33 ms·
The intent of the statement, at least every time I heard it, was to reflect how the difference between a bad workplace and a good workplace can often be how eff
by rincebrain 1y ago
The intent of the statement, at least every time I heard it, was to reflect how the difference between a bad workplace and a good workplace can often be how effective your direct manager is - at shielding their reports from bullshit they shouldn't have to deal with, at not micromanaging while still consistently delivering results, so on and so forth.
Yes, people leave jobs for all sorts of reasons, but your direct manager is the one who can most influence your workplace experience while also having a fundamental power imbalance by definition, and so is often the thing people are fleeing if they leave.
- osigurdson 1y agoI think this is true in some circumstances but I think people are usually leaving the "situation" (like 90% of the time in my experience). I don't think the statement should be used anymore for this reason.
- rincebrain 1y agoPeople are, indeed, almost always leaving the situation. But at least in my experience, it's still the case in the past few years that every time someone has told me they were "quitting this job", versus "excited about this new job", it was specifically about their direct manager's effects on the situation. (Sample sizes for any individual small, of course.) Either way, I still think the saying is useful for intentionally reminding people of how much influence your direct manager can have on your work experience, because I've found a lot of people, particularly new hires, don't appreciate how much your experience can vary across managers.