3 ms·

30-50% attrition sounds insane. Which companies do you base this observation on?

• Jensson 4y ago
  Most "attrition" figures are based on average tenure in exponentially growing companies like Amazon or Google. Real attrition is much lower than those figures.
• deathanatos 4y ago
  This of all things got the responses. Look at the makeup of your team/division/company (as outward as you can): how many are past 2 years? 3yr? If the answer is "few" and "extremely few", P(attrition per year) has to match.
  • sgerenser 4y ago
    That’s only true if the company is not hiring anyone. Attrition can be 0, but headcount doubles year over year and you have half your employees with <1 year of tenure.
    • deathanatos 4y ago
      You should still be seeing (significant) headcount over the 2yr mark, and the places I've worked at, you don't. (Of the portion of the headcount that existed at that time minus 2yrs, ofc., i.e., yes, ignore hiring.) > Attrition can be 0, but headcount doubles year over year and you have half your employees with <1 year of tenure. I really should have stated it more clearly. It's a contrived example. I suppose a better way would be "of the people who started ahead of me, how many remain?" or so; the hard part is that the company has all the data, and often doesn't release it. 4%, though, corresponds to an average tenure that's preposterous when nobody stays for much over 2yr, and particularly much over 3yr. At one employer I worked at, I know that when I hit the 3yr mark, there were 5 people that remained who were there when I started. I would estimate there were ~60 people at start. That attrition, over 3yr, corresponds to a rate of ~56% YoY. And that employer is not at all unique or distinguished in that regard. People leave — why would they stay?