According to Fortune, LinkedIn CEO Ryan Roslansky, who has led the career platform since 2020, stated that having a five-year career plan is now “outdated” and “a little bit foolish.” He made the comments on the No One Knows What They’re Doing podcast, arguing that the rapid pace of technological change, especially from AI, makes long-term planning ineffective. Roslansky recommends professionals focus instead on the next few months, prioritizing what they want to learn and experience. This perspective is backed by a World Economic Forum report predicting that by 2030, about 39% of workers’ core skills will be transformed or obsolete. Other data shows the average person will have 3-7 career changes and 16 job changes in a lifetime, with Gen Z switching roles roughly every 1.1 years.
Roslansky’s Plan For No Plan
Here’s the thing: when the CEO of the world’s largest professional network says to ditch the long-term roadmap, you listen. But is he right? His logic is hard to fault on the surface. AI is moving at a breakneck speed, and industries are being reshaped quarterly, not yearly. Trying to chart a precise course to a job title that might not exist in five years does seem, well, a bit silly. His alternative “mental model” is all about agility—focus on gaining specific skills and experiences in the short term. It’s a mindset shift from “What’s my next title?” to “What do I need to learn next?” You can see him expand on this in his own podcast, The Path. It’s a compelling argument for perpetual beta mode in your career.
The Case For The Old-School Plan
But let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Critics, like talent exec Mary McNevin, argue that a five-year plan isn’t a rigid prison sentence; it’s a flexible framework. It gives you direction so you’re not just reacting to every market whim. Career growth “doesn’t just happen by accident,” as they say. Without some kind of north star, couldn’t this “learn as you go” approach just lead to a scattered resume and a lack of deep expertise? There’s a risk that Roslansky’s advice, while perfect for the tech world he inhabits, might not translate as well to fields where progression is more structured or credential-based. Sometimes, you *do* need to plan for that MBA or that professional license years in advance.
The New Non-Linear Reality
So who’s winning the argument? The data on career changes is pretty staggering. The TAFE Gippsland report on multiple career shifts and the Randstad data on Gen Z tell a clear story: the linear career path is a myth for most people. Gen Z isn’t “job-hopping” out of flakiness, according to Randstad; they’re “growth-hunting” because they’re not seeing progression. This is the environment Roslansky is describing. The plan isn’t a ladder you climb at one company anymore. It’s more like a series of skill-based projects and roles, maybe across different industries. Your value is in your adaptable skill stack, not your tenure.
What’s The Real Takeaway?
I think the smart move is a hybrid approach. Have a loose, directional vision for five years out—a general area you want to be in or a type of problem you want to solve. But be brutally flexible on how you get there. Your actual tactical plan should be quarterly. What three skills will I build this quarter? What one new experience can I get? This aligns with Roslansky’s core point: “No one is trying to figure this out for you.” The responsibility is fully on you to continuously learn and adapt. In that sense, his advice is less about having no plan and more about having the right *kind* of plan—one made of learning objectives, not just job titles. And in an AI-driven world, that might be the only plan that actually works.
