A leadership lens on boomerang employees

Zomato discussed welcoming back employees who left the company. These are being referred to as boomerang employees. A boomerang returns exactly or almost near the source from which it was launched. Hence, this term is used as an analogy for employees returning to the same organization after leaving it. I would also like to view this through the lens of contrasting boomerang employees with the Biblical prodigal son to gain a clearer understanding of the opportunities and challenges for organizations. This understanding will be important because many organizations can use a returning employee programme as a strategic lever. These analogies can clarify the concept from a people-centric perspective.

Need for a Contrasting Analogy

The boomerang point of view is relevant as long as it is compared with coming back to the point where it started its journey. Beyond that, there are many nuances to consider. That is where the analogy of the prodigal son can be used to synthesize the two and deepen understanding.

The prodigal son is a Biblical story about a young man who leaves home against the family’s wishes and later returns, having failed and been humbled by experiences in the outside world. The father apparently welcomed his son back, even though he had left him to squander his wealth and waste his inheritance, and returned home, starving and repentant. The father in this case displayed unconditional love and forgave his sons for straying from the family. He was welcomed back with grand celebrations, including new clothes and a wonderful dinner.

The boomerang employee is in no such position. In fact, they usually leave, then learn, and increase their value through their experiences elsewhere. They are generally welcomed back with open arms. They differ from the prodigal son in that they are likely to return with external benchmarks, sharper judgment, and greater maturity. The choice to accept them back is not forced and is not based on any emotion, compassion, or forgiveness, as in the case of the prodigal son. What matters are roles, pay bands, parity, and precedence.

Distilling the Analogies for Better People Choices

The idea of returning employees should be understood clearly and handled with care; it can have both positive and negative implications. On the positive side, returning employees bring contextual understanding, cultural familiarity, and speed. They understand unwritten rules, the way things are done, and the pressures. They often return with external exposure—new skills, broader perspectives, and sharper expectations. In today’s dynamic world, this can be a real advantage. It also signals something healthy: employees left without bitterness, and that the organization has evolved sufficiently to warrant a return.

There’s also a deeper leadership message that is associated with such programmes. When employees feel safe enough to return, it reflects two-sided maturity—individuals who have explored the world without burning bridges and organizations that are confident enough to say, “You’re welcome back.”

On the flip side, one drawback is that companies sometimes struggle with ego-driven talent policies that view those who exit as betrayers rather than as people navigating contemporary career trajectories. In such cases, companies will be very reluctant to accept potential returnees and will offer various reasons why it does not make good business sense for them.

Also, for those who stayed, the return of former colleagues—sometimes in higher roles or with better salary brackets—can quietly raise questions about fairness and recognition. If not managed transparently, it can create a subtle signal: leaving may be the fastest way to grow. That is a dangerous lesson for any organization trying to build commitment and continuity. It may appear that loyalty is not rewarded. Even in the story of the prodigal son, the elder brother asked his father why a feast was being held for the one who left the family, while nothing was done for him. This has lessons for organizations on handling the loyal ones with sensitivity and care.

There is also the risk of misplaced affinity and interest. Not all potential returnees are driven by renewed purpose; some are driven by market conditions, failed experiments, or a desire to return to their old comfort zone. Organizations must distinguish between individuals who return with renewed intent and those who seek familiarity as a fallback. Hence, the decision to rehire should not be a shortcut that bypasses rigorous assessment.

From a strategic standpoint, boomerang hiring is most effective when it is deliberate rather than driven by sentiment. Important things to review include understanding what the individual has learned externally, how they differ today from before, and the problems they are uniquely positioned to solve now.

When these points are explored honestly, boomerang employees can become bridges—connecting institutional memory with external innovation.

Designing and Managing the Returning Employees Programme

Organizations should establish clear eligibility criteria—minimum tenure served before departure, performance history, and departure circumstances—to ensure that rehiring decisions are merit-based rather than emotion-driven.

Maintain an active alumni network through periodic check-ins, newsletters, or informal meetups to keep former employees engaged without pressure. This is important to maintain the potential talent supply of returnees’ enthusiasm and attachment to the employer brand. An active alumni network serves as a bridge between the organization and former employees.

When a rehiring opportunity arises, treat the entire process just like you would for any new external hire: don’t compromise on the quality and rigour of interviews. Assess current person-role fit and benchmark the selected candidates’ salaries and role fit against both internal parity and market-rate criteria. Wherever possible, use neutral evaluators from a different span of control than the potential candidates’ past roles.

Introduce and communicate about these rehires transparently to existing teams, emphasizing the value the returning employees bring and how they complement—not displace—internal talent. Couple this with significant investment in those who stayed: accelerated development programmes, retention bonuses, or leadership pathways that signal loyalty is valued.

Finally, track outcomes: monitor the performance of returning employees, team morale, and the organization’s overall turnover patterns to ensure that the programme strengthens rather than destabilizes the culture. Done right, it’s not about welcoming people back—it’s about building an ecosystem where talent flows intelligently in both directions.

End Note

Ultimately, the conversation sparked by Zomato is less about rehiring and more about how we view careers today. The founder of Zomato discusses how his organization is better prepared today to integrate diverse talent.

Linear loyalty and career paths have given way to cyclical engagement and spiral careers. People will leave, explore, and sometimes return. The real test of leadership is not preventing exits, but designing cultures in which returns are meaningful, fair, and value-creating for the entire organization—for those who return and those who never left.

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are solely of the author and does not necessarily subscribe to it. will not be responsible for any damage caused to any person or organisation directly or indirectly.