On Burning Bridges the Right Way

When one chooses or is forced to leave a group with which one has been associated for an extended period of time one of the most oft heard pieces of advice is how important it is that one "not burn any bridges" on their way out the door. This advice is said to apply no matter the circumstances (good, bad, or neutral) of ones leaving of the particular group. However, it is most often spoken of in the case of unfriendly or forced departures. In those instances, the idea is that the relationships (the bridges) one has nurtured within the group over time, are more important than any particular action(s) of any person(s) in the group that resulted in said individual being forced out against his or her will. In the case of large organizations it may be that the person(s) responsible for the forced ejection of the individual are very far removed from that persons actual day to day "life" in the organization, and thus do not have much of a relationship (bridge) to begin with, and thus would likely be at least partially exempt from the standard advice on the importance of not burning bridges. More commonly however, forcing an individual to leave a group against their will almost always requires the direct 'negative' intervention of one or more other individuals in the group that the leaver does know and usually knows very well. I use the word negative in this case only because from the perspective of the individual being forced to leave (the leaver) the outcome is (at least perceived to be) a negative. If it were not they would not protest at being asked/forced to leave. In most cases, the person being forced out of the group probably has some personal relationships with the persons whose interventions (whatever they may be) have in some way led to their forced departure from the group, and these relationships may have been positive, negative, or neutral from the leavers point of view.

Those who give the advice to not burn bridges often overlook or minimize the role (real or perceived) that other individuals may have played in the forced departure of the leaver. They draw no distinction and suggest that no matter what role they may have played or not played, one should still not burn bridges with anyone when forced out of a group. Presumably that is because in situations like those it is often impossible to determine exactly who is responsible for what, and even if we could know with perfect certainty who said or did what to whom, the overall effect of any one persons particular actions or non-actions on the final outcome is generally not knowable. Therefore, it is argued that to "burn a bridge" with one or more persons one suspects may have had a role in ones forced departure from a group is always a net negative. This is essentially because the future is not knowable and any one of those persons could be helpful in joining a new group in the future or in other ways which the individual cannot currently predict. Therefore, if one burns a bridge with them in the present, they will not be available as helpers in any hypothetical future need scenario. Moreover, often times burning a bridge with one individual results in negative associations for you with other individuals who have strong positive associations with the person whose bridge you have burnt. This can have the unintended effect of burning bridges with these associates as well. When a bridge is burnt the fire tends to easily spread to other bridges and can do damage or completely destroy them as well. Some of these bridges may be (have been) very important in future need scenarios. You may feel some small measure of satisfaction in the burning of the bridge of the one (or more) individuals you believe are responsible for you being forced out of the group, however that satisfaction now may cost you significant distress later when you find you do not have the allies you thought you had and actually need for whatever future endeavor requires them.

This argument has much merit and I think is generally largely true. However, as with most good advice, there can be exceptions. For example there can be cases where the individual effect of one or more persons is so clearly negative and the responsibility of these individuals is obvious and beyond dispute that burning of a bridge or bridges is warranted. A bridge to nowhere or a bridge to a place one never wants to go again is not worth keeping. Those sorts of bridges are only distractions from focusing on the building of new bridges and repairing of ones that are worthy of strengthening. It is important to remember however that burning of any given bridge should not be undertaken with motivations of revenge or a desire to "show them how wrong they were", etc. Firstly, it is unlikely that anything you can do to a person or persons responsible for forcing you out of a group you do not want to leave could be as damaging or painful as what they have done that has resulted in you being forced out. Moreover, even if you could, do you really want to get into a game of who can be the more awful person? In my opinion, the 'best' bridge burnings are kept private and quiet. The bridge is only burnt symbolically (in one's heart and memory of the person who wronged them). You know the bridge is burnt, but the other person may not, and that is to their detriment for in the future they may call on you for assistance and find you unwilling or unable to help. They may be puzzled as to why, but you will know, and you will (perhaps) feel some small measure of satisfaction that the person who wronged you is now reaping what they have sown. Or, more likely, you will have totally forgotten about the whole stupid symbolic bridge burning thing having long since moved on with your life to bigger and better things. In this case you may find yourself helping your former nemesis and not thinking anything of it.