Treat Your Retention Problem Like an Engineering Problem

Engineering organisations are used to solving difficult problems with evidence. When a process drifts, a component fails, or quality falls, teams gather data, examine the system, identify possible causes and test interventions. Yet when experienced people leave, the response can be far less disciplined.

Melissa Sabella of The Honeycomb Works argues that organisations struggling with retention should use the engineering mindset they already possess. Her advice is to examine the evidence, understand where problems are occurring, identify what is working well and then experiment with interventions to see what actually changes the outcome.

That approach starts by refusing to treat all attrition as the same problem. A graduate leaving after 18 months may be reacting to limited opportunities for development. A mid-career engineer may be frustrated by management, workload or lack of autonomy. A highly experienced specialist approaching retirement presents a different challenge, particularly if critical knowledge sits largely in that individual’s head.

A single company-wide retention initiative can therefore miss the real causes. Better evidence might include exit themes, internal mobility, promotion patterns, absence data, team-level turnover, engagement data, and qualitative conversations with people who have chosen to stay. The objective is not to reduce people to a dashboard. It is to understand where the organisation is losing capability and why.

Sabella also links retention to the environment in which technical people work. Organisations tackling complex problems need diverse groups who feel able to challenge ideas, share information and take risks. Psychological safety may seem detached from engineering performance, but a team that is reluctant to raise concerns or question assumptions is also a team where technical risk can remain hidden.

That makes retention a capability issue rather than simply an HR measure. When an experienced engineer leaves, the organisation can lose customer context, process knowledge, design rationale and informal relationships that took years to develop. Replacing the job title does not necessarily replace that capability.

The engineering response is to define the problem more precisely. Where is knowledge concentrated? Which roles take the longest to replace? Which managers retain people well, and what are they doing differently? Are development opportunities visible? Do technical specialists have progression routes that do not force them into management? Are teams learning from near misses in culture in the same way they would learn from technical incidents?

Interventions can then be tested. A mentoring programme, a change in management practice, clearer technical career paths, more structured knowledge transfer or greater flexibility may improve retention in one area and make little difference in another. Measurement allows the organisation to distinguish between activity and impact.

The skills shortage is real, and recruitment will remain essential. But in a market where experienced engineering talent is difficult to replace, losing people unnecessarily is one of the most expensive capability problems a business can create for itself.

The encouraging part of Sabella’s argument is that engineering organisations already know how to deal with complex systems. The same curiosity, evidence and willingness to test assumptions can be applied to the workforce that makes every other engineering outcome possible.

Advanced Engineering takes place at the NEC Birmingham on 4-5 November 2026.