Quitting Time

When and how the executive should undo the business ties that bind

Walter Jones was 37, an executive at the middle-management level, employed by the Noname Company. He was a fine manager with an excellent performance record; his superiors considered him to be a man of great ability and promise and valued his services highly.

There was only one thing wrong. Jones had held the same position for three years and had outgrown it. He wanted--and was eminently qualified to hold--a bigger, more responsible and more challenging job. Unfortunately, the Noname Company's executive-personnel situation was such that Walter Jones was locked in. Higher posts were held by competent men, all of whom had a long way to go before reaching retirement age. To make matters worse, there was very little chance that the company would embark on any important expansion programs in the foreseeable future.

Walter talked the matter over with his superiors. They assured him he would be moved up as soon as possible, but admitted this might not happen for several years. They did, however, offer Jones a substantial salary increase if he would continue in his job until a suitable vacancy occurred.

What would you do under similar circumstances?

This is a good question to ask yourself--and to answer as honestly as you can. What you would do--or think you would do--is quite possibly an indication of your success potential as a business executive.

No doubt, many men would be content to stay, to wait it out, comfortable--even smug--in the knowledge that they had a virtual sinecure, a guaranteed future. This sense of security would loom as ample justification for remaining on the old job, continuing to do all the same things until, at last, time and attrition provided opportunity and reward.

Not so Walter Jones.

Aware that he'd begun to chafe because he was ready and eager for more responsibility, Walter sensed that the chafing would soon develop into intense chronic irritation. He felt the long wait might well dull the edges of his enthusiasm. He feared that, as he got deeper and deeper into an already familiar groove, he would "run down," become a progressively less and less efficient and effective executive.

It was for these reasons that Jones decided to quit--without rancor but not without regret. He'd enjoyed working for the Noname Company, made many friends in the organization and would have liked to stay. Nonetheless, he knew he could not afford to interrupt the progress of his career with a long dead period. Thus, he resigned, moved to another company--and moved up a notch to precisely the sort of challenging job he sought.

An oversimplified, too-obvious example? Perhaps--but no more so than countless thousands of similar situations that will arise every year in the business world. Innumerable executives find themselves boxed in, unable to progress due to conditions within their companies--conditions over which they have no control. Ambitious, able executives of Walter Jones' caliber react--and act--as he did. Lesser men are likely to hang on and hope or vacillate, unable to make up their minds.

"The comers are movers," declares Dr. Frank McCabe, director of executive personnel for International Telephone & Telegraph. "If they can't move on to more responsible positions inside [a company], they'll go to another company."

William P. Lear, the aircraft-instruments entrepreneur who built Lear, Inc. (later Lear Siegler, Inc.), is even more outspoken, offering executives the following straight-from-the-shoulder advice:

"As soon as you've learned how to do your job as well as it can be done, ask for more responsibility in your company--or for a (continued on page 194)Quitting Time(continued from page 85) different job. If you don't get it, get the hell out!"

Such counsel would appear subversive, aimed at destroying all the oft-cited principles of executive loyalty to the company. But loyalty is a two-way street. As Dr. McCabe has observed, the loyalty of executives "depends upon the company's willingness to provide challenges and rewards in the job situation."

Stated simply, it all goes back to the old adage that you can't keep a good man down--or rather, in the present context, that a good executive will not permit himself to be held back in his career. The best men, those with the greatest ability and drive, will refuse to stagnate anywhere along the line. They will get ahead--even if they have to go somewhere else.

To hold such men, to keep them within an organization, it is incumbent upon the organization to make sure it has the incentives upon which these men thrive. If a company cannot--or will not--provide these incentives, it has absolutely no grounds for complaint when its best men walk out.

Few, if any, of an executive's decisions are more important to him personally than those concerning the question of whether or not--and when and how--to quit a job he holds. Things being what they are in business and industry, these are decisions the average manager will have to make several times during the course of his career.

Estimates of executive turnover vary, but all tend to be on the high side. In his book How to Pick Men, Jack H. McQuaig maintains that it is "perfectly normal for a man to try four or five different jobs in his first three or four years at work." Some years ago, a survey conducted by McGraw-Hill indicated that one in every three key men in industry changes his job each year.

Chester Burger, author of Survival in the Executive Jungle, comments that "the average survival time in the executive jungle is short. Rare is the executive who has spent most of his working career with a single company."

Burger cites the results of one study of a group of middle-management executives that showed that 41 percent "survived in their last jobs for less than three years." And, he continues, still drawing on data obtained by the study, "three out of every four [middle-management men] switched jobs before they reached the ten-year gold-watch mark."

Obviously, not all of these men leave their jobs of their own accord. Some are "allowed to resign" under pressure. Others are squeezed out in mergers or consolidations. Still others are simply fired. Even among those who apparently leave of their own volition, there are many who quit because they have recognized the not-always-subtle signs that indicate the ax is about to fall. We are not interested here in any of these types of job leavers. Our concern is with the men who quit at their own option while they are in good standing with their companies.

Why do executives decide to quit under these circumstances? There are many answers. Recently, a well-known management-consultant firm conducted a survey, questioning 422 job-hunting executives in an effort to determine what motivated them to seek a change.

Foremost of the reasons was the desire for more responsibility and challenge, for a bigger job--plums not available in the companies for which the individuals concerned were currently working or by which they had been last employed. Next in importance was the desire for greater future opportunity. These, of course, are the same motivations that impelled Walter Jones to leave the Noname Company and seek greener pastures elsewhere, the chief motivations that, as Dr. Frank McCabe put it, cause the "comers" to be "movers."

More money--a larger immediate income--was the third most frequently cited reason for changing jobs. Now, I can readily understand any executive's desire to earn as high an income as possible. After all, he is performing a commercial service and is entitled to demand the maximum monetary reward he can obtain for that service.

On the other hand, it is frequently unwise to measure either jobs or men solely by a dollars-and-cents yardstick. Companies should always bear in mind the basic truth that a man who is interested only in money cannot be "bought" for very long.

As for the executive, he is well advised to look with caution on any company that tries to snap up managerial personnel by making outlandishly inflated bids for their services. Such firms are often acting in desperation, and the big money might not last.

There is a recent case in point that serves to illustrate how deadly booby traps may sometimes be attached to the most glittering offers.

A few years ago, a large and venerable corporation--which I shall call by the fictitious name of the De Sperate Company--underwent a drastic reorganization. De Sperate was engaged in publishing and other ventures--a corporate complex with a long history, huge and diversified assets and a fine reputation.

However, control of De Sperate passed from the numerous descendants and heirs of the founders to an outside group that decided on a drastic shake-up and installed a "fireball" executive at the top of the corporate pyramid.

After that, a great many things happened. First, the fireball did a wholesale house-cleaning job, firing scores of De Sperate's veteran executives as well as hundreds of lesser employees. Then the company went on a large-scale executive-raiding campaign. Able managers employed by other firms were offered very high salaries and other glowing incentives to shift over to De Sperate. Among the many men approached was "Dan Miller," a friend of mine. During a conversation, he told me of the near-profligate offer he had received.

"Are you taking the job?" I asked.

"No, I'm not," Miller replied. "I smell a rat. The job simply isn't worth what the outfit is offering. The company is shopping around for far too many managers at the same time. I'm inclined to think there may be something wrong."

Miller admitted that all he had was a hunch. The fireball who had taken over top management of the corporate complex was widely reputed to be a miracle worker--and, after all, De Sperate was virtually a national institution.

Nonetheless, Dan Miller's suspicions proved to be well founded. The fireball flamed and sizzled, but whatever his previous qualifications and experience, by some fluke he proved totally incapable of heading an organization of De Sperate's particular type. Instead of showing greatly increased profits, the company lost money--millions each year. Other troubles developed. There were nasty internal squabbles. Costly projects proved to be total failures. Lawsuits of various kinds--involving staggering sums--were filed against the corporation.

And so it went, getting worse and worse, until the controlling group finally despaired and extinguished the fireball with a decision to send him packing before he burned the house down completely. Needless to say, many--in fact, according to reports, most--of the executives who had succumbed to the sky-high pay bait De Sperate offered during the fireball's tenure also found themselves without jobs. They went in the wake of his passing as the group in control of the corporation moved frantically to reduce costs, increase sales and profits--and clean out management personnel who had been brought in by the miracle worker who had created only chaos.

Now, I do not mean to imply that a company that offers executives high pay is automatically suspect. Far from it. The case I have cited is an exceptional one. My purpose in narrating it is solely to suggest that while the astute and ambitious executive is entirely justified in looking out for his own financial welfare, he will also look beyond the dollars-and-cents price tag that is placed on a job.

According to the aforementioned survey, the fourth most common reason given for wanting to change jobs is disagreement with or objection to company policies. It is interesting to note that this was the reason advanced by the majority of company presidents among the respondents.

There are always liable to be differences of opinion among individuals engaged in any activity--and business is hardly an exception. Some differences can be resolved. Others can continue to exist but all concerned can live and work in peace despite them. However, when the differences are basic and serious and prevent an executive from working harmoniously, efficiently or in good conscience, he is wise, indeed, to express his regrets and tender his resignation.

Withal, it has been my experience that executives will make the decision to quit even the best of jobs for a wide variety of other, entirely valid, reasons. For instance, a man may want to change his field, try his hand at some completely new type of managerial activity. Or, at a personal extreme of the scale, the health of a family member may dictate a change in job locales.

I recall an incident that occurred a few years ago in one of the companies in which I hold a substantial interest. An executive in the company--call him Bill Oliver--announced his intention to resign. Bill was a "comer," universally liked and highly regarded, a young man everyone agreed was headed for the top. We didn't want to lose him if we could possibly avoid it, and I took it upon myself to have a talk with Oliver. Curious to learn if he had some grievance or if there were some way he could be dissuaded from leaving, I asked Bill to tell me frankly the reasons for his decision.

"I have no complaints--none at all," he declared with what was obviously complete sincerity. "I like my job, the people I work with and the company itself--and am entirely satisfied with my prospects. But, you see, I'm intrigued by the space industry. I won't be happy until I get into it--even if it means starting for less than I'm now making."

I grinned and gave up. I could understand how Bill Oliver felt. He had to move. He was irresistibly impelled to get into the space industry, which had captured his interest and fired his imagination. It would have been foolish to try to deter him.

Bill resigned and switched to a managerial job with a company producing space-vehicle components. I have since followed his career and have been gratified to note that he has been very successful, receiving several promotions so that he is now very near the top.

There is yet another important reason why some managers quit their jobs. It is a reason seldom discussed by organization-oriented management experts and personnel specialists--and more's the pity, for it involves the decision to stop being a salaried employee and to go into business for oneself.

Luckily for our economy, this still happens fairly often. Despite all the present-day emphasis on gaining "security" and the trend toward making a career in a large organization, there are still those individuals who prefer to achieve success on their own.

If I may be permitted to digress briefly, I have repeatedly expressed my belief that this is the only route to real success in the business world. Only by launching out on his own, building his own business, can an individual savor the full excitement and reap the greatest rewards that commerce and industry have to offer.

I think that when a man feels he is ready and equipped to go into business for himself, is cognizant of the risks involved and is willing to face them, he should unhesitatingly take the requisite giant step and make the most of his decision. Insofar as I am concerned, an executive in one of my companies who quits to start his own business does so with my full and sincere blessings and best wishes. In my opinion, such men provide the ever-needed fresh blood that ensures the health and the future of business and of the entire free-enterprise system.

That said, and many of the reasons why executives quit having been discussed, it might be well to explore the questions of when and how an executive should go about leaving a job.

In these regards, there is no better guideline than that provided by the ancient gamblers' adage that holds that the wise player knows enough to quit when he is ahead of the game. The best time for an executive to quit a job is when he, too, is "ahead," in the sense that he has a good performance record and is well regarded in the company for which he is working.

Although I do not personally subscribe to many of the current theories and practices of executive "headhunting," I am realist enough to accept human nature for what it is and to acknowledge the harsher facts of business life. I am aware that, as Lawrence Stessin has observed in The New York Times Magazine: "It's an axiom of executive head-hunting that to get a good job one should already have a job."

This argument is echoed and amplified by C. R. Shelton and Melba Colgrove, writing in Nation's Business. The best time to resign, they advise, is "when you are in good standing with your firm. When you are unemployed, you are at a disadvantage in seeking employment," they warn. "Lack of a regular pay check may lower your self-confidence. And being unemployed, for whatever reason, may render your judgment and your possible value to another firm suspect."

People are people--even when they're top-level managers who do the hiring for large organizations. And people are notoriously reluctant to take what they feel someone else has rejected. The fact that an executive is wanted by the company for which he works enhances his value and desirability.

When he quits, the wise manager also makes sure that he is ahead in his work, that he is not leaving any half-finished projects behind him. He knows that no matter how much his associates and superiors like him, they will deeply resent his leaving behind a mass of uncompleted work that others, who are totally unacquainted with it, will have to handle.

"We thought a lot of Smith around here--then, after he quit, we discovered he hadn't bothered to tie up many loose ends. His department was consequently in a mess after his departure. It took his successor weeks to get things straightened out."

"Joe Howard left this company with glowing recommendations--and what a mistake that was! It later developed he'd been soldiering on the job for a month before he resigned, and none of his work was up to date. We lost two big accounts as a result."

Word travels fast and far in business circles. Remarks such as these can play havoc with a man's future prospects. The wise executive makes certain they cannot be made about him after he leaves a company.

Age is another factor that should be taken into consideration when deciding to quit or not to quit. "Most companies seek men between 40 and 50 for top management jobs," Chester Burger states. "For middle management, the preferred age level is between 30 and 40."

C. R. Shelton and Melba Colgrove quote Harold K. Daniels, vice-president of Parke, Davis: "At least by the time you approach 40 you should have found yourself and have most of your job moves behind you."

I'm not sure that I would accept these generalizations as Holy Writ. Some men are outstanding top-management material long before they reach 40--and, conversely, some of the best, most solid and seasoned middle-management personnel are well beyond Chester Burger's "preferred" 40-year limit. And I've known more than a few executives who made several big upward steps when they were in their mid-40s or even considerably older. Nevertheless, I imagine that with appropriate allowances for individual cases or special situations, the Burger and Shelton-Colgrove generalizations do serve as fairly reliable rules of thumb.

As for the question of how an executive should go about quitting, the answer, in my opinion, is very simple. He should do it frankly and honestly, giving proper notice and always writing a letter of resignation. He should state his reasons for resigning clearly and succinctly, but avoiding any personal recriminations.

This advice is not only good manners, it is also good business practice. Nothing leaves a worse taste in management's mouth than the man who quits without warning or explanation, who simply fails to show up in the morning or announces that he is through a few minutes before the office closes on Friday afternoon. It is also sound practice to quit without letting off steam, without taking the last-minute opportunity to tell this or that person where to head in.

These are cheap and cowardly tricks that have a habit of boomeranging on those who resort to them. I know of many cases like that of pseudonymous Ted Spencer, who quietly obtained a job with another company and then, on a Friday afternoon--needless to say, after he'd received his pay check--loudly told off his superior and announced that he was quitting then and there.

No doubt Ted Spencer derived a certain amount of personal satisfaction from his dramatic little act--but he was destined to regret it intensely. About a year and a half later, Spencer's old company absorbed the one to which he'd moved--and, lo and behold, the superior Ted had berated again became his boss. That is, he became Ted's boss for about a week--which was all the time it took for Spencer to find himself unemployed.

All in all, quitting rules are really not much different from any other rules of sound human conduct. Each man must decide for himself when it's quitting time--when it is advisable and advantageous for him to leave a job and a company and move elsewhere. Once he has decided to resign, he should take the step in a clean, straightforward fashion.

In short, the wise business executive emulates the wise gambler, and quits when he is ahead. Beyond this, he bears in mind that sometimes it is necessary to quit in order to get ahead--and that the man who knows when to quit is often the one who gets ahead the fastest and the farthest.