Popular management mythology tells us that people “join companies but leave supervisors.”  While I agree that this is certainly one of the most significant causes, it neglects things like:  (contentious) relationships with coworkers, under-compensation, restrictive work rules or policies, inadequate or non-competitive benefits, grating corporate culture, or any one of a variety of other factors that might make an employee unhappy.

The blinder wearer seems to think that everything outside of a well-defined (and almost always tiny) box is the responsibility of someone else.  If management could actually operate this way, they would have to outnumber actual individual contributors in the business by a margin of ten to one.

When a valued employee plans to leave in order to take advantage of a new, promising opportunity, you are in a terribly weak position.  I’ve been in the employee’s shoes a couple of times in my career, and by the time I announced my intentions there was nothing the company could have done to change my mind.

The message is clear – proactive action is far more effective at stopping an opportunity-based departure than anything you can offer in reaction.

1. "Fair" is not objective truth, it is a term steeped in relativism.  “Fair” is relative to expectations.  “Fair” is relative to others.  “Fair” is often relative to what you want (for yourself, mostly).  I’ve found “fairness” arguments delivered to me most often when someone is trying to convince me that I should do more for them.  No one wants to be seen as “unfair,” and applying the term liberally to try to sway things your direction is little more than emotional manipulation.

In today’s post, I’ll be covering these “personal reasons for quitting” and how you might deal with them.

The first challenge when it is personal is to find out what is really driving a departure decision.  Sometimes you’ll know – for example, employees have a tough time keeping it quiet when they win the lottery or had a death in the family.  More often, however, these motivations are hidden, being considered not germane to the work environment, or simply “nobody’s business.”

Over the next few weeks, I will republish a series of posts describing the eight most irritating behaviors in which subordinates engage.  The rank ordering is strictly my own -- a combination of the frequency with which I observed the behaviors, and the intensity of the negative reactions.  My advice?  See if you can find yourself in here.  Even if you’re a manager, you’re most likely someone else’s subordinate and could still be driving your boss nuts.

Most employees can handle a long commute for a time, and a few can do it for an extended period.  In my experience, however, the odds are stacked strongly against the arrangement lasting.  I’m aware of only a few, rare instances where an employee has ground it out for five years or more.  In most cases, fatigue seems to set in after one to two years – the longer the drive, the faster – and departure comes soon thereafter.

Most people in the organization will find this extreme leader to be a likable sort -- particularly when they don't have to deal with some of the behavioral problems spawned by her style of leadership.  If the “Gentleman” is the CEO, most of the burden of the dirty work falls on those subordinates near the top of the company, often times resulting in substantial conflict, politicking, and buckets full of ambiguity.

Generally speaking, the more unhappy an employee is with their work situation, the more likely they are to complain.  This seems to be true regardless of the “complaining baseline” for that person.  When an employee’s “complaint quotient” moves upward, it’s a tip-off that change may be in the wind.

I once worked in an organization led by a Screamer, and once I fully understood how the leader functioned, I couldn’t get out fast enough.  Even though I eventually came to understand that The Screamer’s routine was at least partially an act, it certainly felt 100% real when you were on the firing line.  I eventually reached a point where I dreaded every corporate meeting The Screamer might attend, and even hated to encounter his Screaming “Mini-me’s.”

Usually identifying a major relationship disruption isn’t difficult.  There are typically multiple outward emotional signs in the person (a reduction in sociability, a shorter fuse, breakdowns or crying).  Even if you don’t personally see it, others will notice and hopefully remark in it to you.  If the disruption is work-related, there are typically plenty of people that are aware of the circumstances.  If it is non-work, there are usually a few that “know the story.”  You have to depend on your both your powers of observation and your own network of relationships to discover there is a problem and determine what is really going on.

Unlike the procrastinator, who seems to have a deeply rooted fear of making the wrong decision in the first place, the Regurgitator never seems to lack the self-confidence to make a call – only to stick by it.  When any odd bit of data or opinion seems to call into question a decision already long put to rest, rather than brush off the contradictory information as “too little, too late,” the Regurgitator will attempt to fine tune decisions even at the risk of destroying all subsequent completed work.  And there might be a little perfectionism thrown in there to boot – as in searching for the perfect decision no matter what the downstream consequences might be.

When I think of Stepping Back, a video snippet pops into my head where a line of soldiers all step backward when their commanding officer asks them to volunteer for a dangerous mission (except for one hapless idiot who doesn’t seem to notice he’s been left behind).  In a business context, Stepping Back works similarly – the employee that is stepping back is the one who appears to be deeply immersed in thought (perhaps studying doodles on a notepad) while the boss is asking for help.

Procrastinators tend to flip-flop their decisions, talking themselves into alternately approving and then disapproving various company actions.  Procrastinators have difficulty committing to any course of action without perfect information, and as perfect information is rarely available in the real world they often rely on the whims of those above them in the organizational hierarchy (perhaps a board member, or a more senior officer of the company).

For the employee, using work resources in your job search can be a two-edged sword – it could result in a raise and/or promotion in reaction to your impending departure, or it might cost you your job.  For the boss, it represents useful data to help make a decision that is in the best interests of the company.

Blame-gaming behavior is sometimes described as "the search for the guilty.”  (Its corollary:  “the punishment of the innocent," is employed by Scapegoaters.)  To the Blame-gamer, every problem, failure, or shortcoming has a name associated with it -- someone who is "guilty."  And believe me, the guilty party is not someone he is trying to identify for rewards and accolades.

Whatever the reaction, it becomes increasingly difficult for a departing employee to remain emotionally engaged in the activities of their old employer.  A lack of drive is probably the most obvious sign that a valued employee is on the way out, but there are other subtle indicators, too,

Oddballs are sometimes superstitious or ritual driven.  This variety of Oddball seems to think that if an old and beloved formula is followed to the letter, it will inevitably lead to continuing success.  This seems to be true even if circumstance have significantly changed – a little akin to the star athlete who rubs their lucky rabbit’s foot before each inning, or who always wears the same pair of green underwear before a big game, or who repeatedly participates in some other seemingly disconnected ceremony.  

One nice thing about being tipped-off to an impending departure by rumors is that unlike some of the other telltale signs, rumors can begin pretty early in the search process.  This gives you more time to develop and execute a plan to keep the employee (if that’s your decision) or more opportunity to determine how life will go on after the employee’s eventual departure.

If your employer has a “celebrity” CEO that spends most of her time sitting on other boards, is disengaged from day-to-day operations, and can’t seem to take criticism, chances are good that you’re dealing with a Diva.