It’s Not About Why You Leave as Much as How You Leave
November 28, 2009 | 10:36 AMPeople change, fact of life. And organizations change too, much like a evolving mass of ideas in a constant state of flux. Trouble brews when the lines connecting the goals of an individual to that of an organization diverge and go out of alignment, add to that the job hopping typically associated with Gen-Y folks and an entire generation of baby boomers heading towards retirement – and you have a whole lot of leaving coming around (pun intended). But, as any seasoned HR Pro will agree, not all people have an equal capacity to maintain their maturity when it comes to letting go. Whereas the more wise will leave gracefully, an awful lot will act like a child with an ego hurt; the first question hence comes to mind – “how difficult is it going to be to ask this person to leave and see them through the exit process”. Another factor, and perhaps one that is more important to the employer is “how much will the business be affected negatively if this person leaves?” Let’s equate these factors against each other as a measure to assess an employee’s work style based on the way they behave while parting ways.
![]()
Peaceful Impacter – These individuals are usually very understated, and most likely introverts. But that does not mean their work has to be understated too; because of the highly efficient methods they deploy at work (by coming up with creative solutions) and their adaptable nature… it becomes very is hard to find faults with their work. In fact, it’s your turn to be alarmed if this person leaves or is contemplating leaving your organization, because they will do so in a very matter-of-fact manner once they make their mind up.
- Needs their space.
- Will work uninstructed in ideal conditions.
- More likely to come up with breakthrough ideas.
- Might seem arrogant and indifferent on the surface.
- They strive to find meaning in their work.
Arrogant Influencer – It is said that in organizational life, one can either have freedom from others or influence over them. Never both things at the same time. Individuals in this quadrant choose to exert influence on others as opposed to enjoying freedom from them, they control people and get work done through them (and that’s the impact they bring). Being arrogant, like micromanagement, is often not a choice, it’s a conditioned thought pattern. Needless to say, the tolerance for such employees differs based on the organizational climate.
- They need people to listen to them.
- Will seem inseparable from the organization.
- Can be, and mostly will be pushy.
- Yields authority, of that, there is no doubt.
- More likely to delegate, direct or supervise work.
Drama Queen – They have quaint and frail self-image, like they are living in some kind of a dreamland, of which they are the respective prince or princess. They should have probably taken dramatics as a career since they obviously have a flair for it. Anything work related is not really their forte, they are full of acts (pun intended) as long as you don’t expect them to work or ask them to quit. If and when you do either one of those things – you are in for a live workshop of high emotion drama. Don’t argue much with them – they have an undue sense of entitlement, others just have to live with it.
- Cannot work 9 to 6 faithfully even if life depended on it.
- Might be paranoid and have delusions that they are being discussed and scrutinized.
- Will expect people to take care of their needs without saying them.
- Needs a thorough reality check, either through introspection or intervention.
- More likely to spill coffee in a conference and create a scene, or just create a scene with anything.
Useless Bystander – The ones seated bang at the middle of the conference table, and will switch to whichever side of the table as dictated by the status quo. The main motive that fuels their actions is to keep things running the way they are, for better or worse. Why they behave the way they do can have so many endless explanations that it deserves a post of it’s own. They will leave the organization as easily as they came in, the the difference to the overall scheme will not be noticeable. Why does this work? Because at least there is no unrequired theatrics and in their defense – they provide a balancing effect.
- More likely to not do anything of great significance.
- Might prove useful in diffusing situations where serious conflict arises.
- Will stick to sides, whichever side seems better in a given situation.
- Can have a really long and healthy career despite incompetence because they never fix what’s not broken.
- Needs to be a little more opinionated – to fight like they are right and listen like they are wrong.






