Why Your Frontline Employee Turnover Is High
26:20 Share

Why should you listen to the WorkLab podcast from Microsoft? Because it delivers actionable insights for business leaders on how to leverage AI to access untapped value, turbocharge decision-making, and sharpen their competitive edge. That's W-O-R-K-L-A-B, no spaces, available wherever you get your podcasts. Before we begin, we have a couple of questions. What do you love about HBR on Leadership? What do you want less of?

What would make HBR on Leadership even better? Tell us. Head over to hbr.org slash podcast survey to share your thoughts. We want to make the show even better, but we need your help to do that. So head to hbr.org slash podcast survey. Thank you. Welcome to HBR on Leadership, case studies and conversations with the world's top business and management experts, hand-selected to help you unlock the best in those around you.

Many companies struggle to retain low-wage employees, and executives often assume they leave for higher pay. But research suggests money is only the tip of the iceberg. It has way more to do with how companies treat, support, and develop these workers.

In this 2023 episode of HBR IdeaCast, host Kurt Nikish speaks with Harvard Business School's Joseph Fuller and Manjari Raman, co-authors of the HBR article, The High Cost of Neglecting Low-Wage Workers. They reveal how businesses underestimate the strategic importance of these essential employees, and how mentorship, career paths, and better job design can increase retention, performance, and morale.

The conversation begins with the surprising findings from Fuller and Rahman's research.

For your research, you looked at some broad data on jobs and wages. You also surveyed executives, and you also surveyed more than 1,000 low-wage workers. Why did you kind of put that combination of pictures together, and what did that help visualize for you? Well, Kurt, what we've done in our project on a number of occasions is to try to understand simultaneously the

the way business leaders view an issue or a problem, and also the way employees or job seekers see that same problem. And what we've consistently found is there are very often significant misconceptions almost always rooted in the business community.

about how the labor market works, about the attitudes of workers, about what causes workers to respond to anything from offers of training to quitting their job, and that by amplifying the opinions of workers, we can help inform decision makers in ways that broaden their understanding of an issue, cause them to make different decisions.

Give you a quick illustration. Most employers assume that when a low-wage worker quits their job, they're primarily motivated by the ability to make more at a different job. And that is a consideration about 40% of the time.

But the dominant consideration when a low-wage worker quits a job are transportation issues. How easy is it for me to get to and from work? That's almost two-thirds of the explanations are it's easier for me to get to this new job than to my current job. Employers are just not aware of that.

So let's describe these workers some more. Who are we talking about here? We're really talking about a rather large population of the U.S. workforce. These are about 40 to 44 percent of the U.S. workforce, which could come as a surprise to many. These are workers who were at or below the 200 percent of the poverty threshold, which quite simply translates into jobs and positions that

had them earning, they were all hourly wage earners earning less than $20. Now, $20 sounds a lot when we're talking about a metro like Boston and San Francisco with high expenses. It's not that much. But we also looked at many, many workers. A majority of them were earning below $15, below $10, and even $7 per hour. What we saw, and the pandemic highlighted actually,

was that these workers were essential to the business model of most companies and most industries. We were able to see that a large number of women are overrepresented in low-wage workforces, and that has big implications for how we want to think about this. Also, we saw that not all the folks in low-wage positions were women.

less educated. There were folks who even had four-year college degrees who were in low-wage positions. The other thing we did, which was very interesting, which was pre-pandemic, was we looked at a database of more than 180,000 job resumes of low-wage workers, and we compared them between 2012 and 2017. And we found that over five years in that period,

60% of workers were trapped in these low-wage positions, even if they had moved in a job. Yeah, you wrote in your article about how hourly wage increases were kind of a short-term solution, and that may underscore the misconception, right, that people are leaving for better pay, that it's really pay is just the simple motivating factor here for a low-wage worker. Yeah.

I think it's rooted in the logic that employers apply to low-wage work.

Low-wage workers are not really the subject of investment by companies. Many of them don't have career paths for low-wage workers. Often, low-wage workers are in fairly large work groups where there'll be 15, 20, even more than 20 workers per every supervisor.

Meaning that the next leg up in the ladder is pretty hard arithmetically to achieve because that supervisor has got to retire or leave and you have to be picked out of this group of 15, 20, 25 workers to get elevated to that role.

I think the fixation on wages really betrays the fact that most companies think about this purely through the economics. They don't think about attachment to work, low-wage workers or people who are capable of making great commitments to companies, loyal to companies, want to stay where they're currently working. More than half of low-wage workers' aspirations is to grow with the company they're currently working with.

That took many, many business people by surprise who assumed that a low-wage worker thinks about this in a mercenary way, which unfortunately largely is the way most employers think about it. A lot of these low-wage workers are actually dealing with many, many challenges, including

It's not simple and easy just to get to work. There's financial insecurity. There's food insecurity. There could be homelessness. And few companies think about what is happening to the lives of their workers outside the company.

Yeah, that word security jumped out at me. You know, you said in the article that it's not just, you know, more pay that these workers are looking for. They're looking for security, which is a different concept. But that also gives businesses more flexibility of what they can offer to those workers. The nuanced picture that comes out of this research, I think, puts low-wage workers in context, right?

that they do face, as Manjari was saying, challenges in their lives that are familiar to all of us, that you're taking care of a parent or a child, that you have to have reliable transport because you've got to be home because your kid's coming back from school and you don't want them to be alone. But that low-wage workers, once they get in an environment where they feel like they're being productive –

And they feel that they've got a supervisor that maybe isn't dedicated to advancing them, but is a decent person, isn't a sexist, isn't a racist. Low-wage workers skew to women, skew to ethnic minorities and racial minorities. So I'm in a community where I'm being productive. I've got some friends here. I've overcome that learning curve effect of both learning the role but also learning basic things like education.

how we do things around here and where do we all get lunch. Once people get settled in a comfortable environment like that, they will actually go to pretty great lengths to avoid putting themselves at risk

by going to another unfamiliar environment where the workers there might not be receptive to them coming on board, where the supervisor might demonstrate behaviors that are objectionable or frightening or otherwise demotivating to people. The notion of low-wage workers as people who are prepared to invest in building their future in a company if opportunities are provided them

is something we very much want to impress on businesses. Most low-wage workers' aspiration, over 60%, is to stay where I am if there are some opportunities for me to advance. The irony is that most companies have convinced themselves exactly in the opposite direction, which is high churn is a result and a constant phenomena in our low-wage positions.

It's almost as if managers are telling themselves, we know these jobs are, we are under-investing in these jobs. We are not helping support these workers. So let me just accept the idea that there's going to be a tremendous amount of churn.

The research actually shows that people are keen to stay, and if you were to invest in them, they would stay even longer and be more productive, which is then how they earn more. And it's not just about paying $1 more. It's about paying $1 more linked to higher productivity. So you've got a little bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy here where if you view them as mercenaries, they may end up acting like that rather than estimating the goodwill that those workers have.

I'm curious why you think companies have misjudged this so much. In many instances, it is a self-fulfilling prophecy, as you suggested, Kurt, that the policies and procedures of the company are honed, they're understood by everybody, and the basic assumptions underlining their original design are not being questioned.

Let's say I'm running a retailer and I regularly experience 70% turnover in my frontline retail staff. That's an eye-watering number. And so now I'm saying, how do I think about the job design of an entry-level retail worker? Well, it's got to be very simple because it's regularly occupied by somebody who's new to the job.

Am I going to make it more complex? Am I going to train that new worker up? Well, why would I invest their training when 70% of them leave every year? It would be a foolish investment. I'd just be training my competitors' future workers or some other company's future worker. And that whole logic is embedded in how we hire employees.

what skills we value when we evaluate applicants, what type of feedback we create, what types of attributes we value in that worker, what types of advancement opportunities we offer them. By having this logic, we create the very high level of turnover that we blame for

for imposing on the company the obligation to have large numbers of low-skill, low-paid workers. It's so embedded in the thinking of management and their business models that undoing that fundamental logic is something that never occurs to them.

It was quite hilarious, actually, when we did a whole number of interviews with business leaders. And there were those who got it and had the right logic and saw that there was much to be gained by investing in the three most important practices, which is provide mentorship to low-wage workers, help them figure out their career pathways, either inside the company or even outside the company, and

And thirdly, give them guidance on the learning and development and the skills that they needed. Most companies who get it figure out that the math on that works out much better than the hidden costs of high churn, high turnover, constant hiring, low morale, on and on and on.

Why should you listen to the Work Lab podcast from Microsoft? Because it delivers actionable insights on how business leaders can leverage AI to access untapped value, turbocharge decision making, and sharpen their competitive edge in a world of rapid change and economic uncertainty. In each episode, host Molly Wood has an illuminating conversation with a thought leader who has a vital perspective on AI and the future of work.

Find the knowledge you need on WorkLab. That's W-O-R-K-L-A-B, no spaces, available wherever you get your podcasts. Unlike any class, book, or podcast, Strawberry.me personal coaching gives you something unique, a professional partner who's 100% focused on your success.

It's not about advice. Your coach will ask the right questions, helping you uncover hidden strengths, break through obstacles, and move forward with confidence. If you're ready to unlock your full potential, visit strawberry.me.hbr for a $50 credit. That's strawberry.me.hbr.

So let's talk through some of those things that companies can and should be doing. When you talk about providing mentorship to a low-wage worker and having career advancement discussions, what can that look like? And maybe we can talk about some companies that have some success stories here. The best practices are, first of all, that there's a supervisor that's giving regular, actionable feedback.

The feedback's got to be regular chronologically, not strictly limited to when there's an annual performance review cycle. And it's got to be comprehensible and actionable for the listener, for the worker. Don't do it this way. Do it that way. Let me show you. Or if you had knowledge of these two additional processes, did you know that you might get promoted? Yeah.

or we're going to be changing the work environment here, let's say adding a new technology. Here are some ways for you to get familiar with that before we make the changeover.

It's very important also that companies have some set of pathways for people to advance, to become more productive, to be worthy of earning more, or to be qualified for promotion when opportunities exist or when the company expands. Now, those pathways, they can't just exist in a binder. They have to be communicated regularly, right?

in a way that the workers understand both that they're there, what they require, how to access them. And if you do those things, you're signaling that worker that you're committed to their improvement, that you care about their outcome, and you're providing workers with specific mechanisms

for being in a position to deserve to earn more, to be earning more because they're more productive, they're more flexible, they're a worker that is adding more value to the enterprise. One thing that we found that was quite startling in the research, Kurt, is that when you ask executives,

managers and frontline supervisors, they have very different understandings and beliefs about how effectively their company implements the types of policies I just talked about. The C-suite is absolutely adamant

that they do a very good job. But what they're really saying is we have policies, we have practices, we have binders, we tell supervisors to give good feedback. But when you get closer to that shop floor and you're actually asking someone to execute those policies, the fall off is dramatic.

And that disconnect between intentions and implementation is a big driver of the high turnover, low wage cycle that actually damages the prospects of workers and their employers simultaneously. It's ironic, but a lot of times these practices are being implemented in the company for higher skills, higher wages jobs.

And the implementation is weak for low wage workers. We, you know, in our interviews, we often heard we interviewed workers who had grown within the organization in the last three years and those who hadn't. And the ones who grew were folks where somebody, a mentor on the shop floor, reached out and said, I think you can do this.

I think you're capable of doing this. Even a little piece of positive feedback and a little bit of guidance went a long way. Many managers, on the other hand, said, well, if a low-wage worker wants to grow within the organization, why don't they just speak up? But it's actually very difficult to speak up and ask for a promotion or a pay raise if you're living day-to-day, check-by-check, and you're petrified that you lose the job you currently have.

So one of the key things that we need to fix in all of this is break down the assumptions that let people ask us just like higher skill, higher wage workers would do it. No, I think in this case you have to work top down and create the mechanisms, as Joe pointed out, for feedback to be given, for input, for the worker to be inspired and taken down a pathway of career enhancement. Are there...

companies or businesses that have successfully overcome this perception gap and have done good things that you think are good examples for other companies to look to? Well, yes. We're starting to see that very large employers, companies like Disney, Walmart, and Amazon are putting in a lot of effort in terms of thinking about how they attract low-wage workers, retain them, train them while they are in employment, foster

for better positions either within the organization or outside the organization. Disney, for example, has partnered with Valencia Community College in Florida. And imagine you have Haitian housekeepers.

Now, housekeeping is a very difficult job and usually has very high turnover. But Disney will offer such a person the ability to perhaps take English courses to learn the language better, perhaps take front office management courses. And so they have created pathways where you might see a housekeeper working.

move on to a front office, customer-facing position, which is no longer an hourly position and actually pays much better benefits and wages. It's also, we're seeing some innovations, Kurt, that are very encouraging from small and medium enterprises as well.

Smaller companies and medium-sized companies, management is closer to the workers literally and physically. And they have a better appreciation often of the stories behind the job description and the paycheck. A very innovative program in western Michigan called The Source is a good illustration of this.

The source is a confederation of local employers that have banded together to create essentially what amounts to case officers.

who can help the low-wage workers that work for those companies access all the various services that are available to them in Western Michigan. They could be services offered by a not-for-profit or a social entrepreneur. They could be state or local programs.

But it's designed to help workers solve problems that the HR department isn't equipped to solve, doesn't understand, doesn't have the resources to address. So if you go to the HR manager of your factory and say, I think I'm about to get evicted, what are they going to say?

I feel badly for you. But if they can say here's the – a local social entrepreneur that both helps people avoid eviction but also helps people who are about to be evicted find a place to make a smooth transition to stable living circumstance. Yeah.

That, of course, is very much in the interest of the employee, but this is doing well by doing good for the employer.

Because that worker isn't sleeping in their car. That worker isn't spending all their time on the job being worried about their kids having nowhere to go anymore after school. That worker isn't preoccupied by having the sheriff come up with an eviction notice. And so a lot of it has to do with companies saying, I understand these workers where they are.

what their life is like, where the role work plays in their life. And I can get a more productive worker, more likely to stay, more likely to speak well of me in the community, more likely to be anxious to perform well if I make investments that really speak to their needs and their ambitions.

One thing you found in your research is that companies sort of disregard the strategic importance of what we've called here essential workers, which is counterintuitive, right? It's essential, but they're overlooking the strategic importance of this labor force. Do you think that companies need to sort of step back and approach this as kind of like a war for low-wage workers that they have underestimated up until this point?

That's a great point. The war for talent is a zero-sum game where everybody's fighting to get to the bottom of the barrel. What we are saying is you've already got the talent in your companies. Find a way to retain them, grow them, encourage them. They will put word out that you're a great place to work and bring in more friends, families, neighbors applying to your open positions. Because if you don't do that and you have open positions...

You have hotels that don't have housekeepers. You have airlines that don't have baggage handlers. You have restaurants that have to shut down early. You have pharmacies that can't deliver. Basically, you're not able to deliver your business model.

So instead of going to war, it's much better to think about this in a constructive way in peacetimes and say, what could I be doing constructively to retain the talent I already have? The workers who have already signed up and say they want to work with me. As a manager...

It's a safe assumption that any process that you're supervising is perfectly designed to create the outcomes it regularly creates, not the outcomes you want it to create. So if companies are very satisfied with 70% turnover –

with low levels of engagement with workers, with poor performance on diversity, equity, and inclusion, they should just keep executing their current policies because that's what they're getting. But if they want to get a more engaged workforce, if they want to escape the war for talent, what they need to start doing is engaging the workers where they live and where they are

And they need to be revisiting fundamental elements of the policies and procedures they use to hire, retain, train, upskill, manage low-wage workers.

Low-wage workers are a disproportionately diverse. So they're an instant pool of talent for responding to DEI challenges. They already know your company. They already have shown commitment to your company. So rather than go into the spot market for labor to meet your needs,

Invest in upskilling who you've got, and you're going to have better all-in economics than the churn and burn model you're currently operating with. Joe and Manjari, thanks so much for coming on the show to talk about your research and sort of open our eyes here. Thanks a lot. Pleasure to be with you, Kurt. That was Harvard Business School's Joseph Fuller and Manjari Raman in conversation with Kurt Nikish on HBR IdeaCast.

We'll be back next Wednesday with another handpicked conversation about leadership from Harvard Business Review. If you found this episode helpful, share it with your friends and colleagues and follow our show on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts. While you're there, be sure to leave us a review. And when you're ready for more podcasts, articles, case studies, books, and videos with the world's top business and management experts, you'll find it all at hbr.org.

This episode was produced by Mary Du and me, Hannah Bates. Kurt Nikish is our editor. Music by Coma Media. Special thanks to Ian Fox, Maureen Hoke, Erica Truxler, Ramsey Khabbaz, Nicole Smith, Anne Bartholomew, and you, our listener. See you next week.