In a recent executive coaching session, a new head of R&D described a puzzling challenge. One of her senior team members, with decades of experience, regularly announced in meetings how much he disliked his job. His dissatisfaction was obvious to everyone, yet month after month he stayed. “It is unsettling,” she admitted. “He tells me and the whole team how unhappy he is, but when I ask if he has considered leaving, he shrugs and says no. I don’t know whether to ignore it, confront it, or wait it out.”
Most leaders will meet a version of this paradox. A colleague is visibly disengaged but not ready to exit. The frustration spills into the team, yet the stalemate continues. The temptation is to push for a decision: either recommit or resign. But leadership is less about ultimatums and more about creating conditions where choice, meaning, and responsibility become possible again.
Several well-researched theories can help us understand why people remain unhappily in roles and what leaders might do to respond with stewardship rather than control. The first step is to understand why addressing surface irritants often fails to address the deeper root of dissatisfaction. Herzberg’s research reminds us that relief and motivation are not the same thing.
Hygiene is not enough
When people are unhappy at work, the reflex is often to fix what is visible: add a perk, adjust a salary, smooth a policy. These actions have value because none of us flourishes in a broken system, but they do not touch the deeper current of motivation. Frederick Herzberg’s research on job satisfaction showed that what keeps us from leaving is not the same as what makes us want to give ourselves fully (Herzberg, 1959). He found that two sets of factors shape our experience. Hygiene factors reduce dissatisfaction when handled well, but they do not create passion. Motivators create the energy that makes work worth doing.
Hygiene factors are the baseline conditions that shape how people experience their work. Herzberg found that when these are missing or handled poorly, dissatisfaction quickly rises. Yet even when they are corrected, they rarely produce new energy. They prevent frustration rather than create commitment. Hygiene includes elements such as pay, policies, working conditions, and relationships.
Pay sits at the centre of many conversations about satisfaction. When it feels unfair, resentment grows quickly. A transparent and equitable approach matters more than constant increases. Competitive pay creates stability, but it does not by itself inspire passion for the work.
Policies are the rules and processes people live under. Confusing, inconsistent, or punitive policies erode trust and autonomy. Clear, consistent guidelines reduce friction, but again, they rarely motivate. Few people come to work energised because the travel reimbursement form is simple.
Working conditions include the physical or virtual environment: tools, systems, workload, and hours. A broken laptop, constant overtime, or poorly designed workflows can drain morale every day. Fixing them removes irritation, but it does not spark creativity or joy.
Relationships with managers and peers also function as hygiene. Poor communication or a lack of respect creates dissatisfaction, while civility and reliability provide a steady foundation. What they do not guarantee, however, is engagement. A respectful relationship is necessary, but not the same as an energising one.
Motivators, on the other hand, are the elements that create energy and meaning in work. Herzberg identified four core motivators that consistently drive engagement: achievement, recognition, responsibility, and growth. Each one offers a pathway for leaders to create conditions where people want to contribute, not just endure.
Achievement is the feeling of progress, of completing something that matters. It can be as simple as finishing a tricky task or as significant as closing a major deal. Leaders often underestimate how powerful small wins are: visible milestones and moments of “we did it” shift morale more than most policies ever could.
Recognition is the experience of being seen and valued. It does not require grand gestures. A quick message that says, “I noticed the way you handled that client call” often lands more deeply than a generic bonus. Recognition is specific, timely, and personal.
Responsibility is the chance to be trusted with ownership. It moves someone from carrying out instructions to shaping the work. Responsibility could be as small as leading part of a meeting or as large as owning a client relationship. The common thread is trust.
Growth is the opportunity to stretch. Sometimes that is formal training, but often it is a new assignment, a rotation, or the freedom to try something untested. Growth signals that the job is not static, that the future holds more than repetition.
A workplace can be free of irritants yet still lifeless, or it can be alive with energy even in imperfect conditions. Hygiene explains why someone does not walk away. Motivators explain why they lean in with energy. The leader’s task is to hold both, but to remember that motivation is created not by relief, but by meaning.
Practical takeaways
1. Host a mapping conversation: Ask your colleague to draw two columns, one for energy drainers and one for energy givers. Guide them to sort the list into hygiene issues (conditions and policies) and motivators (achievement, recognition, responsibility, growth). This creates a clear picture of what is frustrating versus what could spark energy. The question to hold is: what would it take for this person to spend more of their day in the energising column?
2. Do a hygiene audit with perspective checks: Write down what you believe are the biggest hygiene irritants in your team. Then ask two peers or direct reports to create their own lists. Compare them and note gaps. Leaders often underestimate how strongly “small” irritants like outdated systems or inconsistent communication drain energy. Addressing these quickly shows that you are committed to creating a fair baseline. The question to hold is: what irritants have I normalised that others still experience as unfair?
3. Offer motivators deliberately: Once hygiene issues are stable, focus on motivators. Identify specific ways each person can achieve, be recognised, take responsibility, or grow. This might mean breaking projects into milestones, making recognition timely and specific, sharing ownership of a client decision, or rotating tasks to create stretch. The question to hold is: how can I create daily experiences of meaning, not just remove daily frustrations?
4. Rebalance your attention: For one month, track where your leadership energy goes. Mark each time you address a hygiene issue (fixing tools, clarifying policy) and each time you create a motivator (giving recognition, inviting responsibility, offering growth). At the end of the month, review the balance. If hygiene dominates, shift even a small portion of your time to motivators. The question to hold is: how can I move more of my leadership energy from managing conditions to creating meaning?
Reflection questions
• When I respond to dissatisfaction, do I move quickly to relief, or do I also create energy?
• Where in my team’s current work are motivators such as achievement, recognition, responsibility, and growth present, and where are they absent?
• What would it mean for me to treat motivation not as a management tactic but as an act of stewardship?
Even when the balance between hygiene and motivators is clear, people still face choices about how to respond to dissatisfaction. Herzberg explains the conditions. Hirschman helps us see the choices people make within those conditions.
Exit, voice, loyalty, neglect
When people are dissatisfied at work, they rarely respond in the same way. Albert Hirschman’s framework identified four common paths: exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect (Hirschman, 1970). Each represents a different response to frustration, and each has its own signals and risks. For leaders, the value of the model is that it reveals the hidden choices people are making and points to how we might respond.
Exit is the most visible path. It shows up when people decide to leave the organisation altogether. Warning signs often surface months earlier: reduced involvement in long-term projects, avoidance of development opportunities, or unexplained absences. Exit is not only a personal choice; it is also organisational feedback. If leaving feels like the only viable option, the culture may not be offering credible ways to stay engaged.
Voice is the healthiest path for both the individual and the organisation. It means speaking up with concerns, feedback, or ideas for improvement. Voice can look like raising a hand in a meeting, asking a difficult question, or suggesting a change. The risk is that if voice is punished or ignored, it quickly turns into silence. When everyone nods in agreement but doubts linger unspoken, the organisation is deprived of its most valuable corrective tool.
Loyalty can look positive because people stay and deliver what is asked. But loyalty is not always commitment; sometimes it is quiet endurance. It often shows up in phrases like, “That’s just the way things are,” or “I’ll ride it out.” This form of loyalty signals that people are present in body but not in spirit. Leaders must ask whether loyalty is active, rooted in hope and trust, or passive, rooted in resignation.
Neglect is the most hidden but also the most corrosive. It appears when people remain in role but withdraw their energy. Work slows down, attention to detail drops, and initiative dries up. Neglect is often misread as laziness when it is in fact the final stage before exit. Once people stop caring, they stop trying, and re-engagement becomes difficult. Leaders who catch it early can still redirect the pattern by restoring meaning or choice.
The colleague who hates their job but will not resign has likely chosen loyalty and may drift at times into neglect. They are not leaving, but neither are they bringing energy. The invitation to leaders is not to coerce or rescue, but to open space where voice becomes possible again, so that staying is not silent endurance but an active choice to re-engage.
Practical takeaways
1. Hold a naming conversation: In a one-to-one, introduce the four paths and ask, “When you think about your experience here, do you feel closer to exiting in your mind, voicing your concerns, staying loyal, or pulling back?” This helps the employee surface what might otherwise remain vague. The question to hold is: how can I create space for this person to own the stance they are in?
2. Build structured voice channels: Create safe, predictable spaces where concerns can surface. This could include anonymous surveys, rotating facilitators in team meetings, or small peer circles where everyone speaks before anyone responds. Reliability is key: people trust voice when they know it will be heard without reprisal. The question to hold is: what structures could I create that show people their voice is welcome?
3. Normalise voice in public forums: Pay close attention to how you respond to challenge. When a team member disagrees, thank them and explore their perspective instead of shutting it down. Show others how their input shapes decisions. This makes dissent a signal of commitment rather than disloyalty. The question to hold is: how can I model receiving challenge in a way that encourages others to try it?
4. Reframe loyalty as a choice: Acknowledge directly that staying is an active decision. Say, “You are choosing to remain here, and that choice matters. What would make that choice one you feel proud of?” This shifts loyalty from passive endurance to agency. The question to hold is: what conversations could help people see their decision to stay as ownership, not resignation?
Reflection questions
• How do I currently respond when someone voices dissatisfaction? Do I encourage it or shut it down?
• Who in my team may be silently loyal but disengaged, and what could invite them into voice?
• What would it mean for me to see loyalty not as compliance, but as an active commitment that deserves support?
These choices are not made in isolation. They are shaped by the quality of the relationships people experience with their leaders. To understand why some voices are heard and others remain silenced, we need to examine how trust is distributed within the team.
The in-crowd and the out-crowd
Every team quietly organises itself into circles of closeness. Some members feel they have the leader’s trust and access to opportunity. Others feel they are on the margins, asked to deliver but rarely invited into the decisions. This is what Leader–Member Exchange (LMX) theory describes as the in-group and the out-group (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). The quality of the relationship between leader and team member is not evenly distributed, and that unevenness shapes belonging, trust, and motivation.
In-group members are those who enjoy higher levels of trust, support, and access. They are consulted more often, given more responsibility, and offered growth opportunities. The benefits are clear: they usually perform better because they are invested in. The risk is that the same people are repeatedly chosen, creating a small circle of insiders. Over time, others may perceive favouritism and disengage. The question for leaders is not whether you have an in-group, but whether the boundaries you have drawn serve the whole team.
Out-group members are those who receive only what is formally required. They do the work assigned but rarely gain discretionary attention, feedback, or development. Warning signs include withdrawal from discussions, limited initiative, or minimal eye contact in meetings. Out-group members often know they are excluded, and the effect is corrosive: they may meet the letter of the role but never bring their full energy. For leaders, the danger is assuming this reflects lack of capability, when it may simply reflect lack of trust and access.
Practical takeaways
1. Map your circles: List each member of your team and note how often you consult them, share responsibility with them, or invest in their development. Be candid: who do you instinctively turn to, and who do you consistently overlook? This creates a visual map of your in-group and out-group. The question to hold is: what hidden rules are shaping who I let in and who I keep out?
2. Hold a listening conversation with an out-group member: Choose one person you rarely seek out and invite them for a dedicated one-to-one, not about tasks but about their experience. Use open questions such as, “What would make working with me more effective?” or “Where would you like more responsibility?” Do more listening than talking. The question to hold is: what does this person see from the margins that I cannot see from the centre?
3. Re-distribute opportunities: Before assigning your next project or stretch task, pause. Instead of defaulting to an in-group member, offer it to someone more peripheral. Provide clear expectations and support, then step back. Trust often creates the very competence you thought was lacking. The question to hold is: how can I use opportunities not just to reward the reliable, but to expand the circle of trust?
4. Check your assumptions with peers: Ask a trusted colleague to observe you in a team setting. Have them note who you turn to most, whose contributions you amplify, and whose comments you ignore. Afterwards, compare their notes with your self-perception. These external eyes often reveal biases you cannot see. The question to hold is: what am I blind to in how I distribute my attention and trust?
Reflection questions
• Who in my team consistently receives my trust and attention, and who does not?
• What story do I tell myself about those I have placed outside the inner circle?
• How could I act this month to close the gap between the in-group and the out-group?
Not every change must come from the leader. Employees themselves can reshape their roles in ways that renew energy. LMX highlights the power of relationships. Job crafting highlights the power of agency.
Rewriting the role
Not everyone can leave a job they dislike, but almost everyone can reshape it. Amy Wrzesniewski and Jane Dutton’s research on job crafting shows that employees often adjust how they do their work, who they do it with, and how they think about it (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). These adjustments can transform a role from a source of frustration into a source of meaning, without requiring a formal promotion or restructure. Job crafting is not a silver bullet, but it does give people agency when they feel stuck.
Task crafting is about changing the scope or style of the work itself. It might mean taking on new tasks that align with personal strengths, dropping tasks that feel redundant, or approaching existing tasks in a new way. For example, an analyst who dislikes repetitive reporting might propose automating part of the process, freeing time for deeper investigation. Warning signs of task misfit include boredom, avoidance, or low-quality work in specific activities.
Relational crafting focuses on reshaping the social side of work. This could involve seeking out new collaborators, mentoring others, or spending more time with colleagues who energise rather than drain. A customer service agent, for instance, might choose to spend extra time supporting new recruits, turning routine interactions into moments of teaching and connection. Warning signs of poor relational fit include isolation, conflict, or reluctance to engage in team settings.
Cognitive crafting is about reframing how we see the work. It does not change the tasks themselves, but it changes their meaning. A hospital cleaner might think of their role not as “mopping floors” but as “creating a safe and healing environment.” This shift can dramatically increase pride and purpose. Warning signs of weak cognitive connection include cynicism, sarcasm, or dismissive language about the value of the job.
Job crafting does not erase all dissatisfactions, but it can restore a sense of agency. When people feel they have room to shape even part of their role, they are less likely to feel trapped. The invitation for leaders is to support this reshaping, so that people rediscover meaning without waiting for the organisation to formally redesign the job.
Practical takeaways
1. Run a task-mapping exercise: Ask each team member to mark tasks on a grid from “drains me” to “energises me.” Discuss whether certain drains could be reduced, shared, or redesigned, and whether energisers could be expanded. The question to hold is: how can I help this person do more of what gives them energy without compromising team needs?
2. Support relational shifts: Encourage people to identify who they most enjoy working with and who helps them grow. Where possible, reconfigure projects to create more of those connections. Also notice if someone is consistently isolated or excluded. The question to hold is: what relationships could unlock energy for this person?
3. Invite cognitive reframing: In one-to-ones, ask, “How do you see the purpose of your role?” and then, “If you were to describe it in a way that excites you, what would you say?” This simple exercise often uncovers a more meaningful narrative. The question to hold is: what story about their work could help this person reconnect with its value?
4. Model crafting yourself: Share how you have shaped your own role—tasks you have dropped, collaborations you have chosen, or ways you think about the meaning of your work. This gives permission and shows that crafting is not rebellion but stewardship. The question to hold is: how can my own example signal that redesigning work is legitimate?
Reflection questions
• Which parts of my team’s roles create energy, and which consistently drain it?
• How might I make space for people to shape their tasks, relationships, or sense of purpose?
• What would it look like to treat job crafting not as avoidance, but as a practice of ownership?
Even with agency, many remain in jobs they dislike. The reason is often fear of loss. Job crafting gives us a way forward. COR theory explains why some people still cannot move, even when options are present.
The weight of loss
One reason people remain in jobs they dislike is fear of losing what they already have. Stevan Hobfoll’s Conservation of Resources (COR) theory argues that people are motivated to protect and build resources, and that stress arises when they fear loss or fail to gain what they expected (Hobfoll, 1989). A resource can be anything we value: time, money, status, security, energy, relationships. Even when a role feels draining, the potential cost of leaving can feel heavier than the relief of escape.
Objects are tangible resources such as pay, benefits, or tools. A person may dislike their role but remain because the salary or health coverage feels irreplaceable. Warning signs include statements like, “I can’t afford to walk away” or “The benefits are too good to give up.”
Conditions are situational advantages such as seniority, tenure, or flexible working hours. These can anchor people in roles even when the work itself is unfulfilling. For example, a parent may stay in a dull job because the hours fit around childcare. Warning signs include clinging to perks or policies that soften an otherwise frustrating experience.
Personal characteristics are internal resources such as skills, confidence, or resilience. When people feel under-skilled, they may stay in a role out of fear they would not succeed elsewhere. Conversely, someone may endure a poor role because they are confident they can cope. Warning signs include self-deprecating comments like, “I wouldn’t survive anywhere else,” or stoic endurance with little joy.
Energies are the time and effort we have already invested. People often stay because they have put too much in to walk away. This is sometimes called the “sunk cost trap.” Warning signs include phrases like, “I’ve been here too long to quit now” or “I can’t throw away all these years.”
COR theory helps us see that what looks like stubbornness may in fact be self-protection. The person is not simply resisting change; they are protecting what they believe they cannot afford to lose. For leaders, the task is not to dismiss these fears, but to surface them and explore whether they are as fixed as they seem.
Practical takeaways
1. Name the resources explicitly: In a conversation, ask, “What would you lose if you left this role?” Encourage them to list money, benefits, time, relationships, reputation, whatever feels at stake. Naming turns vague fear into something concrete. The question to hold is: what resources does this person believe are most at risk?
2. Offer buffers where possible: If fear of loss is overwhelming, ask what could reduce the risk. This might include training to increase employability, mentoring to build confidence, or flexibility that protects a valued condition. The question to hold is: how can I strengthen the resources that give this person confidence to act?
3. Create safe-to-try experiments: Instead of demanding a leap, suggest small steps that test what is possible. Could they take on a short-term secondment, shadow a different role, or pilot a new responsibility? Experiments reduce the sense that every choice is irreversible. The question to hold is: what small trial could help this person test alternatives without full commitment?
4. Build resource resilience in the team: Encourage practices that replenish energy such as peer support, cross-skilling, and shared workloads so people feel less depleted. A culture that grows resources reduces the fear of losing them. The question to hold is: what systems could I put in place so that resources are continually replenished, not just protected?
Reflection questions
• What resources do I think my team members fear losing most?
• How often do I assume resistance is stubbornness rather than self-protection?
• What experiments or buffers could I create so that choices feel less risky?
Across these perspectives, we see the same truth: unhappiness at work is rarely simple stubbornness. It is a mix of conditions, choices, relationships, meaning, and fears. What begins as a colleague’s puzzling resistance can become an invitation to lead differently.
Conclusion
The Head of R&D eventually realised that her task was not to convince her senior colleague to stay or to leave, but to create the space where he could see his own choices more clearly. Through conversations that mapped his energy drainers and energisers, through small acts of trust and recognition, and by asking what resources he feared losing, the stalemate began to shift. He still had frustrations, but the public declarations of misery gave way to more grounded dialogue about what he wanted to contribute. What had felt like a burden on the team became an opening to ask deeper questions about how they all found meaning in their work.
In situations like this, the invitation is to move away from fixing people or forcing decisions. Instead, leadership becomes an act of stewardship: hosting the conditions where each person has the chance to choose ownership over endurance.
Reflection questions
• What does it mean for me to see my colleagues not as problems to solve, but as citizens with choices to make?
• How am I contributing to the conditions that either invite energy or sustain resignation?
• What would it look like for me to treat every conversation about dissatisfaction as an opening for possibility, not a threat to control?
Do you have any tips or advice? What has worked for you? Do you have any recommended resources to explore? Thanks for reading!
References
Eisenberger, N.I. and Lieberman, M.D. (2004) ‘Why rejection hurts: A common neural alarm system for physical and social pain’, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(7), pp. 294–300.
Graen, G.B. and Uhl-Bien, M. (1995) ‘Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader–member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective’, The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), pp. 219–247.
Herzberg, F. (1959) The motivation to work. 2nd edn. New York: John Wiley.
Hirschman, A.O. (1970) Exit, voice, and loyalty: Responses to decline in firms, organizations, and states. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Hobfoll, S.E. (1989) ‘Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress’, American Psychologist, 44(3), pp. 513–524.
Pennebaker, J.W. and Chung, C.K. (2011) ‘Expressive writing: Connections to physical and mental health’, in Friedman, H.S. (ed.) The Oxford handbook of health psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 417–437.
Porges, S.W. (2011) The polyvagal theory: Neurophysiological foundations of emotions, attachment, communication, and self-regulation. New York: W.W. Norton.
Ratey, J.J. (2008) Spark: The revolutionary new science of exercise and the brain. New York: Little, Brown.
Wrzesniewski, A. and Dutton, J.E. (2001) ‘Crafting a job: Revisioning employees as active crafters of their work’, Academy of Management Review, 26(2), pp. 179–201.
Hatfield, E., Cacioppo, J.T. and Rapson, R.L. (1994) Emotional contagion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lieberman, M.D., Eisenberger, N.I., Crockett, M.J., Tom, S.M., Pfeifer, J.H. and Way, B.M. (2007) ‘Putting feelings into words: Affect labeling disrupts amygdala activity in response to affective stimuli’, Psychological Science, 18(5), pp. 421–428.
Leave A Comment