Transition: For or From?

I have learned to be wary of “from.”

A decade or so ago when I was serving as chief medical officer, one of my tasks was to meet with all of the providers leaving military service to get a sense of why they were leaving, and to determine whether there was something we could do to retain them in the military. (I often discovered that it was a conversation that should have taken place with a direct supervisor well before my meeting. But that is a separate observation about first-line healthcare leadership. It is too easy in medicine to lose the business of the person in the busyness of practice.)

Over a number of encounters I noticed that the reasons for leaving fell into two large categories: those who were leaving “for” something and those who were leaving “from.”

The “for’s” included a range of different items: better job opportunities, additional training, geographic pressures. Often the “for’s” were based on the needs of the spouse or family. Over time I occasionally saw these providers again and asked them how they were doing with the decision they had made. The question was a bit like what Sandy McGrath asked his friend Eric Liddell regarding his decision not to run in a heat in the 1924 Olympics because it was on a Sunday (Chariots of Fire, 1981). “Any regrets?” his friend asked him, and I asked the providers about leaving military service. I often got the same answer Liddell gave in the movie: “Yeah. No doubts, though.” Having a strong “for” softened the regrets of leaving the camaraderie, adventure, job satisfaction and career opportunities for these providers.

The response to “from’s” was generally different.

When staff members left “from” the reasons included such things as the frustrations of practice bureaucracy, the personal vexations of military life (e.g. physical training requirement, uniform and hair standards), limitations in freedom, family separations or practice in austere conditions, and operational (“combat”) tours (heard as a “from” much less frequently than you’d think).

The problem with having a list of negative “from’s” as reasons for leaving is that they often travel with you. Frustrating medical bureaucracy is not a military-unique phenomenon. Personal vexations are common in the civilian world. Medical practice means frequent separation from family and spouse regardless of whether it’s military or civilian. With these “from’s,” the negative impact can be compounded by the loss of camaraderie or career opportunities and the frustration of realizing that everything is not as rosy as it seemed on “the other side.”

Of course there are also a number of “from’s” that can result in transition that are beyond our control. They include being fired, laid-off, retired early or forced into a corporate relocation. (Not uncommon in military and civilian worlds.) There may also be situations where a leader or peers are so abusive or corrosive that a move is a matter of personal survival. The “from” in all these cases is compounded by a lack of control and loss of choice, making the negative effect even greater.

A transition based on a list of negative “from’s” has the potential to affect the person who leaves in at least three additional ways:

When “from” jades the memory. If the reasons for leaving an organization are perceived to be negative enough it may become hard to recall anything positive about having been there. In this case every recollection or story becomes a negative one.

When “from” creates unmerited urgency. “I just can’t take it anymore” may lead to decisions made in haste and more than one colleague has told me after the fact that he wished he had not been in such a hurry and had taken more time to think things through.

When “from” discounts the counsel of others. No one with whom you speak can ever completely understand your reasons for leaving. That can too easily become an excuse for dismissing others’ advice with the thought, “he/she just doesn’t get it.”  No one will really “get it.” But why ask for advice if you’re unwilling to even consider that it might provide some insight?

There are certainly positive reasons that could lead to a transition “from.” A person’s role or opportunities could suddenly change. I walked out of my job as a hospital technician in Philadelphia three days before classes started when my name was plucked off the med school alternative list. In this case the “for” was a bit of an unknown but regardless a positive one.

Sometimes you leave “from” because an organization’s needs or circumstances change and you are no longer the best fit. I stepped down from one of my favorite jobs as department chief after seven years  in part because I could see that there was someone lining up for the position whom I thought could do a better job. It turned out I was right.

A person can experience a change in skills or capability that necessitates a “from;” when training is complete as after medical or nursing school, residency, graduate school or fellowship.  The specific “for” may be a bit unclear (“Where will I be working next?”) but it’s still time to move on to do what you trained to do. I hated leaving my civilian fellowship training in Philadelphia (although the opportunity to work in Hawaii became a pretty nice “for”).

Through the course of a career, leaders will have many occasions to consider transition and to counsel others as they weigh the pros and cons of moving on. A good friend and mentor encouraged me to look for three things in considering a transition “for:” 1) work you feel passionate about 2) people you love 3) a job you believe in.  They remind me of Thomas Chalmer’s “Grand Essentials of Life:” “Something to do, something to love, something to hope for.”

It is a good framework to help us and those we lead to remember:
In transition a strong “for” is better than almost any “from.”

Chuck Callahan Henry V 4.3 – Lead from the Front https://henryv43.wordpress.com/