When a department head gives notice, the first conversation is often about compensation. Was the salary competitive? Were the benefits adequate? Did the schedule become untenable? Those questions are fair, but they can distract from a more basic problem: the person may have been asked to carry a job that was never clearly defined.
Compensation matters, of course. But many people leave because the job itself was never clearly defined. Over time, ambiguity becomes exhausting in a way a pay increase rarely fixes. A department head may be held accountable for an outcome without controlling the decisions behind it. She is asked why the shoulder season underperformed, though no one has clearly assigned programming authority. He is told to own the member experience in his venue, then is overruled by a board member with a direct line. At budget time, she learns that a line item everyone assumed was hers has apparently been hers for three years.
None of that is likely to show up in an exit interview. What shows up is usually, “A great opportunity came up.” Yet the explanation is often less about opportunity than accumulated uncertainty: unclear authority, competing expectations, and responsibility that grows without anyone ever naming it.
The labor market makes this harder. Clubs may outperform the broader leisure and hospitality sector, but they recruit from it—and compete with it for talent. At the same time, younger leaders are increasingly cautious about roles that carry broad responsibility without clear authority. They are not avoiding demanding work. They are wary of jobs with no real boundaries: unlimited accountability, uncertain decision rights, and multiple people who believe they have the final say.
Most retention strategies focus on inputs: pay, benefits, schedule, and recognition. Those things matter, and clubs should continue to take them seriously. But they do not resolve the uncertainty people often describe privately when they explain why they left. The alternative starts with a page, not a budget.
List the functions that matter and assign one accountable owner to each. Two names may signal a conflict being managed through goodwill. No name signals a gap. The same name appearing everywhere may reveal a bottleneck. Then clarify three things for every role: what that person can decide independently, what requires the general manager’s involvement, and what requires board approval. Put those answers in writing, where staff and board members can refer to them.
Clubs already understand this at the top of the organization. A disciplined chief executive review, a clean line between governing and operating, and a board that resists managing the operation are all forms of clarity work. The same discipline is needed one level down. Define the job before defending the wage, because a well-paid role that no one can clearly describe will still be difficult to keep filled.
