I don't think the article assumes people enter a job intending to stay there for life. Rather, it assumes thst people will stay at a job so long as it meets the

I don't think the article assumes people enter a job intending to stay there for life. Rather, it assumes thst people will stay at a job so long as it meets their criteria for happy employment. The article makes a subtle point, which is that an employee will treat those criteria as absolute or fixed quantities until something -- an action, a slight, a struggle, or some other demoralizing event -- causes him to consciously reevaluate his criteria. At that point, the criteria become relative -- that is to say, relative measures of the current job vis-a-vis any perceived alternatives. The only implicit assumption in the author's thesis is that people value stability and are generally content with the status quo until it is challenged. I'm not sure this applies to all people, though I'm willing to consider the possibility that it applies to most. And if not most, then certainly many. All of that said, your point about changing life goals is a great one. People definitely leave jobs for reasons beyond those articulated in this article. Rands' thesis is not completely encapsulating. But it doesn't need to be complete in order to be compelling. So long as what he's saying provides a decent, rough framework for managers and leaders to keep in mind -- which I'm interpreting as his intent here -- then it's still valuable.