What Causes Employee Turnover?

Claire Monroe

Alright, welcome back to The Science of Leading, everyone. I’m Claire Monroe, and—okay, I know we always start with a big topic, but this one’s everywhere right now. Edwin, let’s talk about turnover. It’s not just some random HR stat—when someone leaves, you’re losing way more than just a seat at the desk, right?

Edwin Carrington

Absolutely, Claire. Losing an employee, especially a high performer, is like losing the gears in your machine. Productivity drops. Institutional knowledge walks out the door—and it’s not just that person’s work. You’re looking at lost relationships, context, and the, uh, informal connections that keep teams moving. Each exit, especially an early one, comes with disruption far beyond what's on a spreadsheet.

Claire Monroe

Yeah, and it’s interesting because—not all turnover is the same. We love to lump it all together, but there are these shades. You’ve got voluntary exits, involuntary ones, and even functional turnover—like when, honestly, someone leaves and the team actually gets stronger. But dysfunctional turnover, that’s where it stings—the top talent or the irreplaceable folks, that's where leaders really need to pay attention, right?

Edwin Carrington

Exactly, Claire. Functional turnover—when lower performers leave—can be a sign of a healthy system recalibrating. But dysfunctional turnover, that’s the red flag. That’s high performers, linchpins—when they depart, it’s a sign something deeper isn’t working. And timing matters, too: Early exits, say, in the first 90 days, usually signal onboarding or expectation gaps. Later exits might point to missing growth opportunities, pay clarity, or just plain burnout.

Claire Monroe

Mm-hmm. I actually felt that myself. So, story time—my first job, right out of college, I lasted maybe six months. There was no real feedback, no growth path, nothing to tell me how I was doing or where things could go. I kind of felt invisible, honestly. It’s funny, now I see how those early missteps in onboarding or clarity can lead to that quick turnover pattern... and it’s not a “bad apples” thing—it’s the system that failed.

Edwin Carrington

That’s a great point, Claire. It’s rarely just one person’s fault—it’s almost always rooted in consistent patterns. When you notice early exits, it's time to examine your hiring, onboarding, and communication practices. And honestly, even the difference between “high” and “excessive” turnover matters. It’s not about matching benchmarks—it’s about seeing where your patterns repeat, who’s leaving, and why.

Claire Monroe

So, for the numbers people out there—let’s talk about how you actually track all this. There are formulas, and then there’s… reality. But if you’re just looking at your one, average, company-wide turnover rate—Edwin, are folks missing the plot?

Edwin Carrington

They are, Claire. The simple formula—number of employees who left, divided by average headcount, times a hundred—gives you a rate, sure. But if you just look at that average, you risk overlooking the real trouble spots. I always suggest segmenting the data—cut it by department, by tenure, by job family, by, uh, direct manager. The patterns you’ll see there, well—that’s where the root causes come to light.

Claire Monroe

And I love that idea. Because, you can have one team falling apart while the company “looks fine" on paper, right? You really need that kind of—almost CSI, like, where’s the pattern? Who’s leaving before the 90-day mark, who’s burning out after three years… that sort of thing.

Edwin Carrington

Exactly. Let me give you a real example. There was a U.S. tech firm I worked with—not a huge one, but their early turnover rate was through the roof. Everyone assumed it was about salary. But when we broke out turnover by tenure and job family, we found most departures were new hires. The real culprit was onboarding gaps, not pay, and once they focused on strengthening how new folks came onboard, their early turnover rate dropped by half. It wasn’t about chasing higher salaries—it was about fixing the experience for newcomers.

Claire Monroe

That’s so good because companies love to blame “the market” or use averages. But it’s, like, if you ignore tenure or lump everyone together, you just end up fixing the wrong problem. And I feel like this comes up a lot with clients—people only look at turnover in isolation, but what about mixing it with engagement or performance feedback?

Edwin Carrington

That’s the next step. If you're just staring at HR exit data, you’re missing the story. You’ve gotta compare turnover patterns with things like engagement scores, manager surveys, even pulse-checks on performance. Turnover tells you what happened. But drop-offs in engagement or satisfaction—those are the uh, flashing-warning signs, the predictors of who might leave next. Don’t wait for resignations to wake you up.

Claire Monroe

And, not to harp on this, but I love seeing how segmenting your data is actually an act of empathy. Because you’re seeing real people behind each metric—not just numbers, but reasons, and, like, root causes you can influence. That’s way more actionable than “let’s chase our average.”

Edwin Carrington

Absolutely, Claire. The goal isn’t to explain away turnover. It’s to find the piece you can control—and then go after it, systematically.

Claire Monroe

So let’s roll up our sleeves a bit—because this is where I think listeners want practical ideas. Once you spot the root causes, what do you actually do? Edwin, I know you’ve seen the “snack bar equals retention” myth a few times. What real levers work?

Edwin Carrington

Well, the short answer is: focus on manager quality, pay fairness, growth, and work design, Claire. Strong managers are the number one difference-maker for retention. The data is clear—people don’t quit companies, they quit managers. So, invest in weekly 1 on 1s, make success criteria ridiculously clear, and train managers in basic coaching and feedback. If turnover clusters in one spot, you fix the system by starting with the manager—not by launching another culture campaign.

Claire Monroe

And I think sometimes companies avoid the pay topic, hoping it’ll just, like, magically get better. But clarity, even more than the exact number, makes such a difference. Employees want to know the why and how behind pay bands, raises, what they can expect if they grow… otherwise it just feels random.

Edwin Carrington

Well said. If you do just one thing around pay, make it explainable. Transparent pay bands, open conversations about what drives increases, and making sure managers don’t dodge those talks. It’s the fairness and consistency that move the needle.

Claire Monroe

So that’s manager quality and pay, but what about growth and development? Like, not every company can offer a promotion every year. Is it still worth mapping out skill growth or internal mobility? Or is that just a feel-good distraction?

Edwin Carrington

It’s not a distraction at all, Claire. High-performing employees leave when they stop seeing ways to grow. You can create skills maps, show what “good” looks like at each level, and give people pathways—even if it’s a lateral move or a chance to take on projects with more impact. Internal mobility and clearer paths retain talent, even if promotions are rare.

Claire Monroe

Can I just jump in with something on onboarding again? Because, after my own early exit, I’ve always thought companies underinvest in the first 90 days. Things like 30/60/90-day check-ins, weekly manager touchpoints, and actual feedback loops make a difference. Those little rituals send the message: “We actually care if you succeed.”

Edwin Carrington

Precisely. A structured onboarding plan, with real commitments—weekly check-ins and milestones—turns uncertainty into progress. You can often prevent early exits just by making expectations and support visible from day one.

Claire Monroe

And sometimes, too, it’s redesigning the job itself—reducing the meeting overload, protecting deep work time, making sure workloads are realistic. You’ve said before it’s not about “wellness programs”—it’s about the reality of work, not the perks.

Edwin Carrington

Absolutely. It’s not about yoga stipends. It’s about setting rules for recovery after crunch periods, making “urgent” actually mean something, and protecting people from the always-on spiral. Those design choices keep top performers from burning out and heading for the exit.

Claire Monroe

And you’ve got one of my favorite stories about this, Edwin. I think it was a branch you coached where turnover was—what, forty percent?

Edwin Carrington

Yes, that’s right. It was actually a client branch struggling with 40% staff loss per year. We discovered most of it was tied to inconsistent management—people didn’t know how to get promoted, or even if they could. So, we worked on manager coaching and rolled out clear, transparent promotion paths. Within a year, turnover fell to just 12%. So, sometimes it’s not about grand gestures. It’s about getting the basics right and making them consistent.

Claire Monroe

It’s just so actionable. If our listeners take away anything, it’s that reducing turnover isn’t mysterious—study your patterns, repair the system, and go root first, not symptom first.

Edwin Carrington

Precisely, Claire. Preventing turnover is always easier—and cheaper—than replacing the talent you’ve lost. And that work, it never really ends.

Claire Monroe

Alright, that wraps us for today. Thanks so much for sharing your wisdom, Edwin—and thanks to everyone listening. If you want to see some of these ideas in action, head over to OAD.ai. We’ll catch you next time on The Science of Leading!

Edwin Carrington

Thanks, Claire. And thank you all for joining us—see you on the next episode.