Wow... that's not an easy question to ask, and it's even harder to answer. Especially in a labour market where every departure can feel like bad news. And yet, if I had to answer honestly, I would say: not always.
Not every departure is necessarily bad news. In some situations, trying to keep an employee at all costs can actually lead us to postpone a decision that, sooner or later, probably needed to be made anyway.
Keeping people for the right reasons
Let's be clear: constantly losing good employees is a problem. It's expensive. It puts pressure on teams. It leads to a loss of expertise and forces managers to continuously restart the cycle of recruiting, onboarding and training. But the opposite isn't necessarily better.
A very low turnover rate doesn't automatically mean an organization is healthy. Sometimes people stay... but they're no longer really there. They do their job. They know the organization. They deliver what's expected of them. But the motivation, the drive to move forward or simply the enjoyment of contributing aren't quite the same. And eventually, a team feels it.
Organizations evolve. Employees do too. Someone may have been exactly the right person for a role for five or ten years and simply reach a point where their aspirations no longer align with what the organization can offer. That's not necessarily a failure. Sometimes it's simply the end of a chapter.
When we try to keep people at all costs
I've seen organizations make tremendous efforts to keep an employee because they possessed expertise that would be difficult to replace. The first instinct is predictable. Increase the salary. Change the title. Add more flexibility. Modify responsibilities. Make a counteroffer. In short, we pull every tool out of the toolbox and sometimes end up creating internal equity issues with colleagues along the way.
And six months later, we're back exactly where we started. Why? Because we tried to address the conditions surrounding the departure without truly understanding what made the person want to leave in the first place.
An employee who no longer enjoys their work, no longer sees themselves in the organization, wants something different in their career or simply feels they have outgrown their role will not suddenly become engaged again because of an 8% salary increase. It may work in the short term, but more often than not it simply postpones the problem while creating an imbalance in internal equity.
The departure we were determined to avoid
I often think about one organization we worked with. A long-time employee was considering leaving. They held significant knowledge, and their manager was convinced that their departure would create a major gap within the team. The reaction was clear: we had to keep them.
But as we explored the situation further, something became obvious. The employee was still doing their job well, but they hadn't truly been engaged for quite some time. Their interests had changed. Their ambitions had changed as well. We could have offered more.
But more of what? More money? A new title? A few extra responsibilities? None of those options truly addressed what they were looking for. The organization ultimately accepted the departure and focused on creating a smart transition. And something interesting happened. Another person on the team stepped into additional responsibilities. Certain ways of working were re-evaluated. New ideas emerged. A few months later, the manager admitted that the team had regained an energy they didn't even realize had been missing. The departure they had worked so hard to avoid ended up creating an opportunity.
Not all losses are equal
Of course, there are employees worth fighting for. When a high-performing, engaged employee who is important to the future of the organization is considering leaving for a reason we can actually address, we should take action. But we also need to be able to distinguish between retaining talent and delaying a departure. They're not the same thing. And that's probably where many organizations would benefit from changing the way they think about retention.
Instead of simply asking: What is our turnover rate? Maybe we should be asking: Who did we lose? Why did they leave? And who do we absolutely want to keep?
An 8% turnover rate can be concerning if your best employees are leaving. A 15% turnover rate can be far less troubling if the organization is retaining key people, developing future leaders and attracting new skills. The number alone doesn't tell the whole story.
And what about counteroffers?
This is often where emotions start influencing the decision. A strong employee receives an offer from a competitor. The manager panics. We look at the salary and immediately start asking how much we would need to offer to make them stay.
Before answering, I always come back to one simple question: Why did they start looking elsewhere in the first place?
If the answer is purely financial and we realize we are no longer competitive, there may indeed be something we need to address. But if the employee is looking for career growth that we cannot provide, a different environment or simply a new challenge, matching a competitor's salary probably won't change much in the long run.
A counteroffer can be an excellent decision. However, it should never be driven by fear. Before pulling out the cheque book, it's worth taking a step back. Is the issue really salary, or are we trying to compensate for something else? A lack of growth opportunities? A lack of recognition? An employee who has been gradually disengaging for some time? And perhaps most importantly, what impact will that decision have on internal equity? Because a counteroffer made in a moment of panic can sometimes send a message that is difficult to explain to the rest of the team. A counteroffer should be a thoughtful and strategic decision. Not a last-minute reaction.
Knowing when to retain and when to let go
I strongly believe in the importance of retaining great employees. However, I don't believe in retention at all costs.
Let me explain. A successful organization is not one where nobody ever leaves. It's an organization where the right people want to stay, where they feel they can contribute and grow, and where managers recognize when someone's journey has simply reached its natural conclusion. Sometimes letting someone leave respectfully is also a good management decision. With respect. Without burning bridges.
Because a former employee can become an ambassador, a client or a business partner. They may even return a few years later with experience they could never have gained by staying.
Taking a step back before trying to retain
At Bedard ressources, we help organizations and their managers navigate challenges related to employee retention, engagement, talent development, performance management and succession planning. Sometimes our role is simply to help a manager take a step back before reacting. Because the right decision is not always to keep someone. And it's not always to let them go.
The right decision is to understand who you want around the table for the next chapter... and why.
For more information about our HR consulting services, please contact Stephane Pepin. Our team works with organizations across Quebec to implement practical, people-focused and effective solutions tailored to their unique realities and business challenges.
