Thank you for this thoughtful reaction, Mark. Your point is an important one, and in many ways, it already sits after the problem we are describing.
We at RIZOM share your view: work is not pain, nor torture (ref. Latin etymology of the word “travail”) . It can be pleasure, agency, and expression. And for those who are strongly internally referenced, as you describe yourself, the transition away from a corporate frame is often less destabilising. The centre holds.
The McKinsey survey is introduced as a signal of what is in the air in 2026. We read it not as an invitation to turn the self into a product, but as a mirror held up to a broader cultural moment.
Thus, why everyone should translate branding principles to the self is not really the question. It is why so many people are led to confront identity when the external frame disappears.
What we call out in this latest PULSE is precisely the risk you are pointing to: self-branding as appearance. That is not the work. What interests us is self-authorship: the ability to articulate one’s contribution, values, and direction when no institution does it for you.
For some, that capacity is already well formed. For others, especially those whose identity has been tightly interwoven with organisational roles, it needs to be rebuilt so as to regain coherence and agency.
So the transfer is not from branding to ego.
It is from external validation to internal authorship.
And for those who do not need it, that too is a signal worth recognising.
When I stopped paid work I’d already spent a fair bit of time both considering what’d I’d want to do to, after the 9-5, and also transitioning from one to another.
For me, I’ve never (in my heart or head) felt like “I am work, or I am the corporation, I’m defined by my job”. Maybe I’ve been lucky in that sense. Maybe it’s because for much of my life I’ve essentially felt like I’m heavily internally referenced. I don’t need or want someone else to tell me how ell I’ve done. Yes we all like a pat on the back sometimes, but I know when I’ve done things poorly or just been a knob! So that, so far, moving away from 9-5 has been 💯 good.
So my question is why do we think we need to translate the principles of modern branding to the self?
Mark, you put your finger on the heart of it, and in many ways you answer your own question. When the internal reference frame is strong, work naturally becomes an expression rather than a definition of who one is. When judgement is internally held, the pull of validation loosens. When leaving the 9–5 is a choice rather than a rupture, the whole idea of personal branding quietly falls away.
The pressure to translate the self into brand language tends to arise in very different conditions, when institutional ground keeps shifting and continuity is no longer carried by roles, professions, or long arcs of work. In those environments, branding appears less as aspiration and more as compensation for lost stability.
Thank you for this thoughtful reaction, Mark. Your point is an important one, and in many ways, it already sits after the problem we are describing.
We at RIZOM share your view: work is not pain, nor torture (ref. Latin etymology of the word “travail”) . It can be pleasure, agency, and expression. And for those who are strongly internally referenced, as you describe yourself, the transition away from a corporate frame is often less destabilising. The centre holds.
The McKinsey survey is introduced as a signal of what is in the air in 2026. We read it not as an invitation to turn the self into a product, but as a mirror held up to a broader cultural moment.
Thus, why everyone should translate branding principles to the self is not really the question. It is why so many people are led to confront identity when the external frame disappears.
What we call out in this latest PULSE is precisely the risk you are pointing to: self-branding as appearance. That is not the work. What interests us is self-authorship: the ability to articulate one’s contribution, values, and direction when no institution does it for you.
For some, that capacity is already well formed. For others, especially those whose identity has been tightly interwoven with organisational roles, it needs to be rebuilt so as to regain coherence and agency.
So the transfer is not from branding to ego.
It is from external validation to internal authorship.
And for those who do not need it, that too is a signal worth recognising.
When I stopped paid work I’d already spent a fair bit of time both considering what’d I’d want to do to, after the 9-5, and also transitioning from one to another.
For me, I’ve never (in my heart or head) felt like “I am work, or I am the corporation, I’m defined by my job”. Maybe I’ve been lucky in that sense. Maybe it’s because for much of my life I’ve essentially felt like I’m heavily internally referenced. I don’t need or want someone else to tell me how ell I’ve done. Yes we all like a pat on the back sometimes, but I know when I’ve done things poorly or just been a knob! So that, so far, moving away from 9-5 has been 💯 good.
So my question is why do we think we need to translate the principles of modern branding to the self?
Mark, you put your finger on the heart of it, and in many ways you answer your own question. When the internal reference frame is strong, work naturally becomes an expression rather than a definition of who one is. When judgement is internally held, the pull of validation loosens. When leaving the 9–5 is a choice rather than a rupture, the whole idea of personal branding quietly falls away.
The pressure to translate the self into brand language tends to arise in very different conditions, when institutional ground keeps shifting and continuity is no longer carried by roles, professions, or long arcs of work. In those environments, branding appears less as aspiration and more as compensation for lost stability.