Policies Aren’t Enough to Retain Top Talent. You Need Systems.

What separates companies where talent stays from those where it doesn’t? It’s not their industry, size, or budget. It’s whether their talent practices work as a system. We came to that conclusion after analyzing comprehensive government administrative records tracking nearly 1 million workers across 1,500 firms in Singapore—every hire, promotion, and wage change over multiple years at every company in the country that had 100 or more employees. We used that data to evaluate and score those companies on 12 specific factors related to five important dimensions of employment: Hiring practices Compensation levels Advancement Parity Retention Unlike surveys that rely on what companies or individuals report that they do, this dataset shows how workers’ careers actually evolve over time and provides an unprecedented window into how and when workers switch jobs. The patterns are stark. Workers in identical occupations make very different decisions about whether to stay, depending on their employer’s practices. Employees at companies in the top quintile of our index were 2.2 times more likely to stay past year one and earned 3.4 times as much as employees at companies in the bottom quintile. Employer choices, not external forces, underlie the difference. Consider the example of lowering degree requirements, a step often promoted as leading to improved retention. Take a chance on less-qualified talent, the argument goes, and those you hire from non-traditional backgrounds will reward you by staying longer. Our past research has suggested such a relationship. But our new dataset, which is uniquely granular, reveals a messier reality: Most of the increased retention is concentrated at a subset of firms. Among companies with lower degree requirements, 45% suffer from a revolving door phenomenon—regular hiring followed by rapid turnover. Only 22% benefit from high retention. Similarly, those offering competitive pay without pursuing complementary policies along other dimensions of employment gain no advantage in terms of long-term employee loyalty. Those that promote rapidly without transparent standards actually weaken retention. The data reveals a profound reality: Individual practices, deployed in isolation, generally fail to deliver much benefit in terms of reducing turnover and building a deep, experienced workforce. The top-performing companies aren’t necessarily those with the most progressive policies or biggest HR budgets. They are those that have coherent, integrated systems—in which hiring aligns with onboarding capacity, in which pay strategies complement career visibility, and in which advancement reinforces rather than contradicts retention. The data teach us four lessons about designing such systems. Open doors require infrastructure. Skills-first hiring expands applicant pools, but nearly half (48%) of companies fail to retain first-time workers for an average of one year. Reducing barriers to accessing opportunity without providing structured onboarding, fielding capable managers, and developing visible progression pathways does little to offset talent shortages at those firms. Firms that enjoy high levels of retention distinguish themselves by having competitive starting wages and by focusing their hiring on workers with prior employment experience. They don’t look to untested, first-time workers to meet their needs. Skills-first practice is about finding new ways to recruit those with proven capabilities, regardless of whether they have a degree, not lowering standards. For such firms, benefiting from a skills-first approach involves implementing complementary recruiting and compensation policies. Notably, high-retention, low-barrier firms also outperform on hiring and retaining older workers, a signal of broad policy consistency. Pay is table stakes, not the solution. Competitive starting pay shows a 42% correlation with first-year retention, but its influence weakens dramatically over time. Ongoing wage growth shows only a weak connection to long-term employee loyalty. What anchors people to any given employer is recognizing expertise and creating transparent pathways to advancement. Both correlate significantly with continued retention. Advancement without fairness backfires. A higher probability of advancement alone shows at best a weak correlation with long-term retention. Companies that promote rapidly without transparent, merit-based standards create cultures where talented employees leave as quickly as they rise. By contrast, industries that approach median gender parity on advancement and pay show stronger retention and mobility—evidence that fair systems complement rather than constrain performance. Experience creates a multiplier effect. Companies that excel at both the retention of older workers and the development of leaders from within are 55 percentage points more likely to achieve high rates of retention overall. When experienced employees stay, junior workers see stability modeled, and the pool of mid-career talent deepens along with the company’s knowledge base. The leadership pipeline grows organically as a result. . . . None of this is to say that top-performing companies follow identical playbooks. Some build deep expertise through vertical promotion. Others develop breadth through lateral moves. Still others nurture talent so effectively that success of their former workers enhances their reputation. But they share one critical trait: internal coherence. And that coherence, perhaps, is what actually generates culture (a term that is often used but seldom well-defined). Cultures that lead to talent staying around don’t arise from mission statements or isolated policies. Rather, they are a function of systems where core practices align, where hiring models, pay structures, and advancement philosophies, whatever they are, reinforce one another. Employees respond to that alignment by demonstrating significantly higher levels of commitment, as the data that we gathered from a million workers—across every sector, across firms both large and small, in a highly competitive economy—plainly shows.

Policies Aren’t Enough to Retain Top Talent. You Need Systems.

Summary.

Partner Center