Find Out Why People Actually Leave, Then Act on It

There is no figure we would quote, because it varies by sector, role and location, and a single number hides what matters. What is useful is your own trend computed consistently, and the split between exits you wanted to prevent and those you did not.

No, and treating it as though it were leads to spending on the wrong people. Some exits are healthy or were going to happen regardless. The regretted and non-regretted split exists so effort goes to the departures that actually cost the business something.

Usually because they are run by the leaver's own manager, use a format that invites a polite answer, and are filed rather than aggregated. Changing who conducts them and reporting themes instead of records tends to change what you learn.

A structured conversation with someone who is not leaving, about what keeps them, what frustrates them and what would make them consider an offer. It is where the recoverable information is, because by the exit interview the decision has already been made.

It often does, and we report it. The usual response is capability work rather than compensation, because paying people more to stay under the same manager rarely holds. What happens to the manager is your decision.

We can set out what each approach commits you to, including what happens to everyone else once a match becomes known. Many businesses settle on a written position in advance, which removes the decision from the pressure of the moment.

Often yes, but with care. With few leavers the cuts are indicative rather than conclusive, so the weight shifts to interviews and to critical-role work. We say which findings the data supports and which are judgement.

The critical-role register overlaps with it, by naming the roles that could not be vacant and who could cover. Full succession work, including readiness assessment and development plans, is a separate engagement that often follows.

We do not promise a timeline for attrition to move, and anyone who does is guessing. What you get quickly is a reliable number, specific causes and named actions. Whether those hold shows in the reporting cycle over following quarters.

A common method divides the number of leavers in a period by the average headcount for that period and multiplies by 100. Different choices on headcount, contract staff and annualising change the answer, which is why we settle the definition first.

We agree the criteria with you in advance, such as performance, difficulty of replacement and role criticality, then apply them to each leaver and record the basis. Applying the criteria after the fact is how regretted exits get argued about.

These are definitional choices, and we set them out with what each does to the number. You decide which to include, and the decision is written into the method so the figure stays comparable.

Typically what keeps the person here, what frustrates them, what would make them consider another offer, what they want to do next and what their manager could change. Who conducts it matters, because candour depends on trust in the interviewer.

Yes. First-quarter and first-year exits are separated out and traced back to the hiring, onboarding and manager steps, because the causes differ from later attrition.

A year of leaver records with joining and leaving dates, headcount by month, manager mapping and any exit forms. We can begin with partial records and say which findings are firm and which are indicative.

We set out the options and what each commits you to, including how they affect other employees. Terms such as bonds and recovery carry legal implications, so please confirm them with a qualified professional.

Pricing depends on the number of leavers and employees, the data available, the interview sample, the locations covered and whether you want a one-off analysis or a reporting cycle. Share your requirements and we will send a tailored proposal.