We Couldn’t Afford to Keep Them. Then We Paid More to Replace Them.

I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve heard it.

“There isn’t any budget.”

“We’d love to increase salaries, but the funding isn’t there.”

“Everyone is under pressure.”

“We just need to get through this year.”

So people stay.

They absorb more work.

They take on additional responsibilities.

They cover vacancies.

They manage growing waiting lists.

They support increasingly complex workloads.

They do the work of two people because they believe in the mission.

Then one day they leave.

And suddenly the impossible becomes possible.

The role is advertised.

Sometimes at a higher salary.

Sometimes with additional benefits.

Sometimes split into two roles because the workload was never realistic in the first place.

And people are left wondering:

“If the money existed now, why didn’t it exist six months ago?”

Of course, it isn’t always that simple.

Funding changes.

Markets change.

Recruitment becomes harder.

But there is a question organisations need to ask themselves:

At what point does retaining good people become cheaper than replacing them?

Because replacing someone is expensive.

Not just financially.

There is recruitment.

Training.

Induction.

Lost knowledge.

Lost relationships.

Reduced morale.

And in services supporting vulnerable people, there is often another cost.

The impact on the people we support.

The client who loses a trusted worker.

The client who has to retell their story/concern.

The waiting list that grows while a vacancy sits unfilled.

What strikes me most is that many staff are not asking to become wealthy.

Most understand the realities of the sector.

They understand funding pressures.

They understand uncertainty.

What they struggle with is feeling invisible.

Watching their role expand year after year whilst being told there is no flexibility, only to see flexibility appear once they are gone.

People can tolerate a lot when they feel valued.

They can tolerate pressure.

They can tolerate uncertainty.

They can even tolerate salaries that are not where they should be.

What becomes much harder to tolerate is the feeling that their contribution is only fully recognised once they have handed in their notice.

Perhaps the question isn’t whether organisations can afford to pay people more.

Perhaps the question is whether organisations can afford not to.

Because every time an experienced, committed and knowledgeable employee walks out of the door, they take something with them that no recruitment budget can easily replace.

And by the time the vacancy is advertised, the real cost has often already been paid.

The most expensive employee is often not the one asking for a pay rise.

It’s the one who leaves.