Why Good People Leave: The Seven Hidden Reasons Behind Employee Turnover

A colleague recently posted on LinkedIn that when people leave a job without another job lined up, it's often a red flag for a toxic workplace. That observation brought to mind Leigh Branham's research in The 7 Hidden Reasons Employees Leave, which offers a framework for understanding what drives talented people away—and what leaders can do about it.

The Seven Reasons: More Than Just "Bad Management"

Branham identifies seven distinct factors that trigger employee disengagement and eventual departure:

1. The job or workplace was not as expected When reality doesn't match the promises made during recruitment, employees feel betrayed. This violation of the "psychological contract" creates immediate disillusionment.
2. The mismatch between job and person Research shows 80% of workers aren't using their strengths daily. When talent and role don't align, both the employee and organization suffer.
3. Too little coaching and feedback Employees need answers to four questions: Where are we going? How do we get there? What's my role? How am I doing? Without coaching, they're navigating blind.
4. Too few growth and advancement opportunities In today's flattened organizations, stalled careers and limited development create stagnation—especially problematic for high performers.
5. Feeling devalued and unrecognized Beyond compensation, people need to feel their contributions matter. When appreciation is absent or insincere, engagement erodes.
6. Stress from overwork and work-life imbalance When organizations force people to choose between having a life and a career, Branham argues the culture has become toxic.
7. Loss of trust and confidence in senior leaders When leaders' actions don't match their words, or when employees doubt leadership competence, the foundation of organizational commitment crumbles.

How Valid Are These Claims?

In my experience leading a complex academic organization, these factors resonate deeply—though I'd argue they're symptoms of deeper systemic issues rather than discrete problems.

The validity is context-dependent. What constitutes "too little feedback" varies dramatically across generations, cultures, and industries. A research faculty member might thrive with quarterly check-ins, while a new graduate in a fast-paced environment might need weekly coaching.

The reasons are interconnected. It's rarely one factor in isolation. More often, it's a cascade: unrealistic expectations (Reason #1) lead to poor job fit (Reason #2), which prompts lack of recognition (Reason #5), eroding trust in leadership (Reason #7).

The four fundamental needs framework is compelling. Branham grounds these seven reasons in human needs for trust, hope, worth, and competence. But if I map retention challenges against this framework, the pattern becomes clear: departures cluster around unmet fundamental needs, not surface-level complaints.

The Tipping Point: When Does Someone Actually Leave?

Branham describes employee turnover not as an event but as "a process of disengagement that can take days, weeks, months, or even years." This matters enormously.

The accumulation principle: In most cases, it's not one catastrophic failure but an accumulation of more “minor” disappointments. An employee might tolerate limited growth opportunities (Reason #4) if they feel valued (Reason #5) and trust leadership (Reason #7). But remove two of those three pillars, and the structure becomes unstable.

Individual thresholds vary. Some people have a higher tolerance for ambiguity or lower needs for recognition. Others prioritize work-life balance above all else. The tipping point is deeply personal.

External factors matter. A hot job market lowers the threshold for leaving. Financial obligations raise it. The presence of a supportive manager can compensate for organizational dysfunction—until it can't.

My observation: The tipping point often arrives when employees move from "trying to change things" to "resolved to quit" in Branham's disengagement continuum. That's when they stop advocating internally and start looking externally. And here's the critical insight: by the time someone is passively job-searching, re-engagement is extraordinarily difficult.

Strategies That Actually Work

After managing significant budget cuts at my organization that have led to more than a handful of unfilled positions and substantial reductions in other areas, I've learned that mitigation requires both systems-level changes and individual leadership actions.

For Reason #1 (Unmet Expectations):

• Conduct realistic job previews. Stop overselling positions. Be explicit about current challenges in interviews—if candidates self-select out, we've both saved time.
• Hire from within when possible. Internal candidates know what they're getting into.

For Reason #2 (Job-Person Mismatch):

• Conduct "entrance interviews." Within the first week, dig deep into new hires' strengths and motivational abilities.
• Practice creative job crafting. Can you enrich roles by delegating different tasks? Can you create lateral moves that better utilize someone's talents?

For Reason #3 (Insufficient Coaching):

• Separate performance review from development conversations. Move to six-month career development check-ins distinct from annual reviews.
• Train managers in coaching. This isn't optional—it's a core competency.

For Reason #4 (Limited Growth):

• Create alternatives to vertical advancement. Develop, if possible, "expert" and "senior" designations for specialized roles that don't require supervisory responsibilities.
• Be transparent about organizational realities. If advancement is limited, say so—and invest heavily in skill development as compensation.

For Reason #5 (Feeling Devalued):

• Build recognition into workflows, not just annual events. Simple acknowledgment in meetings, handwritten notes, small gestures.
• Involve employees in decision-making. The best recognition is often treating people's input as valuable.

For Reason #6 (Work-Life Imbalance):

• Model healthy boundaries as a leader.  Be explicit about not expecting responses to evening emails and protecting people's time off.
• Offer flexibility where possible. For knowledge workers, autonomy over when and where they work signals trust.

For Reason #7 (Leadership Trust):

• Back up words with actions—religiously. If you say "people are our most important asset" and then slash training budgets, you've destroyed credibility.
• Communicate transparently about challenges. In our budget crisis, hiding the severity would have been disastrous. Honest communication, even about bad news, builds trust.

The Meta-Strategy: Pay Attention

Perhaps the most important insight from Branham's work is this: "Many managers are so busy or preoccupied that they wouldn't notice where their employees were in the continuum if they wore signs around their necks."

Create systems for noticing. Regular one-on-ones, stay interviews, pulse surveys—not because HR requires them, but because you genuinely want to understand where people are in their journey.

Watch for the signs. Withdrawal from meetings, decreased initiative, cynical comments—these are data points signaling movement along the disengagement continuum.

Act early. Once someone has "resolved to quit," your odds of re-engagement plummet. The intervention point is when they're "questioning their decision" or "thinking seriously about quitting"—when honest conversation and meaningful change can still make a difference.

A Final Thought

My colleague's observation about people leaving without another job lined up is telling. It suggests the pain of staying has exceeded even the fear of financial uncertainty—a remarkably high threshold.

But here's what gives me hope: most of these seven reasons are addressable. They require intention, resources, and sustained attention, but they're not mysteries. The question is whether we, as leaders, are willing to do the harder work of creating conditions where good people want to stay—not because they're trapped, but because they're genuinely engaged in meaningful work with people who value their contributions.

That's the organization we should all strive to build. The one described in these seven reasons is most definitely the organization to avoid becoming.

What's been your experience with these factors? Which one do you think matters most in your context?