This is a true-life story. It is a workplace story I know much about which happened some years ago but which I believe offers important lessons for companies even today. There was an outstanding employee who spent more than seven years working for an organisation. He was brilliant, highly regarded and a multiple award winner. His performance was impressive, his character was impeccable and the company valued his contribution. However, despite his continuous achievements and contributions, his salary remained unchanged. No one thought it necessary to increase his salary despite his consistent outstanding performances.
Then, another company came calling. They wanted him to join their team. His impressive records were the attraction. If he came onboard, they were convinced he would certainly add gravitas to their work.
To ensure he wouldn’t be able to turn them down, the new employer offered him twice his existing salary. He accepted the offer and submitted his resignation. For him, a chapter was ending, and another was about to begin.
His sudden and totally unexpected resignation shocked his employers. No one had ever considered he could one day simply walk away. I mean, no one! They just assumed he would always be working for the company. I mean that.
Suddenly, the people at the top of the organisation became anxious. They could not imagine losing someone they considered so valuable in their team to another company.
And the phone calls began. From the managers to the directors. They pleaded with our man to reconsider but he explained that he already had an offer letter. When they learnt the terms of the offer, they made a counteroffer. They said if he would change his mind, they were prepared to pay him even more than the new employer had offered.
He was in a dilemma. They had pushed him to a tight corner. What would he do now?
He considered his own best interest. He felt the deal was too attractive to ignore. He accepted it and stayed. Of course, he found a way to reach out to the other company that he was no longer joining them.
Now, let’s examine the facts.
The company had nearly lost a valuable employee because it had failed to review his compensation in line with his contribution. It took the threat of losing him before management acted with the urgency that his years of service and outstanding performance should arguably have inspired.
In this instance, the story had a happy ending for both parties. The employee received better compensation, and the company retained someone it did not want to lose.
But many such stories do not end that way. Some employees leave after years of frustration, and no counteroffer comes. Others receive offers that their employers cannot match. By the time management recognises the full value of what is walking out of the door, the decision has been made and the opportunity to retain the employee has passed.
So, why do good people sometimes walk away from good companies?
The reality we have seen in the workplace is that a company may have a respected name, pay reasonably well, provide a stable working environment and offer opportunities for career development. And an employee may have enjoyed years of professional growth there. Yet the relationship can eventually break down.
The uncomfortable truth is that a good company is not necessarily a good place for every good employee to remain.
There are occasions when people leave because they have spent too long trying to make a place work for them. At other time, the opportunities they were promised never arrive. And sometimes, they leave because the organisation has become so comfortable with their contributions that it no longer considers what those contributions are worth.
One of the most common mistakes employers make is assuming that because a valuable employee has stayed for years, that employee will continue to stay.
The mistake can be particularly costly when management confuses an employee’s commitment with an absence of ambition. A person may be deeply committed to an organisation and still expect fair compensation, professional growth and recognition. Loyalty does not mean that the employee has stopped paying attention to opportunities elsewhere.
The employee whose case study I shared earlier continued to deliver. Yet his compensation did not reflect his improving performance until another employer put a price on his value.
This is where organisations need to think more carefully about how they reward contribution. An employee’s salary should not be reviewed only when a competitor makes an offer or when a resignation letter lands on a manager’s desk.
Compensation decisions must take account of performance, responsibility, market realities and the organisation’s financial capacity.
Of course, no company can grant every salary increase an employee requests. But where someone consistently delivers outstanding results, management should have a credible way of assessing whether the rewards remain fair. The absence of such a process can turn appreciation into empty words.
And there is another problem that also needs to be addressed. Some employees become victims of their own reliability.
When a difficult assignment arises, management turns to the dependable staff member. When a colleague falls short, that person is asked to help. When a deadline is threatened, the same employee is expected to find a solution.
At first, this may feel like recognition. Over time, however, the additional responsibilities become permanent without a corresponding increase in authority, compensation or opportunity. The employee is indispensable when there is a problem but strangely invisible when opportunities for advancement arise.
This is one reason good people also leave even when the salary is not their only concern. They may want a chance to lead, to develop new skills, or to see a credible path towards the next stage of their careers.
An organisation that wants to retain good people must understand that keeping an employee busy is not the same as helping that person grow.
Employers sometimes mistake the absence of complaints for satisfaction. But professional dissatisfaction is not always noisy. Some gradually withdraw their emotional investment. They stop volunteering ideas, stop challenging weak decisions and do only what is required.
By the time such an employee submits a resignation letter, the decision may have been developing for months. While the organisation sees a sudden departure, the employee sees the conclusion of a long process.
Leadership has a significant role in determining whether this happens. Employees may join a company because of its reputation, but their daily experience is often shaped by the people directly responsible for managing them.
A good organisation can lose talented people under a manager who takes credit for their work, discourages independent thinking, favours familiar faces or treats disagreement as disloyalty.
Not every employee who leaves is right, of course. Some resign because they have unrealistic expectations or believe they deserve promotion before demonstrating the necessary capacity. Others discover that a new employer’s promises are more attractive on paper than in practice.
But organisations must also be willing to examine their own behaviour, particularly when capable employees leave in succession. Are workloads reasonable? Are promotion decisions transparent? Are salaries reviewed fairly? Do managers develop their teams or compete with them?
Replacing an experienced employee involves more than recruiting another person. There is the cost of recruitment and training, the loss of institutional knowledge, and the time required for a new employee to become fully effective.
A counteroffer may occasionally solve an immediate problem, as it did in the story with which this article began. But it should not be the organisation’s principal strategy for retaining talent. If management only discovers what an employee is worth when another employer makes an offer, the problem may lie in the company’s approach to recognising and rewarding people.
Nor should every resignation be treated as a failure. People grow, priorities change and career paths diverge. The objective is not to eliminate resignations. It is to avoid losing valuable people for reasons that thoughtful leadership could have addressed.
For employees, loyalty should not mean surrendering responsibility for their own careers. For employers, a worker’s willingness to stay in the company should never be taken for granted simply because that person has stayed for a long time.
