I wasn't planning on writing a review, but this one caught my attention because it reads less like an employee perspective and more like a leadership talking point.
The narrative that turnover is simply the result of employees being unable to meet a "higher level of performance" doesn't align with my experience. Most of the people who left were talented, experienced professionals who had successfully navigated high-growth environments before.
High-performing teams can absolutely handle ambitious goals, rapid change, and increasing complexity. What is difficult is operating in an environment where priorities constantly shift, strategic direction is lacking or changes without clear rationale, and teams are expected to absorb the resulting disruption. Those are leadership challenges, not employee shortcomings.
It's convenient to frame turnover as a performance issue, especially when many of the expectations and organizational changes being cited were only recently introduced. Many employees were never given a meaningful opportunity to demonstrate success under those new expectations before conclusions were drawn about their ability to meet them.
Rather than assuming departures were simply the result of people being unable to keep up, it's worth considering whether there were broader organizational, strategic, or leadership challenges that contributed to those outcomes.
