The Generosity Power Move That Can Boost Your Career

Connectors always know just who you should talk to. They send the perfect introductory emails: warm, crisp, direct. And they make it look so effortless.

“It’s almost like music or something,” says David Dewane, a Chicago architect who loves introducing contacts from all parts of his life. “If you do it right, what you get is a little flash of possibility for both people.”

And possibility for the connector, too. Call it karma, the power of networks , or even just luck . If you become that hub for your friends and colleagues, it will come back to you, enriching your circles.

I think of people I know in my own life, the ones I speed text when I need a doctor for my kid. I feel so grateful, like they’re these life buoys that help keep me afloat. I wonder: Can the rest of us do that?

“We all develop a point at which the network that we’re in can’t satisfy our needs anymore,” says Brian Uzzi, a professor at Northwestern’s Kellogg School of Management who studies social network science.

When we become brokers, dipping in and out of various groups, we have access to all kinds of new information: little tips, fresh opportunities. Synthesizing multiple viewpoints, we’re better able to solve problems in innovative ways, Uzzi says. People love us for it.

Getting ahead

Connectors are more likely to get promoted and win bigger bonuses , Uzzi says. In one study of M.B.A. students, those who acted as brokers between cliques were twice as likely to get the best job offers upon graduating, he adds.

The key is to give before you ask.

“The idea of reciprocity is very powerful,” says Greg Pryor, a longtime human-resources executive who now researches organizational psychology topics.

Need a favor while you’re building a relationship, and you’re automatically in debt, he says. Instead, his career has been guided by a pay-it-forward mentality. He ends most calls by asking, “Is there anything I can do to help you?”

One time, a colleague asked if Pryor could get an acquaintance of hers up to speed on the topic of corporate culture and values. He spent a day with the friend-of-a-friend and connected her to others in the industry he thought could help.

The woman ended up becoming the chief human resources officer at software company Workday. When Pryor was looking for his next job, he reached out to her. A few weeks later, he was the new head of talent at Workday.

He spent a decade there, the best stretch of his career, he says.

The email formula

There’s an art to crafting the perfect email intro. Dewane, the Chicago architect who’s orchestrated thousands of introductions, is constantly scanning his mental Rolodex for pairs of contacts who can solve each other’s problems. He usually gets preapproval to reach out from both parties, then turns to his formula.

There’s two paragraphs—one for each person. He describes what they do, why he thought of them, and how they’re perfect to connect on this particular thing. He includes hyperlinks to both LinkedIn profiles. And he always puts the person who stands to gain more from the interaction last, queuing them up to initiate contact.

“I get kind of paranoid if intros just hang there,” he says.

If there’s a big difference in power between the two people, he choreographs the thread even more intricately. When connecting architecture students with professionals he knows at design studios, he’ll inform the students that he’s sending the email at 8 a.m. They are to reply by 8:04 a.m.

“I am going to open the door and then you are going to walk through it,” he says.

Oftentimes people freeze as they sit down to pen an email, scared of overpromising, says Erica Dhawan, a St. Petersburg, Fla.-based leadership consultant and author of a book about digital communication. Sliding into someone’s inbox involves risk. You’re encroaching on their time and looping yourself to two disparate contacts who may or may not hit it off.

Dhawan recommends using the phrase, “no guilt, no obligation,” when asking people if they’re open to connecting.

“I want them to feel like there’s mutual benefit,” she says, not like they’re doing her a favor.

Worst intro ever

Being on the receiving end of an introduction can also leave your stomach in knots, if it’s not done right.

“I’m in an email thread and I’m like, I don’t know why I’m here,” says Khaled Bashir, the founder of a marketing agency and AI startup in Toronto. “What am I supposed to do?”

Fellow founders will often connect him with potential clients. At least he thinks that’s what they are. The context is sometimes missing, and he’d appreciate a funny icebreaker so he can slide into the conversation without it having to be all business.

Bad intros can have happy endings, though.

Years back, Bashir was thrown into a random WhatsApp group by a client. No explanation, just him and one other guy. It turned out the other person was a fellow agency owner. The pair became fast friends. They bonded over the synergies in their work and a love of Japanese comics. Now, Bashir is selling the marketing part of his business to the friend, a move that will let him focus on growing his AI offerings.

Bon appétit

To make connections less awkward, add food. Michael Magdelinskas, who works in government affairs for a consulting firm, hosts frequent dinner parties at his Manhattan apartment. Over sous-vide pork chops and cognac ice cream, he brings together everyone from former colleagues to acquaintances visiting from overseas.

He crafts guest lists by thinking about common hobbies, hometowns and the ratio of introverts to extroverts. Recently, a group of attendees formed their own Instagram chat thread, bonding over an inside joke. They didn’t even think to include Magdelinskas.

“That’s a good thing,” he says. “That means the process is working.”

Reporting season has once again reminded investors that a strong profit does not guarantee a rising share price, and a large loss does not always trigger a sell-off. What matters most is how each result compares with expectations and, increasingly, what management says about the year ahead. During the August 2026 season, companies offering credible turnarounds or unexpectedly strong guidance were rewarded handsomely, while those flagging weaker margins, slowing demand or greater uncertainty were punished.

The following ranking draws on Morningstar’s review of 164 ASX-listed companies and measures each company’s share-price movement on the day it reported. This captures the market’s immediate response to the earnings announcement, before subsequent economic developments, dividends and company-specific news cloud the picture. Here are the five biggest winners, and the five hardest-hit losers, of the season so far.

The five winners

1. Bapcor (ASX:BAP): +41.0%

Bapcor delivered reporting season’s largest relief rally after presenting early evidence that its troubled automotive-parts business was stabilising. Although underlying revenue fell 1.8% to $1.92 billion and underlying NPAT collapsed 85% to $10.8 million, underlying EBITDA of $152.5 million exceeded guidance.

More importantly, working-capital initiatives released $68.5 million in the second half, lifting cash conversion to 109.4% and reducing net debt by 63% to $135 million. The statutory loss was $431.6 million, largely because of non-cash impairments. Investors focused on improving operational momentum, stronger liquidity and management’s expectation of modest FY27 revenue growth.

2. Zip Co (ASX:ZIP): +18.2%

Zip comfortably surpassed its FY26 targets, sending the buy-now-pay-later provider’s shares sharply higher. Transaction volume rose 23% to $16.7 billion, while cash earnings before tax, depreciation and amortisation jumped 58% to a record $268.9 million. Statutory profit climbed 46% to $116.4 million, and the cash operating margin expanded by 4.2 percentage points to 20%.

The strongest signal was guidance for FY27 cash earnings of $340 million—around 26% growth and above analysts’ forecasts. US transaction volume increased 42.5% and now represents three-quarters of group volume, offsetting weaker customer activity in Australia.

3. CSL (ASX:CSL): +17.3%

CSL’s result was hardly spectacular in isolation, but it cleared a market bar that had fallen dramatically following earlier downgrades and restructuring announcements. Underlying NPATA was US$3.1 billion, down 2% in constant-currency terms, while operating cash flow reached US$3.51 billion.

CSL maintained its full-year dividend at US$2.92 per share and completed a A$1 billion buyback. The real catalyst was FY27 guidance for approximately 5% underlying profit growth, compared with market expectations closer to 2%. After an extended period of earnings disappointments, investors interpreted the outlook as evidence that CSL’s core plasma business was approaching a sustainable recovery.

4. Judo Capital (ASX:JDO): +16.9%

Judo Capital demonstrated strong operating leverage as its specialist business-lending franchise expanded. Full-year profit before tax rose 34% to $168.1 million, while pre-provision profit increased 42%. Gross loans and advances grew 18% to $14.7 billion, reaching the top of the bank’s guidance range and comfortably exceeding broader system growth.

Deposits increased 24% to $12.2 billion, return on equity improved by 1.1 percentage points to 6.4%, and earnings per share rose 29% to 9.9 cents. Reaffirmation of the FY27 outlook gave investors confidence that loan growth could continue without sacrificing margins or credit quality.

5. Super Retail Group (ASX:SUL): +15.8%

The owner of Supercheap Auto, rebel, BCF and Macpac reported record sales of $4.2 billion, up 3.2%, despite cautious discretionary spending. Profitability went backwards: normalised profit before tax fell 7% to $306 million and normalised NPAT declined 2.8% to $226 million as transformation spending weighed on margins. Nevertheless, the result exceeded subdued expectations, online sales grew 5.3% and membership across the group’s loyalty programs reached 13.1 million. Investors were also encouraged by positive early FY27 trading, stable gross margins and continued market-share gains. A fully franked 33-cent final dividend added to the appeal.

The five losers

1. Hansen Technologies (ASX:HSN): –21.2%

Hansen’s historic result met expectations, but investors recoiled from its outlook. The utility and communications software provider achieved an underlying EBITDA margin of 31%, exceeding its 30% target, while generating strong cash flow. However, management designated FY27 an “investment and transition year”, signalling a roughly five-percentage-point margin contraction as spending on products, sales capabilities and organisational changes increased.

Revenue had already been broadly flat, leaving investors concerned that the investment program would depress earnings before new growth appeared. Leadership changes, including the chief executive’s departure, added uncertainty. Management expects revenue growth and margins above 30% to return in FY28, but the market was unwilling to wait.

2. Life360 (ASX:360): –19.4%

Life360’s headline growth was impressive: quarterly revenue rose 38% to US$159 million, subscription revenue increased 31%, and adjusted EBITDA climbed 53% to US$31.1 million. Monthly active users reached 102.4 million and paying circles grew 27% to 3.2 million. The sell-off reflected expectations rather than a collapsing business.

Net income fell 18%, the net margin contracted from 6% to 3%, hardware shipments dropped 18%, and full-year EBITDA guidance was merely maintained. After a strong valuation run, investors wanted a larger upgrade and clearer evidence that heavy investment in advertising, international expansion and artificial intelligence would generate additional earnings.

3. PEXA Group (ASX:PXA): –17.0%

PEXA reported a 7% increase in continuing-operations revenue and 12% EBITDA growth to $152 million, accompanied by a two-percentage-point margin expansion. Free cash flow increased 39%, suggesting the core Australian electronic-conveyancing platform remained highly profitable. Investors instead concentrated on management’s warning that property-transfer volumes could decline, alongside regulatory uncertainty surrounding the fees PEXA can charge.

The company is also continuing to invest heavily in its loss-making international expansion. Morningstar considered the market reaction excessive, arguing that structural transfer-volume assumptions had not materially changed, but the combination of softer near-term activity and regulatory risk overwhelmed the respectable headline numbers.

4. SEEK (ASX:SEK): –14.3%

SEEK produced solid FY26 figures, including 10% revenue growth to $1.20 billion, a 15% rise in EBITDA and 28% growth in adjusted earnings per share. It also lifted its fully franked annual dividend by 13% to a record 52 cents. Those achievements were overshadowed by falling paid job-ad volumes and cautious FY27 assumptions.

The statutory accounts included a $201 million loss from the SEEK Growth Fund and $377 million of significant items, making the headline result considerably less attractive. Investors were particularly concerned that economic weakness could limit volumes while the company continued investing in platform integration and artificial-intelligence products.

5. JB Hi-Fi (ASX:JBH): –12.3%

JB Hi-Fi’s full-year result was broadly respectable, with group sales rising 5% to $11.1 billion and underlying earnings per share increasing 6% to $4.48. The damage came from its current-trading update. Australian sales were almost flat during the June quarter and deteriorated further in July, while earnings in the core Australian electronics business fell 3.6%.

Housing-related categories were particularly weak as higher living costs and interest rates constrained household budgets. With JB Hi-Fi entering the season on a demanding valuation, an in-line historic result was not sufficient: the loss of sales momentum prompted investors to rapidly reduce their expectations for FY27.

Overall, the season showed that share prices react less to whether profits rose or fell than to the gap between results and expectations. Bapcor was rewarded for being less troubled than feared, while several fundamentally profitable companies were punished because their outlooks failed to justify elevated valuations.