MGMT 8725M Week 9 Retention Analysis Example

Resignations Dated Against the Talent Calendar: A Retention Analysis Timing Strong Performers' Exits From a Grocery Chain Against Its Annual Review, Separating Those Passed Over From Those Designated and Left Waiting, and Tracing Each Pattern to a Decision

Student Name

Walden University

MGMT 8725M: Human Resource Talent Management

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

Resignations Dated Against the Talent Calendar: A Retention Analysis Timing Strong Performers' Exits From a Grocery Chain Against Its Annual Review, Separating Those Passed Over From Those Designated and Left Waiting, and Tracing Each Pattern to a Decision

The Population

This analysis covers every assistant store manager and distribution center supervisor at Fenwick Markets who left voluntarily between April 2022 and March 2026 after receiving at least one "exceeds expectations" rating in the two years before leaving. There were 52. Fenwick holds its talent review each March; results reach employees in April, through a conversation with their district or center manager.

Exits by Months Since the Review

[after]

Exits are dated by the resignation notice, not the last day of work. Shares are rounded and so sum to 99%.

Exits cluster in the three months after the review: 21 of 52, against the 13 an even spread would predict. The cluster suggests that something communicated in April prompts a decision, which is consistent with the unfolding model of turnover (Lee & Mitchell, 1994), in which a jarring event, which they called a shock, leads an employee to reconsider staying, sometimes quickly.

Table 1

Voluntary Exits of Strong Performers by Months Since the Last Talent Review, April 2022 to March 2026

Two Groups, Two Patterns

[after]

The two groups behave differently. Undesignated strong performers leave in a cluster right after the review; designated people left waiting leave later, spread across the year, typically more than 18 months after being designated.

Table 2

Strong-Performer Exits by Designation Status

The Passed Over: A Fairness Reading

For the first group, the April conversation is the shock. Gelens et al. (2014) framed reactions to high-potential identification as a question of distributive justice, the perceived fairness of how outcomes are allocated, In one large company, they found that employees identified as high potentials rated distributive justice higher than colleagues who were not, and that this perceived fairness fully mediated the link between identification and job satisfaction. An assistant rated "exceeds" twice who learns in April that six others were listed, with no explanation of what would earn a place, has reason to see the allocation as unfair and to look elsewhere. The timing fits: the decision follows the news.

The Designated and Waiting: A Breach Reading

For the second group, the mechanism is a broken promise. Robinson and Rousseau (1994), following graduates of a management program through their first two years of work, found that a majority reported that their employers had failed to meet at least one obligation, so that broken obligations were the usual experience, not a rare one, and that perceived breach was related to lower trust and higher turnover. Fenwick's designation conversation tells listed assistants they can expect a store within 18 months. When that date passes, the promise is broken, and the timing of exits tracks the expiry of the promise rather than the review calendar.

Decisions Behind Each Pattern

The first pattern traces to the calibration outcome and how it is communicated: a list announced without criteria or a route for those left off. The second traces to the promise made at designation, a store within 18 months, which Fenwick has met for fewer than half of those it listed since 2021.

The Lever That Keeps Differentiation

Fenwick can change both decisions without abandoning a list. For the first group, the April conversation could state the criteria for designation and give each strong performer a specific next step, such as an acting stint. For the second, Fenwick could stop promising a time frame it cannot control and instead promise specific development experiences, which it can.

Limits

The analysis rests on 52 exits, and exit interview reasons are self-reported. A comparison with strong performers who stayed would show whether the April shock affects them too. The analysis also cannot separate the review from other spring events, such as the annual pay increase announced in the same month; if exits cluster after the pay announcement in a year when the two are held apart, the fairness reading weakens.

References

Gelens, J., Hofmans, J., Dries, N., & Pepermans, R. (2014). Talent management and organisational justice: Employee reactions to high potential identification. Human Resource Management Journal, 24(2), 159-175. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12029

Lee, T. W., & Mitchell, T. R. (1994). An alternative approach: The unfolding model of voluntary employee turnover. Academy of Management Review, 19(1), 51-89. https://doi.org/10.2307/258835

Robinson, S. L., & Rousseau, D. M. (1994). Violating the psychological contract: Not the exception but the norm. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15(3), 245-259. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030150306