#career

Q3 numbers came in this morning. Savings rate landed at 28%, one point below what I was targeting but not a crisis — the dental work in August ate about $900 I hadn't planned for. RRSP contribution is on track; TFSA got a smaller top-up than I'd have liked because I redirected $500 toward the HELOC instead. That was the right call at the time. Still think so.

The actual thing sitting on my desk: there's an internal move being floated for a senior PM role on the infrastructure migration program. Director mentioned it casually in our one-on-one last Tuesday. Not a formal posting yet, just a "would you be interested" temperature check. My honest answer is I don't know, which is not the same as no.

Here's the trade-off as I see it. The role is probably 15–20% more scope with no guaranteed comp bump — compensation review doesn't land until February. I'd be leading a team of six instead of three, dealing with a vendor relationship I've heard is difficult, and trading a program I understand thoroughly for one I'd be learning through the first two quarters. On the upside: genuine delivery ownership rather than coordination, and cross-functional visibility that hasn't been on my plate in a few years.

There's a role posted internally — senior PM on the infrastructure modernization program. Posted Tuesday, closes next Friday. My manager mentioned it before I saw the listing, which means someone nudged her to nudge me. Worth noting.

The move would be lateral in title, maybe a 4–6% bump depending on how band negotiation goes, and would add two direct reports for the first time. The program is 18 months from a hard cutover deadline with three vendor contracts already signed. Not a greenfield situation.

Here's what I'm actually weighing:

The vendor selection project came up again today. Paulina asked me directly if I wanted to lead it — a six-month engagement picking a replacement for our current portfolio tool, involving four vendors, procurement, and probably three stakeholder workshops. She said it'd be "great visibility." I said I'd get back to her by Monday.

Here's what I actually know: it's probably 8 to 10 extra hours a week for at least four months, the executive who owns the budget is hard to read, and I've done this kind of selection before — the last one in 2022 added nothing I could point to on my comp review. What I don't know: whether this one lands differently because the new CTO is paying attention, or whether that's wishful thinking on my part.

The trade-off is concrete enough. If I take it, I'm giving up the four hours a week I've been putting into a systems thinking course I started in August. I'm halfway through and actually finding it useful for how I run retrospectives. If I drop it now I'll probably not restart it. That's real.

The internal transfer posting closed Friday. Deadline to express interest was end of day and I let it pass. The role was a senior program manager slot in the platform infrastructure group — same band, different org, more visibility, more risk. I sat with it for about two weeks and kept coming back to the same problem: the hiring manager is new, the team is mid-reorg, and the mandate is still being written. Those three things together is a combination I've been burned by before.

What I'm giving up is about a 15–20% bump in profile, maybe an easier path to a director conversation in 18 months if the team stabilizes. What I'm keeping is a team I trust, a stakeholder map I understand, and a backlog that's roughly in control. The opportunity cost is real. I'm not pretending otherwise.

The case for passing wasn't confidence — it was risk tolerance given current cash flow. We're sitting on about four months of household expenses liquid right now. The mortgage renewal is in February. Taking a lateral into a chaotic org when the runway isn't longer felt like stacking bets. I notice I feel slightly relieved, which might mean it was the right call or might mean I'm rationalizing comfort. Hard to separate those cleanly at 10pm.

Renewal decision sitting on my desk this week: my PMP cert lapses in August if I don't log 60 PDUs by then. I'm at 34. That means roughly 26 hours of qualifying activity in the next three months, or I let it go and reapply later if I ever need it.

The honest case for letting it lapse: I haven't been asked for it in a job interview in four years, and my current employer has never mentioned it. The case for keeping it: unknown. I tell myself "future optionality" but I notice that's the reasoning I reach for when I don't want to do actual math. Sunk cost on renewal fees is around $200 CAD already paid; that's not a reason to continue.

Did the Q1 numbers this morning. Savings rate came in at 24%, close enough to the 25% target that I'm not adjusting anything. Mortgage is $1,847/month, variable, and I've been watching the rate environment without acting — fixed is sitting about 0.3 points below my current rate, not enough to justify the break cost. Reviewed that in February, will revisit in August when the term comes up.

Declined the internal move today. Formally, via email, around 10 a.m. The role was a senior program director position in the infrastructure org — one level up, roughly $18k more base, and a team of four. I've been sitting on the decision for three weeks.

The honest read: I don't want to manage people right now. I've done it before and I know what it costs. Four direct reports means four one-on-ones, four sets of performance notes at year-end, four people whose bad weeks become part of my week. That's not a complaint, it's just arithmetic. My current role is individual contributor-adjacent. I can go home at a reasonable hour most days. That gap matters more to me at 41 than it did at 35.

The trade-off I'm sitting with: I'm giving up the title bump and probably slowing any future salary ceiling. The hypothesis is that I can close the pay gap through merit increases over two to three years without taking on the management overhead. That might be wrong. If I'm still at the same pay band by end of 2027 and there's no clear path, I'll have to revisit whether staying put was discipline or just avoidance.

Walked past the coffee shop this morning and caught myself reaching for my wallet—muscle memory from the old routine of buying a $5 latte every workday. The barista even glanced up, probably wondering why I kept walking. That small moment reminded me how much of our spending runs on autopilot.

I've been tracking every purchase for three weeks now, not because I'm broke, but because I wanted to see where the money actually goes. The spreadsheet doesn't lie: $147 last month on "convenient" coffee alone. Not catastrophic, but not intentional either. The question I'm asking myself isn't "Can I afford this?" anymore—it's "Does this purchase move me closer to what I want, or is it just friction reduction?"

A colleague asked me yesterday, "Don't you feel deprived?" I told her the truth: I feel more in control than I have in years. Deprivation would be mindlessly spending and wondering why I'm still living paycheck to paycheck. This is different. This is choosing.

The coffee machine at the office broke this morning—grinding noise, then silence. I watched three colleagues hover around it like it held the secret to productivity. It doesn't. What it holds is a convenient excuse to delay the hard work.

I've been reviewing my expenses for the quarter, and there's a pattern I don't like. Small subscriptions I barely use: $12 here, $15 there. Individually harmless. Collectively, they're bleeding $200 a month. That's $2,400 a year on services I access maybe twice a quarter. The decision criteria here is simple: if I wouldn't pay for it again today with full awareness, it goes.

A junior analyst stopped by my desk. "Grant, how do you decide what's worth paying for?" Good question. I told her: "Ask yourself if it saves you time, makes you money, or genuinely improves your quality of life. If it's none of those, it's clutter." She nodded, but I could see the wheels turning—probably thinking about her own subscriptions.

Spent the morning reviewing my quarterly budget spreadsheet and noticed something odd: my "miscellaneous" category had ballooned to nearly 18% of my spending. That's a red flag. Miscellaneous should be a rounding error, not a budget line item that rivals rent.

I pulled three months of bank statements and started categorizing every transaction I'd lazily dumped into "other." Coffee subscriptions I forgot to cancel. Two separate cloud storage services doing the exact same thing. A $9.99 charge I couldn't even identify until I googled the merchant name—turns out it was a free trial I never cancelled from January. The problem wasn't that I was spending too much. The problem was I had no idea what I was spending on.

Here's what I've learned: vague categories are where money goes to disappear. When you can't name where your money went, you can't make informed decisions about where it should go next. It's the financial equivalent of having a closet so messy you buy duplicate shirts because you forgot you already owned them.

Caught myself checking my savings account three times before lunch today. The balance hadn't changed since 9 AM, obviously, but there I was—refreshing like it might magically grow. That compulsive behavior told me something: I'm optimizing the wrong variable.

The situation is straightforward. I've been tracking every expense down to the cent for two months now. My spreadsheet has nineteen categories. I know exactly how much I spent on coffee in February ($47.82). But when I looked at my income column, it hasn't moved. I've been so focused on plugging leaks that I forgot to turn on the faucet.

Here's my decision framework: time spent managing money should be proportional to the potential gain. If I spend four hours a month categorizing expenses to save $50, that's $12.50 per hour—below what I could earn doing almost anything else. But if I spend four hours building a skill that could increase my rate by $20 per project, that compounds forever.

Caught myself mid-scroll through a finance subreddit this morning, realizing I'd spent twelve minutes reading about real estate strategies I have no intention of using this year. The coffee had gone cold. That sharp, burnt smell when I reheated it felt like the perfect punishment for wasted attention.

The pattern is obvious once you name it: research procrastination. It masquerades as productivity because you're "learning," but it's just another way to avoid the uncomfortable work that actually moves the needle. I already know what I need to do this quarter—negotiate that delayed raise conversation, finally automate the expense tracking I've been doing manually for six months, and update my resume even though I'm not actively looking. None of that requires another article about index fund allocation.

Why do we do this? The criteria is simple: new information feels like progress without requiring any risk. A spreadsheet about theoretical investment returns won't judge you. Your manager might.

Sat at the coffee shop this morning, watching the steam rise from my cup while scanning through that job offer email for the third time. The salary number looked good—twenty percent higher than what I'm making now. But the number alone doesn't tell the whole story.

I've learned this the hard way. Two years ago, I jumped at a fifteen percent raise without asking about the team structure or project timelines. Six months in, I was working weekends, reporting to three different managers, and wondering why the money didn't feel worth it.

So today I made a list. Not a pros-and-cons list—those always feel too vague. Instead, I wrote down my non-negotiables: clear reporting structure, defined project scope, and a team that ships products instead of just talking about them. Then I listed what I'm willing to trade: some commute time, maybe some familiar tech stack comfort, possibly the free lunch situation I have now.