Subordinate Growth #7: No Matter How Much You Engage, Subordinates Will Quit — What the Relationship Between Growth and Resignation Reveals About a Leader's Limits —

“Leader, I need to talk to you.”

The piece of paper handed to me with those words was a resignation letter.

“Due to personal reasons—”

Deep down, I had thought that under my leadership, subordinates wouldn't quit.
That single sheet of paper was enough to shatter that assumption.

I never imagined I would be the one receiving those words.

Up until now, including my time as a subordinate, I had rarely experienced a situation where someone quit in the organization I belonged to.

So, to be honest,
I had thought somewhere along the line that they wouldn't quit under me.

There were subordinates who quit after I transferred,
and former subordinates who quit after moving to other departments.

Even so—

I never thought the day would come when someone would tell me directly,
“I want to leave this environment.”

But that day came.

No matter how much you engage,
no matter how much you walk alongside them,

people will still quit when they decide to quit.

And at that moment, I realized it for the first time.

There is a limit that a leader cannot cross.

■ The Limits of Being a Leader Become Clear

In the five departments where I have worked as a leader, there are two subordinates I was directly involved with who ended up quitting.

However, if I broaden my perspective,
there were several others who quit after transferring from my group to other departments, or former subordinates who quit after I myself transferred.

Furthermore, I have seen many instances of members from other groups quitting.

Through those experiences, I realized a certain limit.

"If you walk alongside them, people will change."
Even in management that has believed this,
there are walls that simply cannot be overcome.

Here, I will talk about two subordinates who taught me those limits.

■ The first person: Someone who was talented but "could not fit into the organization"

That subordinate was a mid-career hire.

They were positive, full of vitality, and the type to take on work proactively.
They made many suggestions and were quick-witted.
They also had high communication skills, and their first impression was excellent.

In fact, I had high expectations when they first joined.

However, as time passed, a sense of discomfort began to emerge.

They were simply not good at working as part of an organization.

Because they held their own ideas and beliefs so strongly,
they began to show strong resistance to following rules and customs.

The organization I was in was an environment strict about compliance and rules.

Within that, their "strengths" gradually turned into a "mismatch."

The proactiveness seen at the beginning faded away,
they gradually stopped listening to others' opinions,
and their approach to work changed significantly.

I engaged in repeated dialogues while walking alongside them.
At times I provided guidance, and at other times I had to be strict.

However, it still did not reach them.

And then, they quit.

Afterward, they utilized a qualification they had obtained while employed,
and chose the path of independence.

Looking back now, I think they were not "wrong,"
but simply "not suited for this organization."

■ The second person: Someone who fit into the organization but "had no interest in the work"

The other person was a completely different type.

They were personable and good at building relationships with those around them.
They loved planning events and actively organized year-end parties and internal company projects,
making them what you would call a "presence that brightens the room."

At first, I felt that they were a good talent who fit the organization.

However, in terms of work, a different side of them began to show.

When I assigned them a task, the first thing that came out was 'reasons why I can't do it'.
Excuses came first, and their attitude toward seeing things through to the end was weak.

It seemed that their focus was more on events and interpersonal relationships than on work.

As for their performance evaluation, I simply could not give them a high rating.

When that result was communicated, they chose to resign from the company.

What was memorable was the scene where we had to handle a customer complaint.

Even though the cause was clearly with them,
they did not break their stance of 'it's not my fault',

and while I was there apologizing,
they behaved as if it were someone else's problem.

They had blended into the organization.

However,I think they were not facing the work itself.

■ Commonality: The 'Gap' Shared by Subordinates Whose Growth Stalls

These two people, while appearing to be opposites, had something in common.

One was 'not a fit for the organization',
the other was 'not interested in the work'.

At first glance, these seem like completely different reasons, but
what happened as a result was the same.

That is,their growth had stopped.

In order to grow within an organization,
you must accept the premises required by that environment.

However,

those who cannot adapt to the organization have actions that do not align, and
those who are not interested in the work do not even try to move forward in the first place.

In both cases, the direction of their efforts is misaligned, and
as a result, they cannot enter the cycle of growth.

And through these two people, I realized something.

No matter how much you walk alongside them,
if that person's "premises" do not align with yours,

you may be able to encourage growth, but
you cannot keep them growing indefinitely.

That is the limit of a leader.

■ Person #3: The one who "chose the next step" after growth

There is another, slightly different pattern.

This is the story of a subordinate who joined as a new employee, left my team to transfer to another department, and then resigned.

He was what you would call a "talented individual."

Beyond his abilities, he had a good personality, was calm despite his youth, and was deeply trusted by those around him.

He rarely made negative remarks and was evaluated as a "capable person" in every department he worked in.

I heard that his reputation remained unchanged even after his transfer.

That is why the news was so unexpected.

One day, I received a message from him.

"I am thinking of quitting the company."

When I asked for the reason, he said this:

"It's not that I've come to dislike the company or the work. I have something I want to do, and I want to take on that challenge."

This statement itself is not unusual.

However, in many cases, there is dissatisfaction or escapism hidden behind it.

But he was different.

It was not hesitation, but intention. It was not dissatisfaction, but a choice.

They were clearly looking ahead to their next step.

I did not stop that decision.

In fact, I felt it was for the best and encouraged them.

Perhaps for them, this company was not a mistake.

However, I think that to move forward, this place was no longer enough.

And looking back, I knew it somewhere.

Talent like them would eventually go out into the world.

It is often said that the most talented people are the ones who quit.

That is because,

it is not always about quitting due to dissatisfaction; some people quit to move forward.

When the speed of growth exceeds the opportunities or roles available at the company,
people naturally choose the "next" step.

In other words,

people do not only quit when they reach their limit.
It also happens when their growth outgrows the place they are in.

That is precisely why I believe the leader's role is not to hold them back, but to
discern where that growth is heading.

■ Toward an Era Where Growth and Resignation Are Inseparable

So far, we have looked at three patterns of resignation.

Of course, these are not the only reasons why subordinates quit.

Perhaps if my management style had not been the hands-on type, but rather another leadership type mentioned in
Subordinate Growth#6,
some subordinates might not have quit.

However, I still think this:

I feel that eventually, those subordinates would have made the choice to quit anyway.

This is because, having seen many subordinates quit over the years,
there is something they all have in common.

That is,

that there will inevitably be "some kind of misalignment" regarding interpersonal relationships, work, or the companythat occurs.

And when that misalignment grows,
there is a limit to what a leader can do.

Such individual choices
are no longer just a matter within the organization.

The Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare has formulated the
"12thBasic Plan for Vocational Ability Development"covering the five-year period from fiscal year 2026 to 2030.

In this plan,

・Promotion of labor mobility to growth sectors and sectors with labor shortages
・Support for skill acquisition through vocational ability development
・Support through a combination of public employment services, recurrent education, and OJT

are the directions indicated.

In other words,

the idea that we should support individuals in their continued growth, including changing environments,
is becoming a premise.

It is no longer just about "continuing to grow within a single company"
as it has been in the past.

We are entering an era where people proactively choose
where and what they do for their own growth.

No matter how much you engage with your subordinates,
they will quit when they decide to quit.
A leader cannot carry the burden of a subordinate's life. Nor should they.

That is precisely why, for future leaders,

it is not about "preventing them from quitting," but rather
identifying where that person's growth is heading.

And one more thing.
The resolve to accept that choice.

A subordinate's growth does not necessarily stay within the organization.

When you stand on that premise,
I believe the leader's role also changes.

I have compiled this content into a magazine
as the "Subordinate Growth Series."

▶ Click here for the list of Subordinate Growth series

I believe that reading other articles as well will help you understand this in a more multi-dimensional way.