditions. That's true for Gen Z now — and it was largely true for millennials at the same life stage a decade earlier.

Older generations stayed longer not because they were more loyal by nature, but because:

  • Internal career ladders were clearer
  • Job switching carried more stigma
  • Pensions and long-term benefits rewarded tenure
  • Layoffs were less normalized

When you compare generations at the same age, the differences narrow significantly.

Surveys from Deloitte, Pew Research, and other labor-market institutions consistently show that a large share of Gen Z workers expect to change employers within a few years — but so did millennials when they were entering the workforce.

What's changed isn't the desire for growth.
It's the economic logic surrounding it.

The Math Changed. So Did the Behavior.

Take two equally capable early-career employees.

Worker A stays at the same company for several years. Receives modest annual raises tied to performance reviews and budget cycles.

Worker B changes employers every couple of years. Negotiates compensation each time based on current market demand.

Multiple labor-market studies — including Pew Research analyses during and after the pandemic labor shift — show a consistent pattern:

Workers who switch jobs are more likely to see meaningful wage gains than those who stay put.

This isn't universal. It varies by timing and sector. But across knowledge-based roles, the direction is clear:
External mobility is more strongly rewarded than internal loyalty.

Gen Z didn't invent this system. They entered it.

They graduated into a labor market where:

  • Raises often lag inflation
  • Promotions are bottlenecked
  • Layoffs are common even in profitable firms
  • Recruiters actively encourage constant movement

They're not job-hopping because they're reckless.

They're job-hopping because the incentives point that way.

What Retention Programs Usually Miss

Most companies approach Gen Z retention like this:

  1. Ask young employees what they want
  2. Implement visible but low-risk changes
  3. Get confused when turnover doesn't improve

Flexible work becomes standing desks.
Learning opportunities become lunch-and-learns.
Career progression becomes a vague promise about "future leadership roles."

But when Gen Z workers say they want flexibility, learning, and growth, they usually mean something much more concrete.

Flexibility means real autonomy over time, location, and output — not symbolic perks.

Learning means working on projects that stretch their skills now, not observing senior people talk about the past.

Career clarity means understanding what they'll be better at in six months — and why that matters in the broader market.

Meaning means seeing how their work connects to outcomes, not just filling capacity.

When companies deliver the surface version instead of the substance, trust erodes quickly.

Why Portfolio Careers Make Sense

For decades, careers were built vertically: one company, one ladder, slow progression.

Today, careers are increasingly built horizontally.

Gen Z workers often think in terms of:

  • Skills acquired
  • Contexts experienced
  • Industries exposed to
  • Problems solved

Not tenure.

This is why models like project-based work, consulting, contracting, and team-subscription structures resonate — even when they weren't designed for Gen Z.

They align with how learning actually compounds.

A developer who spends a year on healthcare systems, then a year on fintech infrastructure, then six months helping a startup ship an MVP isn't unstable.

They're accumulating range.

What Long-Staying Gen Z Employees Have in Common

Some Gen Z workers do stay three years or longer.

Research and case analyses across consulting firms and HR studies show the same recurring factors:

Visible skill progression
They can clearly articulate what they've learned recently and why it increases their market value.

Real autonomy
Ownership over outcomes, not just tasks.

Economic transparency
Understanding how the business works and how their contribution fits into it.

Credible growth paths
Not promises — examples.

Notably absent from the list: perks, office aesthetics, or performative "culture."

The difference isn't emotional attachment.
It's perceived return on time invested.

The 18-Month Reframe

Instead of asking, "How do we keep them for five years?"

Some companies are asking:
"How do we make the next 12–18 months genuinely worth it?"

This reframing changes everything.

When expectations are explicit:

  • Learning accelerates
  • Feedback becomes sharper
  • Knowledge transfer is planned instead of reactive
  • Departures aren't treated as betrayal

People contribute differently when they know their time is finite.

And interestingly, when exits are normalized and respected, some people stay longer — not because they're trapped, but because the value remains high.

When Turnover Stops Being the Enemy

High turnover is expensive when it's chaotic and adversarial.

It's far less damaging — and sometimes beneficial — when it's intentional.

Planned mobility can:

  • Refresh skills faster than formal training
  • Maintain higher average energy levels
  • Expand a company's network through alumni who become partners, clients, or future collaborators

Organizations that track alumni relationships often find that former employees drive referrals, partnerships, and repeat engagements — especially when exits were handled with respect.

Language Shapes Strategy

When companies frame Gen Z mobility as a loyalty problem, they build defensive systems:

  • Retention bonuses
  • Guilt-based messaging
  • Restrictive contracts

When they frame it as a talent flow reality, they build different ones:

  • Strong documentation
  • Clear project cycles
  • Alumni networks
  • Flexible return paths

One approach treats leaving as failure.
The other treats it as transition.

The Uncomfortable Question

What if the problem isn't Gen Z?

What if it's that many companies are still optimized for a labor market that no longer exists?

Average tenure has been declining for decades — across generations — driven by:

  • Reduced job security
  • The decline of pensions
  • Frequent reorganizations and layoffs
  • The normalization of career mobility

Gen Z didn't break the system.

They're just navigating it with clearer eyes.

The Real Signal

High turnover isn't just a cost.

It's feedback.

When someone stays longer than expected in today's market, it's rarely because they lack options. It's because the value exchange still makes sense.

That's a stronger signal than passive loyalty ever was.

The companies that succeed with Gen Z aren't trying to slow them down.

They're trying to make the time count.

Ready to Build a Talent Strategy That Works With Gen Z Instead of Against Them?

The subscription economy has already transformed how companies buy software and services. The same transformation is coming for how companies access talent.

At SmartPeople, our Team-as-a-Service model is designed for exactly this reality. Flexible teams. Clear deliverables. No pressure to pretend this is permanent when it's not.

📧 katarzyna.kwiatkowska@smartpeople.com.pl
🔗 LinkedIn: Katarzyna Kwiatkowska

P.S. The best Gen Z talent doesn't want a job for life. They want a portfolio of experiences that compounds their value over time. The question is whether your company is positioned to be one of those valuable experiences—or just another place they stayed too long.
18Nov

Stop Giving Advice. Start Asking Better Questions.

 

 

Most business mentorship is just older people telling younger people what worked in a world that doesn’t exist anymore.

I’ve sat through enough mentorship sessions—both as the person asking and the person answering—to see the pattern. Someone comes in with a real problem. The mentor listens for about ninety seconds, nods knowingly, and launches into a story about what they did in a similar situation.

Except it’s never actually similar.

The market’s different. The tools are different. The expectations are different. The entire economic reality is different.

But the mentor feels useful, the mentee takes notes they’ll never use, and everyone pretends something valuable just happened.

It’s theater.

Here’s what actually happened in most of those conversations: someone with a 2025 problem got a 2010 solution delivered with 2025 confidence.

The Advice Reflex

We’re wired to give advice. It feels helpful. It positions us as competent. It’s faster than actually thinking through someone else’s specific situation.

Picture this scenario: A junior team member is trying to decide between two job offers. One’s at a stable company with predictable growth. The other’s at a startup with equity and chaos.

The advice reflex kicks in immediately:

  • “Take the stable job, build your foundation first.”
  • “Go for the startup while you’re young and can take risks.”
  • “Negotiate the salary at the corporate job.”
  • “Equity is a lottery ticket, take the cash.”

All of this might be reasonable. None of it might be right.

Because advice is general. Problems are specific.

The mentor giving that advice is projecting their own risk tolerance, their own career trajectory, their own definition of success onto someone else’s life.

What if the person asking doesn’t care about traditional success metrics? What if they’re trying to buy time to figure out what they actually want? What if the real question isn’t about the job at all, but about whether they’re even in the right field?

You can’t advice your way out of that. You have to question your way into it.

The Question Framework

Good questions do something advice can’t: they force clarity.

When someone comes to you with a problem, they’ve usually already thought through the surface layer. They know the obvious options. What they haven’t done is interrogate their own assumptions.

That’s where questions become useful.

Instead of “Here’s what I would do,” try:

  • “What would success look like in this scenario if everything went perfectly?”
  • “What’s the worst realistic outcome, and could you recover from it?”
  • “What are you optimizing for—money, learning, optionality, stability?”
  • “If you knew you’d be doing something completely different in three years, would this decision still matter?”

These aren’t rhetorical. They’re diagnostic.

The goal isn’t to lead someone to your answer. It’s to help them find their own answer using their own criteria.

Why This Matters More Now

The world changes faster than advice expires.

A career strategy that worked in 2018 might be irrelevant in 2025. The skills that made you valuable ten years ago might be commoditized or automated now. The industries that felt stable last year might be collapsing this year.

Gen Z hasn’t lived through a stable decade. They’ve seen:

  • The 2008 financial crisis (even if they were kids)
  • The gig economy replace entry-level jobs
  • A pandemic collapse the office-based work model
  • AI tools emerge that can do in seconds what used to take hours
  • Entire career paths appear and disappear within a few years

They’re not looking for a map. They’re looking for a compass.

Advice is a map. “Go here, do this, follow these steps.”

Questions are a compass. “What direction matters to you? What trade-offs can you live with? What does north even mean in your situation?”

Maps go out of date. A compass still works.

What Bad Mentorship Sounds Like

“When I was your age, I worked eighty-hour weeks to prove myself.”

Okay. And? That was when face time mattered and remote work wasn’t an option. It was when showing up early and leaving late signaled commitment. Now it might just signal poor time management.

“You need to stay at a company for at least three years or your resume looks flaky.”

Maybe in 2005. Now, staying too long at one place might signal lack of ambition or fear of change. The entire context has shifted.

“Don’t job-hop for money. Build relationships and loyalty.”

Great advice—if companies still rewarded loyalty with anything other than a pizza party and a 2% raise. But most people get their biggest salary increases by leaving, not by staying.

This isn’t to say experience is worthless. It’s to say that experience without context is just nostalgia.

What Good Mentorship Sounds Like

  • “What are you actually trying to solve for?”
  • “What assumptions are you making that might not be true?”
  • “What would you need to believe for option A to be the right choice?”
  • “Who’s already done something close to what you’re trying to do, and what can you learn from their path?”
  • “What’s the smallest version of this you could test before committing fully?”

Notice the difference: these questions don’t assume the mentor knows better. They assume the person asking has information the mentor doesn’t have—about their own priorities, their own constraints, their own vision of what matters.

The Socratic Shift

Socrates didn’t lecture. He questioned.

He’d take a confident statement and pull at its threads until the person realized they didn’t actually know what they were talking about. Not because Socrates wanted to humiliate them, but because clarity comes from interrogation, not assertion.

Modern mentorship needs more of that energy.

Not the arrogance—Socrates could be insufferable—but the method. The willingness to say “I don’t know your situation well enough to tell you what to do, but I can help you think through it.”

That’s harder. It takes more time. It requires you to actually listen instead of waiting for your turn to talk.

But it’s also the only kind of mentorship that scales across contexts. Because the questions work even when the answers change.

When Advice Actually Works

There are times when advice is useful:

  • Tactical execution: “Here’s how to structure a pitch deck.”
  • Procedural knowledge: “Here’s how equity vesting typically works.”
  • Pattern recognition: “I’ve seen this exact scenario three times, and here’s what usually breaks.”

These are transferable. They’re not context-dependent in the same way.

But even then, the best mentors frame it as information, not instruction.

“Here’s what I’ve seen work” is different from “Here’s what you should do.”

One leaves room for judgment. The other assumes your situation maps perfectly onto someone else’s experience.

The Uncomfortable Truth

Most people who offer mentorship are doing it to feel useful, not to be useful.

It’s ego disguised as generosity. “Let me tell you about my journey” is often just “Let me talk about myself while you take notes.”

Real mentorship is uncomfortable. It means admitting you don’t have all the answers. It means sitting with someone else’s uncertainty instead of rushing to resolve it. It means asking questions you don’t know the answer to and trusting that the other person can figure it out.

That’s not satisfying in the moment. You don’t walk away feeling like you dropped wisdom. You walk away feeling like you just had a good conversation.

But six months later, the person you talked to has made a decision that actually fits their life. They didn’t follow your advice—they followed their own logic, sharpened by your questions.

That’s what mentorship should feel like.

The Real Value of Experience

Experience isn’t worthless. But its value isn’t in the conclusions you reached. It’s in the process you used to get there.

The frameworks you built for evaluating trade-offs. The mistakes you made that taught you what to watch for. The moments when conventional wisdom turned out to be wrong and you had to adjust.

Those are transferable. The specific decisions you made are not.

So when someone asks for your advice, don’t tell them what you did. Tell them how you thought about it. Share the questions you asked yourself. Describe the variables you weighed.

Then let them run that same process on their own situation.

What This Looks Like in Practice

Someone asks: “Should I take this job?”

Bad response: “Yes, that company has great culture and the role will teach you a lot.”

Better response: “What would make this job a success for you personally? Not in general—what specifically are you hoping to get out of it?”

They might say: learning, money, network, resume credibility, work-life balance, creative freedom.

Then you ask: “Which of those is non-negotiable? Which could you get elsewhere? What’s the downside if this doesn’t deliver on the thing you care most about?”

Now they’re thinking in terms of their own priorities, not yours.

Someone asks: “How do I get promoted?”

Bad response: “Work hard, take initiative, make yourself indispensable.”

Better response: “What does your company actually promote people for? Is it tenure, results, visibility, relationships, or something else? And do you know anyone who got promoted recently—what did their path look like?”

Now they’re investigating the real system, not following generic advice.

Someone asks: “Should I start a business or stay in my job?”

Bad response: “Follow your passion” or “Stay safe and build security first.”

Better response: “What would starting a business give you that staying in your job doesn’t? And is there a way to test that hypothesis before you fully commit?”

Now they’re designing an experiment, not making an all-or-nothing bet based on someone else’s risk tolerance.

The Shift

Stop positioning yourself as the person with answers.

Start positioning yourself as the person who asks better questions than the other person has asked themselves.

That’s the mentorship that really matters.

Because in a world where everything changes every three years, the only sustainable skill is knowing how to think, not what to think.

And you can’t teach someone how to think by telling them what to do.

You teach them by making them defend their assumptions, clarify their goals, and confront the trade-offs they’ve been avoiding.

That’s uncomfortable. It’s slow. It doesn’t feel like you’re helping in the moment.

But it’s the only thing that actually works.

The Bottom Line

If you’re mentoring someone and you spend more time talking than they do, you’re doing it wrong.

If you’re mentoring someone and they leave with your answer instead of their own, you’re doing it wrong.

If you’re mentoring someone and you feel like you just gave a great performance, you’re doing it wrong.

Good mentorship is awkward, uncertain, and collaborative.

It doesn’t feel like wisdom being passed down.

It feels like two people trying to figure something out together, except one of them has seen more patterns and knows which questions usually lead somewhere useful.

That’s it. That’s the whole thing.

Stop giving advice.

Start asking better questions.

The people you’re trying to help will thank you for it… and ultimately, you will thank yourself.

Want to Learn How to Ask Better Questions?

Whether you’re leading a team, building a business, or navigating your own career—the right questions change everything.

📧 katarzyna.kwiatkowska@smartpeople.com.pl

PS: The best mentors I’ve met don’t have all the answers. They just know how to ask the questions that make you realize you already know what to do. That’s the skill worth developing.
1 2