In brief

A customer case, with its context: a 500-person professional services firm, using Dynamics. Problem: 18% annual turnover and no clear view of the cause. Outcome in the scenario: turnover from 18% to 15%, a drop of 3 percentage points. Financial impact: roughly $2M a year, calculated on an assumed replacement cost. A calculated result, not a promise.

Status of the figures

The findings come from answers by employees who completed the questionnaire; the retention score is a calculated measure, not measured turnover. The savings figure at the end is a calculated scenario with assumed replacement costs, not a realised saving. The link between workplace and leaving is an expected association, not a proven effect.

The challenge

A 500-employee professional services firm faced 18% annual turnover despite competitive pay and a hybrid policy, but leaders lacked clarity on whether the issues were cultural, spatial, or related to hybrid work patterns.

The organization needed a data-driven view of how employees experience the workplace and how those experiences affect their likelihood of staying. They used Dynamics and achieved a 65% response rate, which is high but does not in itself show that every pattern in the organization is equally well represented. The distribution of responses across departments, locations and tenure is not stated in this case description.

What we assessed

The assessment examined workplace experience across five pillars that, in the model, relate to the expected likelihood that employees stay:

  1. Sentiment. How employees feel about their work: energy, inclusion, pride, and overall emotional climate.
  2. Workspace experience. How effectively the space enables focus, collaboration, and wellbeing.
  3. Cultural alignment. Alignment of lived experience with the organization's cultural drivers: autonomy, results, innovation, interpersonal.
  4. Schedule experience. Fit between employees' current hybrid rhythm and their preferred one, including predictability and team coordination.
  5. Activity fit. Whether office and remote setups support employees' activities.

The retention score (0-100%) is a calculated measure of how these pillars combined relate to employee retention. It is not measured turnover.

Key findings

Retention score: 62% (moderate risk, calculated)

Distribution:

  • 15% moderately low, low or very low
  • 30% average
  • 55% moderately high, high or very high

Top insights

  • Cultural misalignment around autonomy. Employees felt limited control over how and when they work. Workspace design and hybrid patterns did not fully support autonomy.
  • Workspace experience issues. Friction related to environmental comfort, privacy, noise, and workpoint usability went together with lower effectiveness and sentiment scores.
  • Inconsistent hybrid rhythms. Departments preferred different office days (mid-week versus end-week), which went together with unpredictable collaboration and coordination fatigue.
  • Activity fit challenges. Individual spaces lacked variety and size; meeting rooms didn't fit team needs or support hybrid work.
  • Newcomers felt less involved. Employees with under a year of tenure showed significantly lower involvement, possibly indicating early integration issues.

Possible levers for employee retention

Workspace

  • Expand the variety and suitability of individual workpoints.
  • Improve meeting room sizing and equipment for hybrid collaboration.
  • Strengthen environmental comfort and consistency.

Culture

  • Boost autonomy with clearer expectations and flexibility.
  • Improve connection through predictable collaboration rhythms.
  • Support newcomers with more structured integration practices.

Hybrid rhythm

  • Align departmental expectations on office days.
  • Increase the predictability of team presence.

Calculated scenario

A drop in turnover from 18% to 15% is 3 percentage points. For 500 employees that is 15 fewer leavers a year. With an assumed replacement cost of $135,000 per employee, this gives 15 × $135,000 = $2,025,000, roughly $2M. This is a calculated scenario built on an assumed cost, not a realised saving: the case does not show that turnover actually fell. Any productivity-related gains are not included.