A company offers attractive salaries, impressive health benefits, broad career development opportunities, and a reputation that leaves people in awe. The culture is open, the company’s values are well-defined, and top management repeatedly emphasizes that employees are the organization’s most important asset. However, in one department, employees are beginning to lose their enthusiasm. They are reluctant to share ideas, feel unappreciated, and are quietly applying for jobs at other companies.
When asked why they wanted to leave, they said it was because of their boss, not the company.
This phenomenon highlights a paradox in human resource management: a good company can become an unpleasant place to work if employees have to work under a bad leader. Employees may like their workplace, believe in the company’s future, and even take pride in being part of it. However, unpleasant day-to-day experiences with their supervisor can erode all of those positive feelings.
When the Work Experience Is Determined by the Boss
The saying “people don’t leave companies, they leave managers” is not universally true. The reasons employees resign from their jobs vary widely, ranging from compensation and career opportunities to personal life factors. However, this saying contains an important warning: the quality of the relationship with one’s boss is one of the key factors that determine a person’s work experience and their decision to stay.
A company may tout the importance of learning, but if managers humiliate employees who make mistakes that are still tolerable, the message that comes across is that learning is a stressful experience. A company can talk about collaboration, but if managers only value individual achievements and enjoy pitting team members against one another, collaboration becomes nothing more than a meaningless slogan.
It is this disconnect between the values a company promotes and the treatment its employees receive that is dangerous. Not only does it lead to dissatisfaction, but it also erodes trust in the organization’s credibility.
The problem isn’t always a boss who is rude or quick to yell. There are also bosses who appear professional but enjoy getting bogged down in trivial matters, have unclear priorities, claim the team’s success as their own while downplaying team members’ contributions, or avoid difficult conversations about performance. There are also leaders who are highly competent in their work but are unwilling to develop others.
For employees, the impact is similar: opportunities for growth are limited, emotional energy is drained, and work that was once enjoyable becomes stressful.
Imagine a large financial services company known for its competitive compensation system, structured career development programs, and reputation as an excellent place to work. This company has implemented various policies to boost employee engagement. However, the employee experience varies from one unit to another.
In one department, managers regularly discuss matters with team members, provide constructive feedback, and involve them in decision-making. Employees feel trusted and have opportunities to grow. In another department, managers micromanage every detail of the work, demand that their subordinates be available at all times outside of working hours (even when it’s often not urgent), and view critical thinking as a form of insubordination.
Employees in the second department began to be reluctant to share their opinions and ideas. They limited their work to simply fulfilling their duties, were reluctant to experiment, and stopped taking the initiative. Some high-performing employees even began looking for other jobs, even though they actually still liked the organization they worked for.
The same company can be a place where one group of employees thrives, but a source of difficulty for another. The difference does not lie in corporate policy, but rather in how supervisors apply the company’s policies and values in their day-to-day behavior.
Why Don’t Employees Quit Right Away?
If the relationship with a supervisor isn’t harmonious, why don’t employees resign right away?
First, they still see the positive aspects of the company. Salary, benefits, stability, reputation, and career prospects remain attractive. They may like their coworkers, take pride in the company’s products, or believe that the organization has a bright future. The problem lies in one aspect of the work experience, not the organization as a whole. Second, they hope the situation will change. A supervisor might be transferred, promoted, or replaced. Employees may choose to stay on while waiting for an opportunity to move to another department. Loyalty to the company is still there, but trust in their supervisor has waned. Third, changing jobs isn’t as simple as flipping a switch. There are risks of lost income, uncertainty in a new workplace, family obligations, and concerns about tenure. Employees who stay aren’t necessarily satisfied. They may simply conclude that the cost of leaving the company right now is greater than the cost of enduring an unpleasant situation.
This is where companies must be able to distinguish between retention and engagement. Retention indicates that employees are still with the company. Engagement refers to the psychological connection that motivates them to contribute, take initiative, and care about the organization’s success.
Employees may continue to show up, complete tasks, and meet KPIs, but they are no longer giving their best effort. Some choose to stay on with minimal engagement: doing what they’re assigned, but reluctant to go the extra mile. They don’t always resign; some have already withdrawn psychologically.
Administratively, the company has succeeded in retaining its employees. Psychologically, however, the company may be losing their enthusiasm, creativity, and commitment. This situation is dangerous because it isn’t always reflected in turnover figures.
Engagement Survey: Don’t Just Measure the Organization’s “Temperature”
Engagement surveys are important for understanding the factors that drive or hinder employee engagement, but they shouldn’t be interpreted solely as a single aggregate number. An organizational score that appears healthy may mask problems within a specific unit—for example, employees may take pride in the company but lack trust in their supervisors, freedom to share ideas, and opportunities for growth. Therefore, surveys need to measure two dimensions simultaneously: engagement with the organization—which includes trust, pride, and confidence in the future—and day-to-day experiences with supervisors and teams, such as clarity of direction, care, fairness, recognition, and how mistakes are handled. High engagement with the company but low engagement with supervisors still carries the risk of talent leaving; conversely, a good relationship with supervisors is not enough if trust in the company’s direction is lost. Survey results also need to be contextualized within the work environment, team size, and organizational changes.
#good company, bad boss #supervisor #quality of the relationship with one’s supervisor #retention #engagement #survey engagement
