Say a fast-growing professional services firm in the region struggles to retain mid-level managers. Exit interviews consistently cite “career growth” and “new opportunities” as reasons for departure. Leadership decides to respond by increasing salaries, adding perks, speeding up promotions. But the turnover rate doesn’t fall, so what’s the next step?
It depends on the answer to the hard question: “Is it that people can’t see a future in their own career or just your company?”
This firm’s strategy hadn’t meaningfully changed in a decade. They served the same clients, offered the same services, and utilized outdated technology stacks. Even though it’s financially stable, high performers aren’t just looking for income. They’re looking for trajectory, challenges, and personal value growth. If the business isn’t changing, their role won’t either, no matter what new title is tacked on.
So this leadership team faces a difficult choice. They can continue to pile on incentives and hope retention stabilizes. (And it will, once all the high performers have left the organization.) Or they can confront whether the organization’s stagnation is the real issue impacting attrition. So before adding more perks, leadership should pause and ask three key questions:
Are we building a company that motivates employees to commit and have opportunities to grow it in new ways?
Are we including high performers in helping shape that vision?
Are we creating new capabilities or challenges that enable our best people to take ownership and lead?
Throwing money at an attrition problem feels decisive, but it’s also expensive. The hard choice isn’t whether to pay more, add more perks, or upgrade titles. It’s whether you’re willing to evolve your organization, eliminating auto-pilot decisions so your best people have a reason to stay.
+1
Andrea Belk Olson
This column is part of QCT Biz, a biweekly newsletter and quarterly business magazine, by the Quad-City Times. More articles, columns and the latest magazine can be found here.
