The Supervisor Everyone Leaves
A logistics depot employs 140 staff across three shifts. Voluntary turnover among warehouse staff is 34% per year, against an industry benchmark of 18%. Exit interviews consistently cite one shift supervisor: staff describe unpredictable rosters posted 24 hours in advance, public criticism when targets are missed, and no response to requests for training. The supervisor meets every productivity target and has been at the depot for nine years. Recruitment and induction cost about $4,200 per replacement. Of the 140 staff, 90 are warehouse workers. The depot manager has been told by senior management to reduce turnover without increasing the labour budget, and the supervisor is a personal friend of the regional operations director.
1. Quantify the cost of turnover and identify what the figure does and does not prove.
Read the worked answer
Working. Warehouse turnover = 34% of 90 = 30.6 departures per year (say 31). At $4,200 each, annual replacement cost ≈ $130,200.
If turnover fell to the 18% benchmark: 18% × 90 = 16.2 departures, cost ≈ $68,040. The avoidable cost is roughly $62,000 per year - a recurring saving achieved without touching the labour budget.
What it proves. The financial case for acting is strong and directly answers senior management's constraint: reducing turnover is a cost reduction.
What it does not prove. The figure does not establish causation. Exit interviews point to one supervisor, but self-reported reasons are unreliable, and the supervisor meets productivity targets - so removing or retraining them carries a performance risk that the turnover saving does not capture. The number justifies investigation and intervention; it does not by itself justify dismissal. A stronger answer separates the certain saving from the uncertain cause.
2. Recommend a course of action that addresses the cause while managing the political constraint.
Read the worked answer
The manager faces a genuine conflict: the evidence points at a supervisor who is protected by a relationship with the regional director, and who is also objectively productive. A confrontational approach risks the manager's position; inaction risks losing $62,000 a year and the depot's remaining staff.
Recommended actions.
- Replace anecdote with documented evidence. Consolidate exit-interview themes, roster-posting records and training-request logs into a factual report. This shifts the conversation from personality to data and protects the manager.
- Address the specific behaviours, not the person. The roster issue is a process fix - mandate rosters posted 14 days ahead across all shifts, which costs nothing and removes the most concrete grievance. Public criticism and unresponsiveness are training and coaching issues; offer the supervisor leadership training as development, not punishment.
- Involve the regional director transparently. Frame the report as a depot-wide retention initiative with the supervisor as a participant, so the director is enlisted rather than bypassed.
- Set a review point. If turnover on that shift has not fallen after two quarters of coaching and process change, escalate to formal performance management with the documented record.
Justification. This satisfies senior management (no extra budget), respects the political reality (the director is engaged, not circumvented), and targets the documented causes rather than assuming the supervisor must go.