u/PM-ME_YOUR_WOOD

Used to think burnout meant a massive crash or rage-quitting, but for me, it was just... flatness. I was still showing up, but I felt like a zombie. I wasn't even frustrated anymore; I just felt stuck in place, doing the same map publishing and metadata fixes on a loop.

I honestly started to think I was just bad at GIS or picked the wrong career. It turns out I wasn't broken. My role was just too small. I’d spend days on an analysis only for it to be ignored, and since there was no growth ceiling, I was just in maintenance mode.

The "unlock" for me was actually running my resume through scanners resumeworded. Seeing my skills (SQL, Python, data pipelines) scored against actual Data Engineering roles made me realize I wasn't just a "GIS person." I had way more value than my current job was letting me use. It helped me reframe my experience so I could finally pivot out of that dead-end spot.

Now I’m in a geospatial dev role and the energy is night and day. I’m actually solving new problems instead of just babysitting data. If you feel "flat," check if it's actually you, or if you're just in a role that’s run out of room for you to grow.

Made it to final round for an EA role supporting a C-suite exec at a startup. Interview went fine, I thought. Got the rejection email saying they were going with someone who "fit the culture better."

That one sat wrong for weeks. I kept replaying the interview trying to figure out what I said that was off. Then a friend who works there told me they hired someone 24 years old with almost no experience who was just... bubbly and said yes to everything in the interview. The exec apparently wanted someone "energetic" and "low-maintenance."

That's when it clicked that I wasn't actually asking myself the right question. Kept trying to figure out how to GET the job instead of whether I even wanted to work in that kind of environment. Fast-paced startup chaos where the exec wants someone who doesn't push back? I would've burned out in six months.

Ended up taking one of those career personality tests (Coached in my case) mostly out of frustration and it actually helped me name what I already kind of knew: I do better in structured environments with clear scope and execs who want a thought partner, not just someone to absorb their chaos.

Now when I see a job post I try to read for yellow flags about the environment and the exec's actual work style, not just whether I can check the skill boxes. Do they mention boundaries? Do they describe the role like it's three jobs? Is the language all about "fast-paced" and "wearing many hats" with nothing about strategy or partnership?

Some rejections aren't about being good enough. They're about being wrong for each other, and that goes both ways.