click for context

A Workforce Risk Briefing

This matrix is the decision layer, converting insights from the previous three charts into clear executive actions. It positions roles by business criticality and risk exposure to prescribe proportionate responses, rather than diagnosing attrition itself. The key takeaway is that not all attrition warrants the same reaction: some roles demand aggressive retention, others justify automation or simplification, while some should simply be monitored. Leaders should use this matrix after identifying risk location, cause, and timing to apply the appropriate quadrant strategy — retain, automate, reinforce culture, or maintain. This chart answers what leadership should do next.

This chart visualizes how hiring intensity intersects with attrition severity across role groups, highlighting where recruitment demand and workforce loss collide. Roles positioned high on attrition severity represent greater operational or knowledge impact when employees exit, while higher hiring intensity reflects replacement pressure. The key insight is that attrition risk is not evenly distributed: roles with high severity but lower hiring volumes signal concentrated knowledge risk, whereas roles high on both axes indicate immediate operational strain. The recommended approach is to prioritize retention and capability protection for high-severity roles, while pairing high-volume hiring roles with short-term retention and onboarding stabilization measures. This chart establishes where attrition risk is structurally embedded.

This view examines who holds critical knowledge by mapping average role experience against attrition severity. It reveals whether high-impact attrition is occurring in deeply experienced roles or disproportionately among less experienced staff. The key takeaway is the identification of talent debt: when attrition severity is high but average experience is low, essential knowledge is fragile, underdeveloped, or poorly transferred. The recommended response is proactive knowledge reinforcement — accelerated mentoring, documentation, shadowing, and succession planning — to reduce dependency on individual contributors. This chart explains why attrition in certain roles is especially dangerous.

This timeline tracks attrition pressure momentum over time, using volatility bands and a critical risk zone to distinguish normal fluctuation from systemic instability. Rather than isolated spikes, sustained breaches of the normal range indicate compounding exit risk and historically precede mass resignations. The key takeaway is timing: attrition becomes most dangerous when pressure remains elevated across consecutive periods. The recommended action is to treat breaches as operational triggers, prompting immediate interventions such as manager outreach, workload correction, and retention conversations. This chart clarifies when attrition risk is escalating and requires intervention.