Exit trends show one water-plant manager is the common factor in six resignations. Finance proposes a citywide stay bonus. What should HR do with the offboarding data?
Select an answer to reveal the explanation.
Short Explanation
If the same manager is in every goodbye note, a citywide bonus is paying people to stay in a burning kitchen. Fix the stove. Trend data is supposed to change the real cause.
Full Explanation
Exit trends showing one water-plant manager as the common factor in six resignations mean offboarding data should trigger a leadership intervention, not a generic citywide stay bonus as the first move. Paying people to stay in a burning kitchen leaves the stove on. Civic retention spend should follow cause, and the cause here is concentrated in one manager.
Approving the stay bonus and archiving the exit file as complete fails by concept: money does not fix the managerial pattern. Ignoring the manager pattern because bonuses are easier to administer fails analytical duty. Publishing the six names in a council packet as a warning fails confidentiality and turns analytics into spectacle.
Exam caveat: intervene with due process—investigate themes, coach or discipline based on evidence, protect exiting employees' identities in materials. Operational check: open a leadership review of the manager, pause blanket bonuses as the primary response, and re-check exits from that unit after intervention. Public employers should record the chosen control and rejected options in the talent or labor file so future leaders understand how the decision protects continuity of resident services. Re-validate the same control after the next operating cycle against current staffing, budget, and bargaining constraints.