It’s not the ‘Great Resignation’ but the ‘Great Reprioritization’
Some 4 million people quit their jobs in April. But the spike in the quit rate is partly due to pent-up demand after two years of employees sitting tight during a volatile economic environment. We’re also relatively on-trend with respect to the rising quit rate over the last decade.
The other commonly cited statistic behind the assumption of the Great Resignation is that as many as 95% of the workforce is considering leaving their organization. It’s important to note that considering is not the same as actually leaving, and the fact that employees have an eye out for new opportunities has been the norm since LinkedIn became a household name.
I’d argue that it’s less important to know whether employees are considering leaving, and more important to understand why employees are considering leaving. Along those lines, I recently collected data that uncovered several trends that might help reframe this great resignation conversation. The findings demonstrate a more tangible understanding of what they should be considering and addressing.
Worker motivations to leave
I first conducted a review of published research in peer-reviewed journals in the organizational behavior field. The review uncovered that there were 14 overarching reasons why employees might want to leave an organization. Next, I recruited participants to complete a survey using an online panel data service. The sample consisted of a demographically diverse (age, gender, marital status, etc.) set of 233 full-time employees across a wide variety of industries (manufacturing, healthcare, real estate, education, and information technology). Each participant responded to the following question: Assume that each workplace condition could be defined as “very bad.” From there, participants indicated for each category whether they would a. not begin a job search, b. begin a passive job search (i.e., entertain alternative options), or c. begin an active job search (i.e., inevitably leave the organization).
The categories below indicate the five reasons that would most likely cause an employee to begin an active or passive search:
And here are the five reasons that would be the least likely to spur a job search:
Across all 14 categories studied, approximately one-third of the respondents said that if that category was very bad, they would begin a passive job search. The real differentiator came from which categories would provoke an active job search. The top three—financial needs, work-home balance, and remote work policies—were the only categories where 50% or more of respondents reported that they would actively job search if those categories became a concern. If organizations are worried about actual turnover—not just passively searching—this is where they should start.
Worker sentiments and needs
Financial needs will always play a role in turnover intentions. This finding isn’t new. If employees sense inequity, they’ll look elsewhere. But the fact that employees are putting just as much value on work–home balance and remote work policies is the most relevant and revealing aspect of the study.
These two categories are highly representative of current conversations regarding the “return to work.” Organizational leaders are struggling to accept the fact that employees are less willing to go back to the “good ole’ days” in the office. Employees want the option to forgo commutes and in-office disruptions, thereby broadening how they can manage their work–home integration. But this shouldn’t surprise leaders; for the last two years, employees have been asked to maintain their current workloads while dealing with the ambiguities and challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic. With burnout comes a longing for balance.
Organizational leaders are also conflicted about whether to mandate that employees begin returning to the office. A minority of firms is requiring employees to be on-site, full-time, though the vast majority is coming up with some version of hybrid work. Organizational leaders must approach their workplace arrangement decisions with eyes wide open and recognize the importance of flexible, virtual options for employees.
Hybrid work is now accepted to be the norm, but there is also a great deal of variation in what hybrid work entails. The extreme, and employees’ preference, tends to be a fully optional arrangement; the office is available if needed, but not mandated. The compromise solutions, such as mandating specific days or a certain number of days, however, are untested waters. It’s unclear whether employees will view these decisions as satisfactory with respect to their preferences for work–home balance and/or their desire for remote work options.
Flexibility is nice but so is structure
Three noteworthy findings were relatively unexpected. First, employee preferences specific to flexibility—the expected days and times one needs to be available—was not a high priority. This suggests that employees are less concerned with showing up or logging in at predetermined days and times, but they want the option to do it remotely if needed. This aligns with what I’ve suggested recently for hybrid organizations; start replacing informal, impromptu, in-office interaction with semiregular, structured team building sessions to ensure that collaboration, trust, and rapport can continue as before.
The second unexpected finding is specific to the three categories that entail opportunities for learning, growth, and development. These categories have typically been top of mind for employees. Employees commonly report that they want to continually broaden and refine their skills because it translates into higher compensation, promotions, or opportunities to work on initiatives that are more fulfilling. Interestingly, the findings of this study show that stagnation, lack of autonomy, and lack of growth are some of the least important job search triggers right now.
A third surprising aspect entails demographic trends, or lack thereof. I analyzed whether there were differences between specific subgroups, such as between genders, races, having children or no children, having a working spouse/partner, ages, and career stages. One might assume that our priorities, especially in work–family balance or remote work preferences, would differ by some of these factors, but nothing substantial surfaced. The only minor difference was that early-career employees had remote work preferences as their biggest job search trigger, followed by financial needs, but work–family balance dropped out of the top five.
These findings show employees are taking time to reprioritize—which may not lead to resigning. If leaders approach the situation with grace, organizations might be able to capitalize on these newfound priorities to not only retain employees but attract new ones. As workers return to the office, leaders should proceed with great caution, transparency, and open-mindedness. A failure to do so might instigate a mass exodus of employees that are interested in more accommodating opportunities.
Scott Dust, PhD, is a management professor at the Farmer School of Business, Miami University, and the chief research officer at Cloverleaf, a technology platform facilitating coaching for everyone.
(39)
