The Attrition Spike That Isn't About Pay
A 900-person logistics firm sees voluntary turnover in its warehouse-supervisor group rise from 14% to 27% over 12 months. Exit interviews flag 'pay' in 61% of cases, so the CHRO proposes a 6% market adjustment costing $1.2M annually. An HR analyst pulls engagement data first: supervisors who left had a median tenure of 16 months, and 74% had never had a documented development conversation in the prior year. Internal promotion into supervisor roles fell from 40% to 12% after a new external-hire preference was introduced. Engagement scores on 'career growth' dropped 22 points, while 'pay satisfaction' dropped only 4 points. The CFO asks for a defensible recommendation before approving any spend.
1. How should HR interpret the gap between exit-interview pay attributions and the engagement data, and what does that imply for the CHRO's proposal?
Read the worked answer
Exit interviews are a weak attribution tool: departing employees often cite pay because it is socially safe and easy to rationalize, and it rarely captures the real driver. Here the behavioral evidence contradicts the stated reason. Pay satisfaction fell only 4 points while career-growth satisfaction fell 22 points, and the leavers' profile (short tenure, no development conversations, collapsed internal promotion rate) points to a blocked-career mechanism, not a market-pay mechanism.
Implication: a $1.2M across-the-board adjustment would treat a symptom. Even if pay is at market, supervisors with no visible path will still leave, so the spend would likely be absorbed with little movement on the 27% rate. The defensible move is to test the hypothesis before committing capital: compare leaver pay against market benchmarks (if already at or near market, the pay theory weakens further), and pilot the development/promotion fix in a subset of sites. Recommend holding the full adjustment, funding a targeted retention intervention, and re-measuring in two quarters.
2. Design a 90-day diagnostic and intervention sequence that would let the CFO see cause-and-effect evidence before full spend is approved.
Read the worked answer
Days 1–30 - Confirm the diagnosis. Benchmark supervisor pay against local market to establish whether a real pay gap exists. Segment turnover by site, manager, tenure band, and promotion history to isolate where the spike concentrates. Run short stay-interviews with current supervisors on growth and promotion clarity. Deliverable: a one-page causal map distinguishing pay-driven from career-driven exits.
Days 30–60 - Pilot the fix. Reinstate a transparent internal-promotion pathway for supervisor roles and mandate quarterly documented development conversations for the group. Pick 3–4 comparable sites as a pilot, leaving similar sites as a comparison group. Define leading indicators now: development-conversation completion rate, internal-fill rate, and intent-to-stay scores.
Days 60–90 - Compare and decide. Contrast pilot vs. comparison sites on the leading indicators and early voluntary exits. Present the CFO with a cost-per-retained-supervisor estimate for the pilot versus the $1.2M adjustment. If pay gaps are confirmed at specific sites, fund targeted adjustments there rather than a blanket increase.
The logic: spend follows evidence, and the comparison group lets you attribute any change to the intervention rather than to seasonality or the market.