"About a year ago, our company looked at certain revealing inputs among our employee surveys about how the structure of the chain of command created too much competition among the supervisory staff. They also considered how many of those supervisors, who were tenured but not management material, were experiencing burnout syndrome since they worked twice as hard yet did not advance with their peers. So, to avoid the fallout of many of those supervisors leaving the company, which would strain the rest of the staff in a leadership void, the company changed the structure. They offered those tenured supervisors more stability in their schedules, less likelihood of being transferred from location to location, and the option of working part-time or full-time without losing their pay grade or title. The company hoped doing so would offer greater job satisfaction and play to their strengths. However, there was a failure in the messaging, which was unclear, and there was a lot left to be interpreted. So many of those supervisors whose titles were changed and were offered these new perks, unsurprisingly, saw this as a demotion. Many of them believed they had the potential to run their own store. So they saw this restructuring as a punishment rather than a reward. I did my part to support the company and spread the accurate portrayal of this restructuring and its aim. But my impact wasn't enough, and as a result, many of those supervisors whose titles were changed left the company, feeling their jobs were at risk or that they were robbed of advancement opportunities. This, ironically, resulted in a leadership void, which put a strain on the rest of our teams."