When your younger employees and your newer immigrant employees leave first, what you may be missing is how differently the same job, onboarding, and supervision can be experienced by people who are newer to your organization, to the work, or to the country. Your overall numbers can look fine while one group of employees is having a different experience, and the reasons for that are specific to your workplace and to the people involved, so they have to be found out rather than assumed. Start by looking at when these employees leave, from which roles and shifts, and who supervised them. Then check what the first months look like for anyone who is new, from onboarding and supervision to schedules, transportation, and whether information is available in a form people can use. Most important, ask current and departing employees what has made it hard to stay, in a way that protects their privacy and lets them answer honestly.
Find out when and where these employees leave, then ask them, confidentially and in a language they're comfortable using, what made it harder to stay.
The reasons are specific to your organization, and the employees who are leaving, or thinking about it, are the ones who can tell you what those reasons are.
Look at how long employees in each group stayed over the past two years, and in which roles, before you change anything.
Employees in one department, shift, facility, role, demographic group, or stage of employment may be having a very different experience from others.
Angelika Gulbis, Ph.D., Grantibly
Your overall turnover can look fine while younger and newer immigrant employees keep leaving because an organization-wide rate averages together groups whose experiences differ. If most employees stay for years, a smaller group leaving within their first months can barely move the overall number. Why do good employees keep leaving when we pay competitively? covers why separating the number by group matters more generally.
Some difference by age is expected. Across the U.S. labor market, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that the median tenure of workers ages 55 to 64 (9.6 years) is more than three times that of workers ages 25 to 34 (3.0 years). That doesn't tell you why your own employees leave, and it doesn't mean their leaving has nothing to teach you. The more useful comparison is inside your organization: whether people in the same roles stay longer on some teams, shifts, or sites than others, and whether employees leave at a particular point, such as the first 90 days.
In the first months on the job, look at whether your onboarding, supervision, and working conditions assume knowledge, resources, or circumstances that newer employees may not have. These are questions about how your workplace is set up, and the answers will differ from one person to the next.
You can ask these employees why they leave in a way they can answer honestly by making it safe, private, and worth their time. Ask current employees as well as those who are leaving, and explain why you're asking and what you'll do with what you hear.
Who asks and how matters. Employees may not be candid with a supervisor who is part of the problem, so someone outside their reporting line, or outside the organization, may hear more. Offer conversations or surveys in the languages your employees use. Be especially careful with privacy when a group is small: if only a few employees on a shift are recent immigrants, a summary of "what immigrant employees said" can identify them. Before you collect or analyze information about age, national origin, or immigration status, check with your HR or legal advisor about what you may collect and how it must be protected.
Then follow through, because asking and doing nothing can undermine trust. How do I find out what my employees actually need? covers how to ask so that people answer candidly.
Once you understand why these employees leave, change the conditions that are making it harder for them to stay, and tell employees what you're changing and why. Depending on what you learn, that might mean rewriting onboarding so it explains what is usually left unsaid, pairing new employees with an experienced coworker, preparing supervisors to check in during the first weeks, making key information available in the languages employees use, or adjusting how schedules are set.
Many of these changes can improve the experience of every new employee, and they avoid singling anyone out. Afterward, look again at how long employees in each group stay, and ask whether the changes made a difference. How do we know whether the change we made actually helped? covers how to check.
If your question is how to bring more younger or newer workers into your organization in the first place, that's a different question. How do we start working with a local college or school district on our hiring needs? and Should we spend our effort recruiting more students or keeping the ones we have? cover the pipeline side.
My sabbatical work focuses on persistence in college settings, particularly the social and psychological factors that help students succeed: belonging, identity, self-efficacy, agency, motivation, resilience, and wellbeing, as well as the relationships and environments that shape those experiences. I'm expanding that thinking to workplace wellbeing and retention.
I'm particularly interested in the relationships between employees and their supervisors and leaders, and how those relationships influence people's sense of belonging, motivation, agency, wellbeing, and willingness to stay. Good policies matter, and so do how people interpret their experiences, how they're treated, and whether they feel valued and capable. Organizations, leaders, and supervisors have a responsibility to create the conditions that help people grow and thrive.
It's common for younger employees to change jobs more often than older workers, and federal tenure data show that pattern across the labor market. That doesn't mean there is nothing to learn from your own turnover. If younger employees stay longer on some teams or in some roles than others, the difference points to something in your workplace worth understanding.
You avoid stereotyping employees by treating a pattern in your data as a question about your workplace, not as a conclusion about a group of people. Individuals in any group leave for different reasons, so the pattern tells you where to look and the employees themselves tell you why. Report what you learn about conditions and practices, and never describe individuals by their group.
If you only have a few employees in these groups, individual conversations may tell you more than a survey, and privacy matters even more. Make sure nothing you share afterward could identify who said what, and consider having someone outside the employee's reporting line, or outside the organization, have the conversations.