Executives Don't Owe Their Companies Loyalty Forever

Why do we sometimes treat a career decision as an act of betrayal?

Early in my corporate career, I remember casually mentioning to my boss that a former colleague, who had left the company, was doing very well in a new organization. It was an innocent comment. I was genuinely happy for someone I had worked with. Yet, I remember feeling strangely awkward about having said it.

In the corporate environment I was experiencing, executives who left for another company were sometimes treated almost as traitors. Maintaining relationships with them could be frowned upon, as though professional friendships should end when someone changed employers. I found this rather difficult to understand.

Someone who had been a respected colleague, perhaps even a valued leader, could suddenly become a person whose success was no longer appropriate to celebrate. And there was an irony I only fully appreciated later in my career: the same organizations that reacted emotionally when executives decided to leave, were perfectly capable of making difficult decisions about their own people when business circumstances required it. Positions were eliminated, responsibilities were reorganized, and careers were disrupted. These decisions were explained as necessary for the business.

But when executives made similarly rational decisions about their own futures, the language could become surprisingly moral.

​

Loyalty is not ownership

I do believe loyalty matters. During an employment relationship, organizations should be able to expect commitment, integrity, confidentiality, and a genuine effort to contribute to their success. And executives should be able to expect fair treatment, opportunities to grow, and honesty about their professional future.

But loyalty is not ownership. An executive can be deeply committed to an organization and still decide that another opportunity offers a more compelling future. These two things are not necessarily contradictory.

​

In my doctoral research on senior international executives, career growth opportunities emerged as the strongest individual predictor of intention to stay. That finding reinforced something I had observed throughout my career: for many executives, the possibility of continued growth is central to their professional decisions. When that possibility becomes more attractive elsewhere, leaving may be a perfectly reasonable choice. It does not automatically invalidate the commitment demonstrated during the preceding years.

​

The double standard

There is a contradiction in the way some organizations think about loyalty. When a company restructures, closes a business, or replaces an executive, the decision is framed around its responsibility to remain competitive and protect its future. But when an executive leaves to pursue a better opportunity, the same reasoning is not always accepted. Suddenly, questions arise about gratitude, commitment, and loyalty.

Of course, the circumstances matter. How someone leaves, how responsibilities are transferred, and whether commitments are respected can make an enormous difference. But the decision to leave is not, by itself, evidence of disloyalty.

Treating departing executives as outsiders to be avoided sends a message to those who remain. It suggests that professional relationships are conditional on organizational membership rather than built on mutual respect. I wonder what that teaches people about the nature of the loyalty being requested.

​

What happens after someone leaves?

Over the years, I have come to believe that the way an organization treats departing executives reveals a great deal about its culture:

Does it acknowledge their contribution? Does it respect their decision, even when inconvenient? Can former colleagues maintain relationships without feeling that they are doing something inappropriate?

Or, does departure somehow erase years of collaboration?

​

Organizations understandably want to retain talented executives. Losing experienced people can be disruptive and costly. But retention built on guilt, fear of exclusion, or an expectation of unconditional loyalty is not the same as retention built on a credible and attractive future.

Perhaps we should stop asking whether executives are loyal enough to remain. And start asking whether organizations are creating enough reasons for them to want to stay.

Because loyalty that can only be demonstrated by never leaving is not really loyalty. It is an expectation of permanence.