Skills, productivity, reputation: the cost of staff resignations in SMEs

From our own experience, but also from various studies – I would cite, amongst others, those carried out by Eures and Assolombarda – it is clear that young people, in particular, are drawn to large, well-structured companies: that is, those offering a degree of contractual stability and career prospects, perhaps even through internal mobility. It would be wrong, however, to think that SMEs have nothing to offer; quite the contrary. Consider, for example, the flat hierarchy, which offers proximity to the owners or to those who make the real decisions, the speed of the decision-making process, and the opportunity to make a tangible contribution to the growth of the business. The problem arises when the informality of relationships is confused with good people management: being a small company does not automatically mean knowing, listening to and valuing one’s staff according to objective criteria. And this is where the utmost attention must be paid.

Is pay almost never the main reason for resigning? Does a better financial offer therefore carry less weight than the sense of well-being one can experience within a company?

We must move away from the idea that our working life is separate from our private life, as this is a simplistic view that does not reflect reality. Those who thrive at work and feel fulfilled, engaged and aligned – because they have the opportunity to express themselves professionally and believe they can contribute to the company’s success – are likely to carry this sense of satisfaction over into their personal lives. But the reverse is also true: an environment in which one feels useless or in which one’s work goes unrecognised – and a salary is a form of recognition, as is a permanent contract – also affects mental wellbeing and private life. We must also bear in mind, however, that we do not need the same working environment or the same company offerings at every stage of our lives, as our financial needs and the need to balance ‘work and private life’ change. I believe it is important to emphasise that wellbeing does not mean comfort: those who seek to feel good do not ‘take their foot off the gas’, and it is not true that they are unwilling to make sacrifices for the company; they simply want a balance.

How can we gauge whether greater transparency in communication regarding welfare and benefits helps to prevent people from leaving their jobs?

I believe it is essential to assess how much employees know about the benefits available to them, how much they make use of them and, above all, how useful they consider them to be. We realise that candidates are often unaware of their ‘total remuneration’. It often happens that just before signing the contract, they only realise certain details, such as the number of meal vouchers, whether the insurance covers family members (or not), the hours worked, and whether there are other welfare provisions that are often overlooked. Here too, it all comes down to communication: asking about and monitoring what is being used and what isn’t, whilst gathering feedback from employees.

In SMEs, where the person conducting the exit interview may well be the very person the employee is leaving, is there a ‘reliable’ method for turning the feedback received into verifiable changes? 

There is no foolproof method, we have to admit. We are complex beings, and there is almost never a single reason why an employee leaves a company. High-quality ‘exit interviews’ are very difficult to conduct because there is a risk of skimming the surface and failing to gather useful information. Particularly in small and medium-sized enterprises, where resignations are often seen as a personal affront, it would be helpful if the exit interview were conducted by a trained external consultant. Of course, the employee must be willing to provide genuinely useful information, but with the right approach, sufficient time set aside, a genuine show of interest and, naturally, without invading their personal privacy, some useful insights will always emerge.

Let’s conclude with a sort of ‘call to action’. What measures should be put in place to reduce avoidable out-of-hospital deaths?

The first would be not to focus on employee satisfaction only when they hand in their notice. There is a need for structured opportunities for dialogue and for managers who are able to listen, provide feedback and clarity on career prospects, draw up career plans and pay attention to changing individual needs. These measures are not necessarily costly, but they require consistency, coherence and, above all, time – not least to foster the climate of trust that allows employees to express themselves freely. To assess their true effectiveness, one cannot look solely at staff turnover: one must also measure the working atmosphere, absenteeism, engagement and, above all, the avoidable resignations of staff whom the company would have liked to retain. The aim is not to prevent people from leaving – which is, in any case, impossible – but to ensure they do not do so because of issues that we could have addressed.