3 ms·

> Happy people don’t leave jobs they love. Happy people leave jobs they love for jobs they love more. That weighted list isn't a bunch of yes and no responses,

> Happy people don’t leave jobs they love. Happy people leave jobs they love for jobs they love more. That weighted list isn't a bunch of yes and no responses, each answer is a spectrum. "Fair compensation" is an obvious one that's so wrapped up in management-speak (excuse me, leadership-speak) you just have to know that it's referring to salary and benefits, which can be reduced not to "yes" or "no" but to a number of dollars, and if someone wants to offer me more for my work that's not unfair compensation it's just economics. There is a cost to changing jobs. It's risky, it can be difficult, doing it too often is a mark on your resume, and you can get comfortable with the current rut you're riding in. Sounds like the author wants to make that rut as deep as possible, which would be bad for their employees: Increasing that rut through guilt and social manipulation means the author can pay less and increase their workload. When did I let my shields down? The moment I walked in the door on the first day, and every day after that. And they'll be down when I'm leaving, so if you want to change the equation to guilt me less, compensate me "more fairly", respect me more, give me a mix of interesting projects with time for education, and make me trust you as a leader by getting rid of this "shields" nonsense I'd be happy to return.

glitchc 7y ago
I think the OP is being harder on himself than he is on the departing employees. He understands their motives and challenges leaders to try harder.
- LeifCarrotson 7y ago
  Try harder to do what? To change the employee/employer relationship from an economic exchange between two parties to one where there's a one-sided loyalty from the employee to the employer?
  - mlyle 7y ago
    Try harder to do, among other things, the stuff he listed in his previous (linked) article: > Keeping an interesting problem squarely in front of them. > Let them experiment. > They can only ‘take one for the team’ for so long. > Protect their time. Embrace the ambiguity of their experiment. > Aggressively remove noise. I > Tell them what the hell is going on. etc. He makes it quite clear over the two articles that this is not an all-encompassing list. He is not asking for blind loyalty, but instead trying to create environments where people will not be eager to consider other opportunities.
AcerbicZero 7y ago
I'm also sure many a happy person has left their job....when the job decided that person needed to leave for some reason. This is article is a very one sided approach to a problem, but its nice to see someone at least acknowledge its an issue I suppose.

glitchc 7y ago

I think the OP is being harder on himself than he is on the departing employees. He understands their motives and challenges leaders to try harder.

LeifCarrotson 7y ago
Try harder to do what? To change the employee/employer relationship from an economic exchange between two parties to one where there's a one-sided loyalty from the employee to the employer?
- mlyle 7y ago
  Try harder to do, among other things, the stuff he listed in his previous (linked) article: > Keeping an interesting problem squarely in front of them. > Let them experiment. > They can only ‘take one for the team’ for so long. > Protect their time. Embrace the ambiguity of their experiment. > Aggressively remove noise. I > Tell them what the hell is going on. etc. He makes it quite clear over the two articles that this is not an all-encompassing list. He is not asking for blind loyalty, but instead trying to create environments where people will not be eager to consider other opportunities.

AcerbicZero 7y ago

I'm also sure many a happy person has left their job....when the job decided that person needed to leave for some reason. This is article is a very one sided approach to a problem, but its nice to see someone at least acknowledge its an issue I suppose.