It really depends on the reason you're leaving. For example: if you were leaving because of mismanagement, then a counter-offer without any promise for change in management will not be enough.
counter counterpoint (or just point?) I accepted a counteroffer and my boss really just said empty words to keep me around. I left 8 months later and should have just left the first time I resigned.
Also, the counter-offer to stay is not always that great either:
1. The underlying problem was still there — the management did not value your work to have a thoughtful policy that worked for both you and your employer. Rather than working with you, they chose an adversarial approach.
2. If you had gone back, they now know you can leave, so they will be looking to replace you as soon as they can, possibly even have you train their replacement.
3. Some independent contracting work for continuity may be appropriate if you care about the team and they had treated you well.
4. It is easier to get hired while you still have a job than while you do not.
I've left jobs for two reasons:
1. I got a much better offer, unsolicited
2. The company had no future, which maybe is due to management but not a particular manager.
That's fair. My comment was more on leaving - if I already know that management is sane where I currently am, and I like my co-workers, I would think very carefully before leaving for more money.
That depends a lot on why you left and your relationship with the company/manager. A sensible manager will know that any employee could move on at any time, therefore it's not unreasonable to take someone back whose circumstances have changed. They're still going to provide higher immediate value than a new hire, and I don't know that they'd even have a higher risk of leaving, again depends on the existing relationship.
That's just what I was thinking: if I were in a job I was on the margin of leaving anyway, and an exit package were offered, that might be sufficient to make me make the move.
As I'm told by my company that me leaving would break the deal for everyone. That's not what I want, but it's also not a good deal for me (especially compared to other offers I get)
I once accepted a counter that included a pay raise, a substantial equity grant, and had my requirements for role adjustments mostly met --- all offered entirely to prevent me from moving to a new job.
I shouldn't have! Things were O.K. for about six months, and only then did it clear that I'd been sidelined --- after the company had put in motion its plans for post-me continuity. Basically: they bought themselves time, and used it to deal with the presumption that I would inevitably leave.
The specific terms of a counter don't mean much. The problem is that declaring your intent to leave can (maybe: usually does?) mark you as a flight risk. Flight risks get managed differently.
If what you value about your job is compensation, that might not matter!
But if what you want is escalating levels of responsibility, being perceived as a flight risk is a real problem.
If you left on good terms, because you wanted to develop your career and your employer understood that. Jobs for life aren't a thing anymore, no one can seriously expect their employees to faithfully remain loyal until they get made redundant.
Hell it could even be good as it shows that the op is serious about moving up.
Now you could be right, but the op still has options to get out in that eventuality anyway.
This is usually negotiable if you're leaving as well, it's not in the companies interest for the most part to keep you hanging around past wrapping current things up.
It's a mixed bag, to summarize: poor work-life balance, long commute, company mission/direction has changed and I don't feel strongly about it, salary could be better but not a major influence on my decision to leave.
If the company really provides value the employee wont leave just to work on a new framework. If your employee leaves you simply didn't provide enough value to them.
reply