When Your Best People Leave
Before They Resign

Most organisations find out that someone is leaving when the resignation arrives. By then, the decision may have been taking shape for months. The warning signs were probably there, but they did not necessarily look like a retention problem at the time.

We have written before about what operational pressure reveals: colleagues who gradually stop putting forward ideas, questions that change in tone, and performance figures that remain reassuring even as people become increasingly stretched. This time, we want to look at the practical side. What should leaders pay attention to, who is likely to notice the changes first, and how do we start the right conversation before it is too late?

What the numbers do not tell us

Operational KPIs are indispensable in an airport. We need to know whether security waiting times are under control, whether resources are being used effectively and whether the operation is delivering what passengers and regulators expect. But a KPI tells us what the operation is delivering, not necessarily what it is asking of the people who deliver it.

We have seen periods when waiting times remained on target because colleagues elsewhere in the operation worked harder, absorbed last-minute changes or compensated for shortages. On the dashboard, performance looked stable. On the floor, the same result felt very different. Neither picture was wrong; the mistake would have been to look at only one of them.

In our earlier article, Summer Doesn’t Build Culture. It Reveals It., we argued that pressure often exposes weaknesses that have been developing for some time. Staff departures can be one of the consequences, although by the time turnover becomes visible in a monthly report, the opportunity to change someone’s mind may already have passed.

Three small changes that deserve attention

These are not measurements to add to an already crowded dashboard, and they should not be treated as proof that someone intends to leave. They are changes in behaviour that deserve a conversation. Surveys have their place, but leaders can often recognise these signals simply by being close enough to the operation to notice.

People contribute less

A colleague who normally offers suggestions becomes quiet in meetings. Someone who used to challenge an idea now accepts it without much discussion. That can be a sign of fatigue, frustration or simply a period of personal pressure. The point is not to draw an immediate conclusion, but to notice the difference and ask what has changed.

The questions from employee representatives change

Union representatives and safety representatives are often among the first to hear that something is beginning to trouble people. The conversations may initially be exploratory rather than formal complaints. If the same concerns start appearing in a different form, it is worth listening carefully. Those representatives are not an obstacle to be managed; they can be an important source of insight into the health of the operation.

People stop doing the things they once did voluntarily

The colleague who used to help someone new, cover a difficult shift or suggest a practical improvement may begin to stick strictly to the requirements of the role. Nobody has necessarily done anything wrong. But when willingness to contribute beyond the minimum starts to disappear across a team, we should be interested in why.

The people closest to the operation usually notice first

Frontline supervisors, middle managers and specialists are often best placed to recognise these changes because they see how people work together every day. Yet they are also the people most likely to have their attention consumed by immediate operational demands. If leadership conversations focus almost entirely on whether the numbers are green, the observations that do not fit neatly into a KPI can easily be lost.

One of the simplest habits we can establish is to make room for a regular, unhurried conversation and ask: “What are you seeing that I might be missing?” Then allow the other person to answer. Experienced leaders know how tempting it is to explain, correct or offer a solution too early. Sometimes the most useful thing we can do is listen long enough to understand the situation properly.

The same applies to conversations with union and safety representatives. And it applies to the time we spend in staff areas, with teams and in everyday dialogue rather than only at formal meetings. Presence is not valuable because a manager has been seen walking around. It is valuable when it creates enough trust for someone to say what they would otherwise have kept to themselves.

Have the conversation before the decision is made

An exit interview may teach us something, but it rarely changes the decision that has already been made. A conversation about why someone stays, and what could make them leave, gives us a much better chance of acting in time. It does not need a complicated process. Four straightforward questions can open up a useful discussion:

1. What is working well enough here that you want to stay?
2. What is making your job harder than it needs to be?
3. Is there anything we are asking of you without explaining clearly enough why?
4. If you could change one thing about the way we work, what would it be?

The questions matter, but what happens afterwards matters more. If someone is willing to be candid, we should acknowledge what we have heard, explain what can and cannot be changed, and return to the conversation. A small, visible improvement builds more confidence than a broad promise that is never mentioned again.

In our experience, the question about why deserves particular attention. People are often willing to carry a demanding workload when they understand the purpose and trust that the burden is being recognised and shared fairly. When that understanding disappears, frustration can develop quietly long before it becomes visible as turnover.

Why this matters for planning, safety and performance

Retention is not just an HR issue. It affects the airport’s ability to plan the operation. Forecasts for the next summer often include an assumption about staff turnover, sometimes based largely on the previous year. But the number alone tells us little about whether departures are likely to increase, which skills we may lose or how much capacity will be needed to recruit and train replacements. In security screening, rebuilding that capability takes months rather than weeks.

Our article on summer peak planning addressed the importance of using realistic turnover assumptions. Listening to the organisation is part of understanding the number behind that assumption. We will return to the workforce planning implications in December.

There is also a less obvious connection to safety and compliance. When people lose confidence that speaking up makes a difference, they may become less inclined to report minor problems, challenge established practices or share early warnings. Fewer reports can be mistaken for fewer issues. That is a dangerous assumption in any operation, and particularly in one where safety and security depend on people being willing to raise concerns.

Five questions for the next leadership meeting

Rather than adding another metric, we would start by making space for five questions that are worth revisiting regularly:

1. When did someone last tell us something we did not want to hear, and how did we respond?
2. Who is most likely to notice a change in morale before we do, and do we make time to listen?
3. What are we currently asking people to do without explaining the reasons clearly enough?
4. Which good-looking KPIs depend on another part of the organisation quietly absorbing the cost?
5. If several of our most experienced colleagues left over the next six months, what would we lose besides headcount?

A leadership responsibility, not another initiative

The answer is not a new programme every time the organisation shows signs of strain. It is a more consistent way of leading: staying close to the people who know the operation, being prepared to hear uncomfortable truths and showing that those conversations influence decisions.

A strong airport operation depends on colleagues who notice when something is wrong and feel able to say so. If those people withdraw, the organisation loses information long before it loses staff. And when several pressures arrive at the same time, that loss of awareness can matter as much as a shortage of resources.

We cannot prevent every resignation, nor should we assume that all departures are a failure of leadership. But we can do a better job of understanding what people are telling us while there is still an opportunity to act. That starts with looking beyond the dashboard and making time for the conversations that do not appear in any report.

If this reflects something you recognise in your own operation, we would welcome the conversation.