The old adage that people leave managers, not companies is true – but only up to a point
It has been said that “people leave managers, not companies”. It’s easy to believe that this is true, either from personal experience or observation. Many workers can easily point to a line manager who dismissed their concerns or treated them unfairly.
But is it really fair to suggest that managers alone are the dominant cause of staff turnover? Our recent study indicates that in most cases, it’s a combination of both leadership and the organisation. We reviewed 39 papers from the past ten years – and the findings suggest something more nuanced.
People might leave a job if what is demanded of them significantly exceeds the resources they’re given. Managers do matter here because they can shape both sides of that equation. But leadership style alone can be overpowered when workload remains high and resources are consistently below par. In these conditions, even good managers struggle to retain people.
Read more: Revenge quitting: is it ever a good idea to leave your job in anger?
Across the literature, leadership was shown to influence employee turnover in two ways. First, leaders set the tone for how their employees operate. Good relationships between managers and employees tend to clarify to workers what is expected from them, as well as a sense of autonomy and an ability to express oneself without fear (what we call psychological safety).
Within management theory, there are different types of positive leadership. These include “transformational” (real impact is felt), “servant” (leaders maximise team potential) and “ethical” (grounded on strong principles). Studies consistently link these favourable approaches to staff being less inclined to leave, due to stronger levels of trust and engagement.
Second, leaders intensify demands. Naturally, micromanagement or abusive supervision will strain relationships. When employees feel they are under constant pressure, they are more likely to disengage and plan their exit. In this respect, people do leave managers – because their boss’s behaviour creates conditions that make work feel unmanageable.
These conditions explain how leadership can influence workers’ intentions to leave. They also explain why organisations keep returning to manager coaching or training as an intervention to help them hold on to talented staff. But this could be a waste of time – leadership is just one part of the story.
When good management is not enough
In many of the reviewed studies, factors such as workload, scheduling and pay played a big role in someone’s decision to leave. A supportive manager may buffer strain to protect team members, but when workload is chronically heavy or people aren’t clear on how they can progress in the organisation, the manager’s positive influence will fade away.
This explains some common patterns. Organisations sometimes attribute turnover to bad managers when the deeper cause is an overly stretched workforce. Also, managers are frequently expected to compensate for problems they cannot control – things like understaffing, pay structures or working hours. A manager can only do so much to appease unhappy workers.
Evidence from the literature suggests the demands of work must be balanced with the resources provided (time, staff, money or equipment, for example). This can be a two-track approach.
Track 1: Structural improvement
One way that work structures can be improved is by reducing overload. This is of course easier said than done – it involves diagnosing what is pushing demands too far. Someone’s decision to leave begins with unclear priorities or unpredictable demands. Even small improvements such as a clearer allocation of work and strategies for prioritising tasks can reduce pressure.
Another angle is clarity on what employees have to do to progress within the organisation. Employees are more likely to leave when progression appears arbitrary or – even worse – political. Clarifying pathways and criteria for promotion (and following through) can reduce uncertainty and strengthen employees’ commitment.
This kind of change takes time, however. It may require some extra budget and stronger collaborations across teams. What’s key is addressing what can be changed across the organisation rather than placing the entire burden of retaining staff on leaders.
Track 2: Strengthening leadership
When change is slow, leadership becomes a more immediate lever. The goal is for leaders to not only be inspiring, but to “walk the talk”. Change must be felt, and it becomes tangible when leaders actually increase resources and reduce avoidable demands.
Coaching (continuous nurturing and support) is increasingly cited as a prerequisite for leaders. This is not only because it promotes empathy. Coaching is useful because it can offer better clarity for employees. It also helps to uncover workload challenges early.
Related to this is how work is distributed. When duties are allocated transparently, it reduces people’s perceptions of unfairness and prevents avoidable overload. This is actually a more feasible action compared to changing the behaviour of managers.
But where managers are abusive or authoritarian, attempts to hold on to staff will fail unless the managerial behaviour is addressed. Toxic leadership can easily accelerate staff losses beyond the level that structural changes can repair in the short term.
Staff turnover is not always a purely individual decision. Some studies indicate that when people start to leave a workplace, it can start a trend. Employees can also begin to make comparisons within teams, particularly when opportunities appear uneven.
For organisations, this makes monitoring staff turnover a form of early warning system. An exodus should trigger an investigation, targeted support and action where necessary. Unfortunately, there’s no one-size-fits-all solution.
In summary, people do leave managers, but they also leave organisations. Both leadership behaviour and the design of workplaces shape this decision. Retention improves when organisations see leadership and structural change as complementary levers in the same system.
The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.