I’m at the point where I need to make a real decision about my next move, and I keep framing this wrong. I’ve been thinking about it as “which role pays best” or “which sounds most interesting,” but I’m realizing that’s not actually the right frame. The real question should be: which exit path leaves me with the most options and optionality in five years?
Right now I’m considering four paths: corporate strategy at a tech company, product management at a growth-stage startup, operations-focused PE at a mid-market firm, or staying at a FAANG in a strategy rotation. Each of these feels like it could lead somewhere different, but I don’t have clarity on where they actually lead.
I know PE gives you deal experience, which supposedly opens doors to founder work or larger PE roles. PM at a startup teaches you product thinking and gives you equity upside potential. Corporate strategy keeps you in tech but ties you to a single company. But I’m trying to figure out: which of these decisions actually creates more paths forward, versus which one gets you stuck in a specific lane?
I want to hear from people who have made these choices and can speak to what actually happened after year two or three. Did you have the optionality you expected? Did you get stronger in areas you thought you would? And looking back, would you choose the same path knowing what you know now?
I went the startup PM route five years ago and honestly it’s been the best decision for keeping doors open. The equity upside never materialized the way I hoped, but I learned how to actually ship products and make decisions with incomplete information. That combination opened doors for me—I’ve been contacted about bigger PM roles, strategy positions, and even some founder opportunities. My PE friend, though? He’s brilliant at deal analysis but feels pretty locked into that track now. He can exit to corporate development or do another PE fund, but his options feel narrower.
Career trajectory data from major consulting firms suggests that PE and corporate strategy roles show the highest optionality after five years, though for different reasons. PE exits typically expand to corporate development, other PE funds, venture capital, and founder roles—approximately 55-60% of PE professionals transition to new sectors. Corporate strategy in tech provides strong optionality for PM transitions, venture capital, and founder paths, but shows lower cross-industry portability. Startup PM roles show the narrowest optionality if the company didn’t exit successfully, but highest upside for founder trajectories. The rotation strategy maintains maximum optionality but requires exiting to actual specialization after rotation completion.
real talk: the path that compounds the most is the one that gives you actual ownership and forces you to make real decisions. most people stay at big tech in some corporate strategy role and five years later they’re in a slightly better corporate strategy role. that’s not optionality, that’s a track. if you take pe or startup pm, at least you’re forced to actually think differently. the constraint is what builds your skillset.
Your framing of optionality is mature and important. Here’s what I’ve observed across my network: PE roles compound your optionality most directly because deal experience becomes a credential that translates across sectors—you can pivot to corporate development, venture capital, or founder roles with that credential intact. The constraint is that PE is geographically concentrated and elite gatekeeping is rigid. Corporate strategy in tech is more portable between companies but less portable between sectors—you’re building tech expertise, not generalized business thinking. Startup PM roles offer founder trajectory optionality and product thinking portability, but success is heavily dependent on company outcome. The rotation strategy keeps all doors theoretically open but practically leaves you without deep credibility in any single area. My honest assessment: PE or startup PM compound most. Corporate strategy is the safest bet if you want to stay employable but potentially the narrowest for expanding beyond tech.
this is such a smart way to think about it!! I think the pe path seems most flexible based on what ur describing. curious what others think too!