My LinkedIn headline currently reads: Technical Product Leader | Payments & Fintech | ex-Nium · ex-AmEx.
I haven’t decided how long I’ll keep it that way. Some days it feels like useful context. Other days it feels like I’m leaning on something I should have moved past. I haven’t fully resolved it, which is partly why I’m writing this.
So before I say anything about what this behavior means — the quiet proliferation of “Ex–Google,” “Ex–McKinsey,” “Ex–Goldman” across professional profiles — I want to be clear: I am not writing from the outside. I do this too. The question I’m actually trying to answer is why, and whether I’m at peace with the reason.
There is a small but persistent habit on LinkedIn that most people notice and quietly react to, even if they rarely say it aloud: the attachment of former employers to one’s identity long after the employment itself has ended. Sometimes listed with more prominence than the actual work being done today. At first glance this seems obvious. Prestige travels. Brands carry signal. Humans borrow signal where they can.
But look a little more closely and something more interesting is going on.
Elite companies became, somewhere along the way, not just places to work but sorting mechanisms. To have worked there was to have passed a filter — regardless of what one actually did once inside. When a system rewards selection more than contribution, people naturally anchor to the moment of selection. The “ex” label is less about the past job than about preserving proof that the gate once opened.
That realization lands differently when you apply it to yourself.
There’s also what I’d call narrative compression. Careers today are fragmented. Roles change every few years. Titles inflate and deflate. Entire industries appear and vanish within a decade. In this instability, people search for a stable throughline — something that makes their story legible at a glance. A recognizable former employer collapses complexity into a single symbol. It saves explanation. It says: you may not know who I am, but you know this name, and once, I belonged there.
That’s not arrogance. That’s anxiety management.
LinkedIn is a public square of comparison, and comparison activates something deep. When status hierarchies are unclear, humans reach for markers that reduce ambiguity. In another era it might have been lineage or guild membership. Today it’s corporate logos.
What makes this worth examining is not that people do it, but that the signal often outlives its meaning. Having worked at a well-known company a decade ago may say surprisingly little about what a person can do today. Yet the signal persists — because it is socially reinforced. Recruiters scan for it. Algorithms surface it. Peers reward it with attention. Over time it becomes normalized, even expected. The system validates the behavior, which validates the system.
There is also a dimension that rarely gets acknowledged: careers are fragile in ways that feel personal but often aren’t. Layoffs are frequent, impersonal, and increasingly disconnected from individual performance. When someone loses a job in such an environment, the shock is not just financial — it is existential. Holding on to a past affiliation can function as psychological insurance. Whatever is happening now, I am not random. I have been validated before.
That is not weakness. That is a very human response to uncertainty.
And yet. The honest question is whether the label serves you, or whether you’ve started serving the label.
There’s a version of “ex-” that is legitimate signal — shorthand that genuinely helps people understand your background, calibrate your experience, find common ground fast. In fields like payments and fintech, where pedigree does carry real information about what environments you’ve operated in, it’s not vanity. It’s context.
But there’s another version where the past affiliation has quietly become the foundation of identity rather than a footnote in it. Where the badge matters more than what you built, who you led, what you changed. Where the filter you passed through has become more central to your self-concept than anything you’ve done since.
The test I find useful: if you stripped the logos, would you still know exactly what you bring? If the answer is yes, use the labels freely — they’re tools. If the answer makes you uneasy, that’s worth sitting with.
What’s quietly missing from professional culture is permission to be statistically ordinary and still feel complete. Not everyone passes through a globally recognized firm. Not everyone should. Most meaningful work happens outside the spotlight of elite branding, and entire economies function precisely because of it. Yet platforms like LinkedIn compress visibility in ways that distort this — making legitimacy seem to flow only through a narrow set of corridors.
To not list a prestigious “ex” is not failure. To list one is not vanity by default. The question is always the same: what is the label doing for you, and what are you doing for it?
Competence compounds even when recognition does not. The world is full of people doing excellent, consequential work whose profiles do not read like brand catalogs. Their confidence is often quieter, less performative, and more durable — not borrowed from a moment of selection, but built steadily from what came after.
I keep my “ex-” labels. But I try to remember that they describe where I’ve been, not who I am.
Leave a Reply