Across Asia’s companies, one question keeps surfacing with a mix of frustration and resignation. Why do people leave even after so much investment has been poured into them? For years, leaders have answered this question through the lens of loyalty, retention policy, or generational behaviour. But after observing thousands of employees across the region, it is clear that people do not leave because they are fickle. They leave because the organisation breaks an unspoken psychological contract.
People join companies believing that purpose, values, and long-term commitment actually matter. They leave when they realise that these promises do not match the reality inside the institution. The exhaustion that follows is not simple burnout. It is a deeper kind of weariness that grows when the words on the wall begin to feel hollow. This is what many employees describe as institutional fatigue. It builds slowly, and it is often irreversible.
Most organisations today have polished language about contributing to society, improving lives, and elevating communities. Yet employees quickly discover the real priorities that govern daily decisions. They see leaders rewarded for short-term results rather than long-term stewardship. They see internal politics take precedence over judgment and common sense. They see departments competing for visibility instead of working together. And they see leaders asking for commitment while avoiding difficult questions about fairness, integrity, and what it means to do the right thing.
The credibility gap between what leaders say and what they reward has become one of the biggest reasons people walk away. It is not a lack of resilience on the part of employees. It is a lack of alignment on the part of leadership.
“
When people are evaluated in ways that discourage collaboration, experimentation, and honesty, it is not surprising that the most capable employees become disillusioned.
This problem is even more pronounced in Asia due to the cultural context. Many organisations remain shaped by traditions of hierarchy, deference, and respect for authority. In practice, this means junior employees hesitate to speak up, mid-level leaders avoid contradiction, and senior executives operate from a place of control rather than inquiry. These behaviours once created stability. Today, they create rigidity. They stifle imagination. They block honest dialogue. And they prevent good people from contributing at the level they are capable of.
What sits quietly at the centre of this crisis is the way performance is measured. KPIs have become the invisible architecture of culture. They determine what is seen as valuable and what is treated as irrelevant. In many Asian organisations, KPIs still prioritise output over learning, compliance over curiosity, and individual achievement over collective progress. When people are evaluated in ways that discourage collaboration, experimentation, and honesty, it is not surprising that the most capable employees become disillusioned. They cannot thrive in systems that reward behaviours they fundamentally disagree with.
The arrival of AI is accelerating this tension. As repetitive tasks are automated, employees will have more space to think, question, and make sense of their work. This is a positive development, but only for organisations willing to evolve. AI will not hide cultural dysfunction. It will expose it. It will show which leaders are willing to rethink how work is designed and which are clinging to old patterns of control. It will reveal whether an organisation sees human judgment as valuable or still treats people as operational units to be managed and contained.
People stay in organisations when they feel their voice matters, when they can act with integrity, and when they believe the institution is trying to do the right thing. They stay when their work feels meaningful and when leaders show consistency between their public commitments and their private behaviours. They stay not because the package is attractive but because the culture earns their commitment.
This brings leadership to a crossroads. The question is no longer how do we stop talent from leaving. The question is what kind of organisation must we become so that people choose to stay. The old model, built on control, siloed decision-making, and narrow metrics, has reached its limits. It does not prepare companies for complexity. It does not inspire employees to contribute their best. It does not create the trust needed for long-term success.
There is an alternative. It requires leaders to embrace a broader understanding of value and to develop new capabilities in systems thinking, collaboration, and long-term decision making. This is the work we created in GIFT’s Studio for AI Leadership (SAIL), which helps organisations shift from outdated habits to leadership grounded in clarity, responsibility, and shared purpose. It is a pathway toward building institutions that genuinely align performance with societal value.
The truth is simple. People do not leave because they want to run away. They leave because they can no longer remain in systems that do not honour their intelligence, their dignity, or their desire to contribute meaningfully. The real challenge for leaders is to build organisations that are worthy of people staying.
Pial Khadilla is the Managing Director—ASEAN of the Global Institute for Tomorrow (GIFT). She is adept at introducing critical perspectives and fresh ideas on leadership, organisational culture and purposeful corporate development to help companies navigate complexities with greater insight.
