Why pharma and life sciences employees leave and how to understand why

When someone leaves a pharmaceutical or life sciences business, the organisation needs to understand what shaped the decision. The people involved are varied: shop-floor operators on shifts, QA and QC analysts, scientists, regulatory staff and a field force working to territory targets. Each group leaves for different reasons.

The purpose is to learn from their experience, respect their decision and identify what could improve for the people who remain, including in the roles that are hardest to refill.

CIPD's guidance on employee turnover highlights the value of understanding why staff leave and addressing areas such as fair treatment, flexibility and employee wellbeing. Source: CIPD

"Better offer." "Personal reasons." "Higher package." These answers may be accurate, but they may not explain the whole decision. A better offer for an analyst could mean a route to a senior role, a different kind of project or a more predictable shift. For a medical representative it could mean a different territory, a different portfolio or a target that felt more reachable.

Start with a simple question: "What made you start considering a change?"

Then ask what made the employee decide to leave. This helps distinguish what started their search from the opportunity that eventually attracted them.

Avoid assuming that every resignation reflects a problem with the company. Higher studies, relocation, family responsibilities and a change in career direction can also influence someone's decision.

Use the following areas as prompts rather than assuming any one of them caused the resignation.

• Pay and benefits: Did the employee feel their pay reflected their qualification and responsibility? For the field force, were incentives and target-setting clear?
• Qualification and growth: Could they see how to move from one level of authorisation to the next, or from the bench into a senior or specialist role? Was the training that supports that move actually offered?
• Shifts and plant pressure: Did shift patterns, changeovers, batch deadlines or extended hours affect their health and home life?
• Field targets and territory: Were territories and targets reasonable? Did changes to territory or portfolio happen with a proper conversation?
• Manager and quality culture: Were expectations clear? When something went wrong, could they report it openly, or did they feel it would be held against them?
• Documentation load: Did record-keeping take time from the work itself, or feel like it was done twice?
• Role expectations: Did the actual work match what was discussed at hiring? Did responsibilities change without adequate discussion?
• Personal circumstances: Did relocation, further study, caregiving or other priorities affect their ability or wish to continue?

Several factors may contribute to one resignation. Allow employees to explain these connections in their own words.

Invite the employee to a voluntary exit interview during their notice period. Explain that the purpose is to understand their experience and improve the workplace.

Where possible, choose an interviewer who is sufficiently independent of the issues being discussed. For a plant or laboratory employee, that may be HR or a senior person from outside the department rather than the immediate supervisor. For a field employee, it may be someone other than the regional manager who set the targets. Give them the option to provide written feedback.

Explain who will see their responses and how the information will be used. Avoid promising complete anonymity in a small team, a single shift or one territory where details could identify the person. If feedback touches on a quality or safety concern, say clearly who it would be passed to, so the employee is not surprised later.

Listen without interrupting or defending each company decision. If clarification is needed, ask for a specific example respectfully. The employee should not have to debate or justify their decision to leave. For how to run the process around the conversation, see exit interviews that produce action.

1. 1

   What first made you consider leaving?

   This finds the starting point, which is often different from the final reason.

2. 2

   What were the main factors in your final decision?

   Let them rank or connect the factors in their own words.

3. 3

   How did the role compare with what you expected when you joined?

   Gaps here point to hiring conversations or role changes that were never discussed.

4. 4

   Did you see a clear route to the next level of qualification or responsibility?

   Listen for gaps between the training offered and the authorisation or role that followed.

5. 5

   How manageable were your shifts, targets and working hours?

   Ask plant staff about shifts and changeovers, and the field force about territory and targets.

6. 6

   How did the support from your manager work in practice?

   Offer another interviewer if the employee is uneasy answering this to someone close to the manager.

7. 7

   If you saw a mistake or a concern, did you feel able to report it, and what happened next?

   This speaks to the quality culture, and to whether concerns reach anyone who can act.

8. 8

   What, if anything, could the organisation realistically have done differently?

   Realistic answers are the ones you can act on.

9. 9

   Were there concerns you raised earlier? How were they handled?

   This shows whether concerns reach anyone who can act.

10. 10

    What should we improve for the next person in this role?

    A forward-looking close that leaves the conversation constructive.

Use follow-up questions where necessary, while allowing the employee to skip questions they do not wish to answer.

Record the primary reason for leaving, any contributing factors and a brief factual summary. Separate what the employee said from your interpretation.

Review departures over time by plant, function, shift, territory, role and length of service. Repeated concerns deserve attention, but a small number of exits should prompt further investigation rather than an immediate conclusion about a manager or department. The general guide to why employees leave covers the wider approach, and the attrition number that hides the problem explains why a single headline rate is not enough.

Compare exit feedback with current employee conversations, workload information and other relevant evidence. Keep identifiable responses restricted to those who need access, and use summaries for broader reporting. Where feedback raises a quality or safety matter, route it through the channel the business already uses for those matters, rather than leaving it in an HR file.

An exit interview has limited value if the feedback is simply filed away. For each issue selected for action, agree on:

• The specific change needed.
• The person responsible.
• A completion date.
• How progress will be reviewed.

For example, unclear progression could lead to a written route from one level to the next, with training scheduled into the plan. Target concerns in the field force could prompt a review of how territories and targets are set and communicated. Shift concerns could prompt a review of rosters and how changeover work is assigned.

Where appropriate, tell current employees what has changed without revealing a departing employee's private feedback.

Include regular conversations about what helps people work well and what makes the job difficult, in the plant, the laboratory, the office and the field. A short, structured conversation after a major project, a territory change or an inspection can surface concerns while there is still time to act. Ask: "What would make you consider leaving, and what could we improve now?"

These conversations can create opportunities to address concerns while the employee is still part of the team. Follow-through matters: asking for feedback creates an expectation that someone will consider it seriously.

Every resignation deserves a respectful response. Understanding the reasons, checking the wider evidence and acting on issues within the organisation's control gives that conversation a useful purpose.