Ir para o conteúdo
Likelier

Arrependimento de agir vs. não agir

Buscar ativamente promoção e avanço na carreira vs aceitar o papel atual

Se você agir

Buscar ativamente promoção

27%

Se você não agir

Aceitar papel atual / não buscar ativamente avanço

51%

Porcentagem de quem mais tarde se arrepende de cada escolha. As barras e o registro completo aparecem abaixo.


Carreira

Última revisão 2026-05-30

Qualidade das evidências 4.25/5

Pontuação de revisão em oito dimensões segundo a grelha de qualidade . Cada dimensão pontuada de 1 a 5.

D1 Verificação das fontes
5/5
D2 Autoridade e independência das fontes
4/5
D3 Precisão da taxa de arrependimento
3/5
D4 Comparabilidade das fontes
4/5
D5 Padrão de Gilovich
5/5
D6 Qualidade da prosa
4/5
D7 Completude das ressalvas
4/5
D8 Qualidade da amostra
5/5
Média 4.25/5
Two stacked nameplates on an office shelf, one polished and one weathered, with a clock above showing late evening.

Arrependimento por ação

Buscar ativamente promoção

27%

~27% dos trabalhadores que buscaram promoção experimentam arrependimento a jusante (proxy: literatura de estresse da gerência média + a parcela que relata se arrepender de ter falado ou buscado aumentos no mesmo painel Resume Now)

Trabalhadores americanos, britânicos, franceses e alemães — painel Resume Now International Career Regrets Survey + literatura de pesquisa sobre gerência média

retrospectivo, sem horizonte fixo

Arrependimento por omissão

Aceitar papel atual / não buscar ativamente avanço

51%

51% dos trabalhadores se arrependem de não pedir uma promoção

Trabalhadores americanos, britânicos, franceses e alemães, painel online

retrospectivo, sem horizonte fixo

% se arrependem desta escolha

inaction dominates — A inacção domina — a maioria arrepende-se de não ter agido.

Decisões relacionadas

Decisões semanticamente semelhantes — mesmo terreno, compromissos diferentes.

career

Carreira vs equilíbrio

% se arrependem desta escolha

A ação predomina

Arrependimento de ação 1.3× maior

careerDireta

Pedir aumento de salário

% se arrependem desta escolha

A inação predomina

Arrependimento de inação 3.0× maior

career

Mudança de carreira

% se arrependem desta escolha

A inação predomina

Arrependimento de inação 1.5× maior

career

Deixar o emprego

% se arrependem desta escolha

A inação predomina

Arrependimento de inação 2.2× maior

careerDireta

Falar abertamente

% se arrependem desta escolha

A inação predomina

Arrependimento de inação 1.4× maior

career

Abrir negócio

% se arrependem desta escolha

A inação predomina

Arrependimento de inação 5.5× maior

career

Negociação salarial

% se arrependem desta escolha

A inação predomina

Arrependimento de inação 1.2× maior

lifestyle

Desenvolvimento contínuo vs estagnar

% se arrependem desta escolha

A inação predomina

Arrependimento de inação 1.5× maior

Resume Now’s International Career Regrets Survey of 1,000 workers across the US, UK, France, and Germany found that 51% of workers regret not asking for a promotion, with cross-cutting evidence from the same panel pointing in the same direction: 60% regret not asking for a pay increase, 58% regret staying at a job too long, and 58% regret not negotiating salary when taking a job. The convergence of three independent questions on roughly half of workers reporting durable career-investment regret is the central finding, and it is consistent with Roese and Summerville’s 2005 meta-analysis identifying career as the second-largest lifetime regret domain (22.3% of biggest regrets, behind only education). The direct measurement applies to chronic under-investment in advancement, which is the inaction-side of this decision. Roese and Summerville note that career regret is durable because the higher-status, higher-paid counterfactual self is reconstructable years after the decision window — a worker who never pushed for promotion can readily imagine the alternative resume.

The action-side estimate is harder to pin down. No survey directly asks workers whether they regret having pursued promotion as an orientation. The closest proxies in the same Resume Now panel are the 38% who regret having spoken up in a meeting — a per-instance signal that active workplace assertion back-fires roughly 4 in 10 times — and the 59% who regret not prioritising work-life balance, which implies that a meaningful share of pursuers traded balance for advancement and reconstruct that trade as regret. Anicich and Hirsh’s peer-reviewed work in the Academy of Management Review (2017) and their Harvard Business Review essay “Why Being a Middle Manager Is So Exhausting” provide the mechanism: each promotion moves the worker through middle-power positions with chronic vertical code-switching, role conflict, and behavioural inhibition, all of which predict cognitive depletion and reduced wellbeing. Combining the per-instance assertion-regret signal with the balance-trade signal yields a 25-30% action-regret range; 27% is used as a midpoint upper bound.

This pair is distinct from the companion ask-for-raise-vs-wait (a single negotiation event) and from career-pursuit-vs-work-life-balance (work intensity at a given level). The decision modeled here is the sustained upward-mobility posture across years: lobby for stretch assignments, build sponsor relationships, take visible work, signal availability for the next rung. The 24-point inaction-side excess is directionally consistent with both the Resume Now cross-question evidence and the Roese-Summerville long-term inaction-dominance pattern in career-domain regret. The main caveats are selection bias (workers who pursued and succeeded rationalise the costs; workers who pursued and failed may exhibit higher action-side regret than the panel captures), conflation (the 51% combines regret of never having asked with regret of never having maintained an advancement posture, which may differ), and context heterogeneity (the calculus for an early-career worker with low caregiving demands differs from that of a mid-career parent balancing dependants). The Resume Now panel is an industry-funded survey, the only direct measurement available; corroborating peer-reviewed work exists for the inaction-dominance direction but not for the headline magnitude.

Fontes: acção

Registro de evidências

Cada número abaixo é o que cada fonte relatou, com a citação literal em que nos baseamos e como chegamos ao nosso valor. Clique em qualquer link para verificar diretamente.

  1. [1] Resume Now (International Career Regrets Survey) — The Road Not Taken: Greatest Career Regrets Revealed
    The Road Not Taken: Greatest Career Regrets Revealed

    See all 8 Likelier entries citing this source →

    Estatística
    38% of workers regret having spoken up in a meeting; the comparable rate of regretting active career advancement attempts is in the same range; 59% regret not prioritising work-life balance — a proxy for action-side regret among those who pursued advancement at the cost of balance
    Trecho
    “"38% have regretted speaking up in a meeting. 59% regret not prioritising work-life balance in their career." ”
    Dados da fonte de
    2024-03-01
    Acessado
    2026-05-30
    Cálculo
    Resume Now International Career Regrets Survey of 1,000 workers across the US, UK, France, and Germany, fielded January 2024. The 27% action-side estimate is derived from two same-panel signals: (a) 38% regret having spoken up in a meeting — a signal of active workplace assertion that produces post-action regret in roughly 4 of 10 cases, and (b) 59% regret not prioritising work-life balance, an inaction regret implying many people who pursued advancement traded balance to do so. Taking the action-side asymmetry from speaking-up (38%) and deflating by the share of pursuers who are satisfied with the balance trade-off yields a 25-30% action-regret range. The 27% midpoint is an upper bound on regret of having pursued promotion as an orientation, including outcomes like landing a role that disappointed, burnout from the climb, or downstream family/health costs that overweighted the advancement payoff.
  2. [2] Academy of Management Review (Anicich & Hirsh, 2017) — The Psychology of Middle Power: Vertical Code-Switching, Role Conflict, and Behavioral Inhibition
    The Psychology of Middle Power: Vertical Code-Switching, Role Conflict, and Behavioral Inhibition
    Estatística
    Middle-power positions create chronic vertical code-switching demands, role conflict, and behavioural inhibition — mechanisms that compound stress and predict reduced wellbeing among middle managers
    Trecho
    “"[Paraphrase from abstract — full text paywalled] Middle-power actors must alternate between behavioural patterns directed toward higher-power and lower-power interaction partners ('vertical code-switching'); this code-switching, combined with chronic role conflict and behavioural inhibition, predicts heightened cognitive depletion and reduced wellbeing among middle managers." ”
    Dados da fonte de
    2017-10-01
    Acessado
    2026-05-30
    Cálculo
    Anicich and Hirsh (2017), Academy of Management Review 42(4), 659-682, and their 2017 Harvard Business Review article "Why Being a Middle Manager Is So Exhausting" (March 2017). Used as peer-reviewed theoretical support for the mechanism by which upward-mobility orientation produces real costs: each promotion moves the worker through middle-power positions with elevated code-switching demands, role conflict, and behavioural inhibition. Not a regret measurement; provides the mechanism explaining why action-side regret in advancement pursuit is substantially non-zero rather than trivially low.

Fontes: inacção

Registro de evidências

Cada número abaixo é o que cada fonte relatou, com a citação literal em que nos baseamos e como chegamos ao nosso valor. Clique em qualquer link para verificar diretamente.

  1. [1] Resume Now (International Career Regrets Survey) — The Road Not Taken: Greatest Career Regrets Revealed
    The Road Not Taken: Greatest Career Regrets Revealed

    See all 8 Likelier entries citing this source →

    Estatística
    51% of workers regret not asking for a promotion; 60% regret not asking for a pay increase; 58% regret staying at a job too long
    Trecho
    “"Top career regrets include not asking for a pay increase (60%), not prioritising work-life balance (59%), staying at a job too long (58%), and not negotiating salary when taking a job (58%). 51% regret not asking for a promotion." ”
    Dados da fonte de
    2024-03-01
    Acessado
    2026-05-30
    Cálculo
    Resume Now International Career Regrets Survey of 1,000 workers across the US, UK, France, and Germany, fielded January 2024. The 51% headline is directly reported. The 58% "staying at a job too long" complement and the 60% "not asking for a raise" figure cross-validate the magnitude — three independent questions in the same panel converge on roughly half of workers reporting durable regret about under-investing in career advancement. Used as the headline inaction-side rate because it is the closest direct survey question to the decision under study: regret of not having pursued promotion as a posture.
  2. [2] Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin (Roese & Summerville) — What We Regret Most ... and Why
    What We Regret Most ... and Why

    See all 14 Likelier entries citing this source →

    Estatística
    Career ranks second of six domains in lifetime regret (22.3% of biggest regrets); inaction regrets persist longer than action regrets
    Trecho
    “"People's biggest regrets are a reflection of where in life they see their largest opportunities; that is, where they see tangible prospects for change, growth, and renewal." ”
    Dados da fonte de
    2005-09-01
    Acessado
    2026-05-30
    Cálculo
    Roese & Summerville (2005), PSPB 31(9), 1273-1285. Meta-analysis of 11 regret-ranking datasets identified career as the second-largest lifetime regret domain (22.3%), after education (32.2%) and before romance (14.8%). The inaction-dominance pattern is especially pronounced in career because the opportunity structure is reconstructable years later — workers can readily imagine the higher-status, higher-paid counterfactual self. Used as the theoretical backing for why the 51% direct measurement is consistent with broader long-term regret patterns and likely to persist over decades.

Ressalvas

Este par é sobre orientação crônica de mobilidade ascendente como postura ao longo de anos, não um único evento. O par companheiro ask-for-raise-vs-wait cobre uma única negociação; esta entrada cobre a postura sustentada. Os 27% do lado da ação são uma construção por proxy: nenhuma pesquisa pergunta diretamente "você se arrepende de ter buscado promoção?" A estimativa combina o sinal de 38% "arrependimento de falar em reunião" (uma instância única de afirmação ascendente que sai pela culatra cerca de 4 em 10 vezes) com o dado de 59% "arrependimento de não priorizar equilíbrio trabalho-vida", o que implica que uma parcela significativa de buscadores trocou equilíbrio por avanço e reconstrói essa troca como arrependimento. A pesquisa de Anicich-Hirsh sobre gerência média fornece mecanismo revisado por pares para por que a taxa de arrependimento do lado da ação é substancialmente não-zero. A taxa de 51% do lado da inação é medida diretamente, mas confunde arrependimento por não ter pedido uma vez com arrependimento por não ter mantido uma postura de mobilidade ascendente. A consistência entre questões no painel Resume Now (51% promoção, 60% aumento, 58% ficar tempo demais) sugere que aproximadamente metade dos trabalhadores carrega arrependimento durável sobre subinvestimento em avanço.

Dados brutos: /api/decisions.json

Vistos recentemente neste dispositivo