Many professionals recognize that resigning from a job that no longer serves their goals is a strong decision, not a weak one. Accepting a job can be learned, but how to leave one is not often discussed.
I faced this challenge in 2010 when our company shifted its strategic direction. Prior to this change, after 15 years with the organization, I had ascended through several positions, creating a rewarding and successful career. Fortunately, before making any decision, I spoke with a mentor who had spent over thirty years in the industry. We discussed whether staying longer was the right choice. He pointed out the concept of “golden handcuffs,” referring to long-term career investments that deserve careful consideration. At the time, Marriott had earned a reputation for promoting many Executive Chefs into General Manager roles. Loyalty was highly valued and rewarded for those committed to the journey.
That conversation centered on reactive versus proactive resignations as tools for career growth. These are two very different catalysts, and it is important to determine which approach best supports one’s professional journey.
A reactive resignation is what most people imagine when they hear someone has walked away from an important role. The assumption is often that the individual gave up or withdrew emotionally because the challenge became too difficult. But what if they left because the data and information they gathered suggested it was the best course of action? This is the essence of strategic quitting. Decision-making experts argue that it is an essential leadership skill—one that many leaders must learn to master. When leaders resign strategically, they make a conscious decision that continuing is no longer in the best interest of the organization or themselves.
Strategic resignation is anything but a weakness. It allows for the reallocation of resources and renewed focus on attainable goals. It frees both energy and mental space to pursue new opportunities rather than lingering on issues that cannot be realized. Knowing when to quit is just as important as knowing when to pursue opportunities aggressively. Sometimes, quitting is the smartest decision a leader can make.
In private clubs, there are no sister properties or opportunities to remain within a larger corporate “mothership.” More often, professionals move across the street to another club or into a different role to continue growing. This reality raises questions about loyalty versus development. One of the greatest challenges in clubs is not the concept of growth, but the lack of opportunities—and how to ask for them without appearing disloyal. Many clubs focus on the current “season” or “year,” rather than the long-term development of rising talent. With Presidents and Boards frequently changing and no single owner to guide long-term vision, succession planning is often postponed.
The risk is that unmotivated professionals remain in positions out of loyalty alone. I see this often when Executive Chefs become institutionalized by their fourth or fifth year. Concerned with pleasing everyone, they find that loyalty to the club has stalled their personal growth, creativity, and innovation.
Trust is paramount in private clubs and serves as the foundation of loyalty. It is fair to ask, “Why can’t I stay in my role, do a good job, and be happy?” The challenge is that happiness is often temporary and time-based, while having a sense of purpose or inspiration creates deeper, lasting fulfillment through meaning and growth. Time is not a precise measurement, which is why there is no universal length of service.
In corporate environments, relocation decisions are often determined by the organization, minimizing loyalty concerns. In private clubs, however, the process is far less defined. Changing positions is often perceived as a pursuit of higher compensation rather than professional development. While earning more should be a valid consideration, salary is rarely the primary motivator for executives. Without contracts, staying often results in modest cost-of-living increases, bonuses, and soft benefits. More often, trust in one’s abilities, partnership with leadership, and appreciation for skills rank higher than compensation alone.
Industry data shows that the average tenure for Executive Chefs is approximately three and a half years. It is commonly said that it takes one year to establish trust, three years to fully enjoy that relationship, and then professionals must evaluate how the club sustains and supports that trust. Leaders must also weigh the practical realities of relocation, particularly in seasonal environments where business cycles heavily influence expectations.
Positions such as Cook, Sous Chef, and Executive Sous Chef carry different expectations and tenures. Tenure often reflects the organization’s level of investment in its staff. The higher the position, the greater the expectation for longevity. Ideally, all roles should align with the organization’s long-term vision; when employees choose to remain, clubs should create development plans that foster mutual growth and benefit.
We often ask our clients how they perceive the role of Executive Chef within their club. For some, it represents the pinnacle of a chef’s career; for others, it is a distinct phase within a longer professional journey. While we do not prescribe a specific number of years, we focus on identifying candidates who align with the expectations of the role. Typically, an Executive Chef may hold three to five such positions throughout a career. With an average tenure of five to seven years per role, this trajectory can extend well into a professional’s early sixties.
Moving solely for higher pay often carries greater risk than prioritizing experience and education. Many young chefs who chase compensation find themselves later stepping backward into lower roles. Consider a career as a pyramid: The stronger the foundation of education and experience, the greater the opportunities at the top.
Ultimately, there is no single path. However, leveraging partnerships and mentors provides a positive sounding board and helps reduce the likelihood of making reactive decisions.
