Why the cost of poor management rises when quit rates fall

---

American workers quit 3.2 million jobs in June 2026, against 4.5 million in November 2021 at the top of the Great Resignation. The quit rate has sat flat at 2 per cent for a year. Recruiters have room to breathe, vacancies stay open for longer without anyone panicking, and the labour market reads as calm from any distance.

The exit interviews collected over the same period describe something less comfortable, because the cost of poor management has climbed while quitting has fallen.

The Work Institute’s 2026 Retention Report codes 15,424 exit interviews from 2025 against a back catalogue of more than 120,000. Concerns about manager behaviour are up by nearly 30 per cent. Career development still leads the table at 19.2 per cent of departures, with development-related exits up 33 per cent, and worries about job security have doubled as people work out what AI does to their role.

Work Institute sells exit interview programmes, so the categories are their own coding of what leavers said, and the full report sits behind a registration form.

The cost of poor management used to arrive as a resignation

Four years ago, a manager who cancelled every one-to-one and only gave feedback when something broke produced a resignation inside a couple of months. That resignation appeared in a turnover report. Someone in HR spotted three from the same team, and the whole thing landed as a number you could price, because Gallup puts replacing one person at half to twice their annual salary. Painful, quick, and attached to a name.

The same manager today produces someone who stays.

That person stops putting their hand up for the difficult project. They stop applying for internal roles, because the reference conversation runs through the manager they have given up on. They stop telling good people to apply. None of it appears in a recruitment budget, so the cost of poor management shifts off the turnover line and onto the payroll, where no standard HR dashboard goes looking for it. You carry it every month until the market loosens, and then you pay the replacement cost as well.

The doubling of job security concerns runs through the same person. People want to know which parts of their job AI is going to take, and the manager is who they ask. Most managers have not been told either, so they improvise.

Exit interviews might be flattering the leaver

Someone resigning into a nervous market needs a better reason than they did in 2021. “My manager made the job impossible” justifies a risky move to a partner, a mortgage adviser and yourself in a way that “I fancied a change” does not, so a 30 per cent rise in complaints about managers could reflect a shift in what leavers are willing to say out loud rather than a shift in what managers are doing.

Gallup found 51 per cent of leavers had no conversation with their manager, or with any other leader, about their satisfaction or their future in the three months before they resigned, and 52 per cent believed the organisation could have kept them.

Which of your people are staying because they cannot move?

Loyalty and immobility produce identical engagement scores. Employee loyalty has turned conditional, with people holding their position while withdrawing the discretionary part of the job, which is the part nobody wrote into the contract and everybody depends on. That withdrawal is where the cost of poor management shows up first, months before anyone books an exit interview.

Internal movement is what separates the two groups. Count applications for internal vacancies by team, then count the people who applied last year and have not applied since. A team where nobody applies for anything is either perfectly placed or thoroughly stuck, and the organisations getting internal mobility right tend to find that out from the application data long before it reaches an exit interview.

Costing management by the manager rather than by the leaver

Gallup has measured 2.5 million work units over two decades and puts at least 70 per cent of the variance in engagement at the level of the manager. The variance already sits with the individual manager. Turnover reporting rolls up by function or by site, which parks the number one level above the person generating it.

Worth a look next time you are building the business case for management development: regretted attrition, early-tenure exits and internal application rates reported by named manager on a rolling twelve months. Small teams make those numbers noisy, so it works better as a prompt for a conversation than as a league table. A finance director will recognise the shape of it straight away, because it is the same argument as cost per unit by production line, and it turns the cost of poor management into something with an owner rather than a category in an engagement survey.