The Supervisor Everyone Avoids
A 240-person software services company has lost six engineers from one 14-person team in nine months; exit interviews mention 'management style' but nothing specific. The team's supervisor has delivered consistently against delivery targets and is well regarded by the client. Two junior engineers have raised informal concerns with HR about public criticism in stand-ups, but asked for confidentiality. The HR director wants to launch a formal grievance investigation. The delivery director opposes it, arguing that the supervisor is a high performer, that the departures were 'normal churn', and that an investigation will destabilise a client-critical project due in ten weeks. The CEO must decide within a week, before the next resignation is expected.
1. Analyse the situation using relevant organisational behaviour concepts. What is actually happening in this team, and what evidence would you gather before deciding?
Read the worked answer
The pattern fits several linked concepts. High turnover concentrated in one team, with exit interviews citing management style, suggests the supervisor's behaviour is a systemic factor rather than individual misfit. Public criticism in stand-ups is consistent with a climate of low psychological safety, where speaking up carries interpersonal risk; that suppresses the informal feedback that would otherwise correct behaviour early. The team may also be experiencing the 'silent problems' that follow from a leader who is rewarded purely for delivery output - the performance management system is signalling that how results are achieved is irrelevant.
The delivery director's framing of 'normal churn' is a comparison error: churn should be benchmarked against the company average and against comparable teams, not asserted. Six of fourteen in nine months is roughly 43% annualised, which is unlikely to be normal.
Before deciding, gather evidence: turnover rates for the team versus the company and versus similar client teams; exit interview records and any pattern in timing (e.g. departures after appraisals); engagement or pulse survey results for the team; the two informal concerns, handled sensitively; and delivery and quality metrics to test whether the supervisor's performance is as strong as claimed. Also check whether the supervisor has had any management training or feedback. The decision should rest on triangulated evidence, not on one director's assertion or on exit-interview euphemism.
2. The CEO wants to protect the client-critical project. Recommend a course of action that addresses both the people risk and the delivery risk, and justify the sequencing.
Read the worked answer
The two risks are not in opposition: unresolved people risk is itself a delivery risk, because further departures in a ten-week window will damage the project more than a managed intervention will. Sequence the response accordingly.
Immediately: stabilise the team. The CEO or HR should meet the two junior engineers to acknowledge their concerns and explain what will happen next, without exposing them. A confidential listening exercise across the team - for example, structured one-to-ones run by someone other than the supervisor - will surface whether the issue is widespread.
Within the week: put in place interim safeguards for the project. This may mean the supervisor continues to lead delivery but with a changed meeting format (no public individual criticism), a named senior sponsor attending key ceremonies, and a clear escalation route. This protects the client without pre-judging the investigation.
Then: commission a proportionate, fair process. A formal grievance investigation is appropriate if the evidence supports it, but it must be independent of the delivery director and must give the supervisor the right to respond. Because the concerns were raised confidentially, the investigation should be framed around team climate and management practice rather than attributed to named complainants.
Finally: fix the system. Review how supervisors are selected and appraised so that people management is measured alongside delivery. The sequencing - stabilise, safeguard, investigate, redesign - protects the project while ensuring the underlying cause is addressed rather than suppressed.