A company where people leave because they’ve grown vs. a company where people leave because they haven’t.

 


The Meaning Behind High Turnover

For many companies, a string of resignations is a serious concern. But not all turnover is inherently bad.

Not all cases of continued turnover are negative.
What truly matters is the type of turnover that continues.

The Feeling of Being “Left Behind”

A survey found that 74% of people have questioned whether they were on the right path after witnessing someone they know resign. This shows that many workplaces contain conditions that lead employees to question their future.

One key emotion here is the sense of being “left behind.” It's not always rooted in direct dissatisfaction, but in a subtle unease or sense of stagnation. Seeing colleagues leave forces individuals to reevaluate their own satisfaction with the workplace.

Two Types of Resignations: Positive and Negative

● Positive (Step-Up) Resignations

These are employees who leave voluntarily to pursue growth, challenges, or a new phase in their careers. Their departure reflects well on the company’s ability to develop talent and foster ambition.

● Negative (Forced) Resignations

These happen due to harassment, lack of growth opportunities, or unclear evaluation systems—essentially resignations driven by dissatisfaction or helplessness. These are red flags for deeper organizational issues.

Step-Up Resignations Show Organizational Strength

Companies like Recruit, CyberAgent, Mercari, NRI (Nomura Research Institute), and Goldman Sachs Japan are well-known for producing successful alumni. These “step-up” departures become a part of the company’s value.

  • CyberAgent: Gives young employees early autonomy while maintaining a healthy balance between support and independence.

  • Mercari: Operates under a mission-driven culture where self-directed talent thrives and is well-regarded in the job market.

  • NRI: Offers consulting experience that cultivates management skills, often leading to moves into global firms or startups.

  • Goldman Sachs Japan: Demands performance through a strict meritocracy, accelerating career growth and opening doors to private equity or MBA programs.

These companies are structured so that even when people leave, growth doesn't stop—and sometimes, resignations become part of their strength.

The Danger of Negative Turnover

By contrast, when negative resignations continue, it often signals a deeper, systemic issue:

  • Toxic managers are left unchecked

  • Employee feedback is ignored or punished

  • Promotions and evaluations are unclear

  • Work lacks stimulation or purpose

When these patterns persist, resignations are not isolated events—they are symptoms of a deeper sickness. In such cases, turnover becomes a form of silent protest.

“It Was the Boss” = Organizational Accountability

“It was because of my boss” is a common reason for quitting. But who appointed that boss? Who failed to train or manage them?

Ultimately, the company is responsible.

  • Vague criteria for managerial promotions

  • No structured response to employee departures

  • Repeated issues that go unresolved

This isn’t just a management problem. It’s a failure of organizational leadership and governance.

Resignations Are Report Cards for the Workplace

Every resignation is a piece of feedback—about what the employee endured, what they gave up on, and how they saw the company.

Focus not on the numbers, but on how people are leaving. That’s where the real story lies.

Conclusion: Build a Company Where Positive Resignations Happen

Turnover is inevitable. It's not inherently bad.

What companies should truly monitor is not how many people leave—but why they left, and what happens afterward.

A company that fosters positive resignations is one that cultivates talent, sends them off proudly, and continues to attract new people.

A company with persistent negative resignations is one that refuses to learn—and thus keeps losing.

Don't be afraid of people leaving.
Be the kind of organization that’s judged by how well people leave.


Read in Japanese↓
Read more articles (in Japanese)↓

コメント

コメントを投稿

このブログの人気の投稿

Why Aren’t Wages Rising in Japan?

イメージ
  Why Aren’t Wages Rising in Japan? — How the Labor Share Ratio and Retained Earnings Are Stalling Economic Growth Read the original article (in Japanese): 生産性3割アップも「増えない給料」　原因は「貯めこむ大企業」にあった | TBS NEWS DIG Chapter 1: The Illusion of Wage Growth Despite government announcements of a “historic wage increase,” most workers in Japan feel no real difference in their paychecks. The reality is that real wages have barely moved in 25 years , even though labor productivity has risen by roughly 30% during the same period. This growth rate exceeds that of major European economies like France and Germany. The popular narrative — “wages haven’t increased because productivity is low” — is no longer credible. The real question is this: Why are companies making more money, yet not paying workers more? Chapter 2: Record Corporate Profits, Yet No Pay Raises The most glaring figure is Japan’s retained earnings , also known as corporate savings or internal reserves. In 1998: approximately...
続きを読む

Proposing the Radical Idea of a “Tenure-Based Retirement System”

イメージ
Read the original article (in Japanese): 「もう長すぎた…」宇宙飛行士・野口聡一氏が57歳でJAXAを辞めた納得のワケ( ダイヤモンド・オンライン ) The Reality Behind the 45-Year Retirement Debate The ongoing public debate around the “45-year retirement” and early retirement plans in Japan was initially intended to encourage self-directed career development. Yet, many workers interpret these initiatives as thinly veiled attempts to push them out. As astronaut Soichi Noguchi has noted, Japan’s work culture tends to reward compliance over skill-building or career ownership. If we want to change that, we need structural reform—not just slogans. The Proposal: A Tenure-Based Retirement System A better alternative is the Tenure-Based Retirement System . Rather than setting a fixed age for retirement, the idea is to define an employee’s career cycle within a company by tenure—say, a 20-year maximum. Such a system allows for natural career reflection without age-based discrimination. More importantly, it promotes a mindset where workers are exp...
続きを読む

How “Incompetent Seniors” Drive Young Employees Away Through Broken OJT Structures

イメージ
 Read the original article (in Japanese): なぜ「OJT」ばかりの企業に若者は定着しないのか？　上司が部下育成を勘違いする理由 「うちはOJTで育てる」と胸を張る企業がある。OJTとはOn-the-Job Trainingの略で、現場で実務を通じて部 www.itmedia.co.jp Introduction: Is “We Train Through OJT” a Cop-Out? “We develop people through OJT”—how many times have we heard this in Japanese workplaces? On-the-Job Training (OJT) is originally meant to be a practical learning method where skills are honed through real work. Yet in practice, many companies abuse this term as a way to justify throwing new employees into unfamiliar tasks without guidance. This leads to frustration, underperformance, and ultimately, resignation. This article explores why such “OJT in name only” is problematic and what structural improvements companies must make—drawing comparisons to the foundational training methods found in sports and the arts. 1. Without Form, Growth Can’t Begin Karate, Baseball, and Art: Why Mastery Begins with Form Karate has kata. Baseball has standard stances and pitching mechani...
続きを読む