[6d0debc071]

The article's title is bad but the core of it seems to be that IFF there's a perceived desires/offers mismatch on the part of the employee, then that employee will investigate the labour market.

If your company isn't aligned with the employee's process or life goals, that's a desires/offers mismatch. It may not be possible for the company to solve that, but it doesn't change the underlying pattern.

And then the person is not unhappy, but they look for a better match. To use the terminology of the article their 'shields[1]' would be down.

I don't think it's perfectly accurate, the core of the piece, mind. Because I go out with friends who work for other companies - so inevitably hear about them - as part of having a life. I've not had as many job changes as I've had coffees with friends. But it may be a reasonable heuristic.

---

1. As a language point, I detest the idea of calling it shields. It makes it sound like it's something that protects the employee, but of course it doesn't. It protects the employer for you not to be looking for something that better satisfies your desires.

[mark-r]

I see a lot of people in this thread misunderstanding the "shields down" phrase. If you get a cold call from a headhunter you've never heard of before, are you less willing to consider their opportunity than when a good friend makes the same request? That's because your shield was active - it's a psychological way of coping with unwanted input.

[6d0debc071]

Mmm. There's a connotation with shields that they are just as you say, protective in nature. There's consequently a negative association with their removal. However, the person's still being protected from undesired input while they're looking for a job: The criteria for desirable/acceptable have changed. Their 'shields,' using those criteria, are still up.

It's a tricky analogy that, as you note, is easy to misunderstand. The writer may not have meant it in the sense that it was received.