A grievance lands in your inbox and it is six pages long, packed with employment law terminology and written more like a letter from a solicitor than something your employee would normally send. There is now a reasonable chance that AI has helped put it together, and it is something I am already seeing in practice.

Employees are using tools such as ChatGPT to help draft grievances, responses and other formal workplace correspondence. In some situations, that can be genuinely useful. Someone who is upset, frustrated or struggling to explain what has happened may find it difficult to organise their thoughts, and AI can help them turn those thoughts into something more structured and easier to communicate.

However, there is another side to it. I have also seen AI generated correspondence that makes a relatively straightforward workplace issue appear far more complicated than it actually is. Sometimes it includes employment law terminology that is not particularly relevant, sometimes it appears to give the employee advice that does not really fit their circumstances, and sometimes the finished letter simply does not make much sense when you look beyond the formal wording.

A long grievance is not necessarily a complicated grievance

The important thing for employers is not to be intimidated by the language or the length of the document. Six pages of legal wording does not automatically mean that you have a highly complex legal dispute on your hands, particularly if AI has been used to expand a relatively simple complaint into something much longer.

The employer still needs to work out what the employee is actually telling them. What happened, who was involved, what does the employee believe was wrong, what outcome are they looking for and what actually needs to be investigated? Those are the important points, regardless of whether they have been explained in two paragraphs or surrounded by several pages of formal language.

The fact that AI may have helped structure or expand the grievance does not change the employer's responsibility to deal with the substance of the complaint fairly. It is the issues underneath the wording that matter, and those are what the employer needs to understand before deciding what should happen next.

AI can sound convincing without necessarily being right

One of the risks employers need to be aware of ishow confident AI generated information can sound. A grievance may contain references to employment law, workplace rights or an employer's responsibilities that appear extremely authoritative, but that does not automatically mean every statement is legally correct or relevant to that particular employee's circumstances.

An employer should never dismiss or take a grievance less seriously simply because they suspect AI has been used to write it. Equally, they should not assume that every legal assertion contained within the document must be accurate simply because it has been expressed confidently.

The sensible approach remains much the same as it has always been. Understand the complaint, establish the facts, investigate what needs investigating and get appropriate advice where necessary. The wording of thegrievance should not distract the employer from identifying and dealing with the actual workplace issue underneath it.

ACAS is looking at AI too

This has become significant enough that ACAS specifically included artificial intelligence in its consultation on a new Disciplinary and Grievance Code of Practice. The consultation asked whether the Code or its accompanying guidance should address the benefits, risks and practical issues arising from the use of AI in disciplinary and grievance processes.

That consultation closed on 23 September 2026 and ACAS is now reviewing the responses, so we do not yet know what the final Code or accompanying guidance will say about AI. However, the fact that AI was specifically included in the consultation shows just how quickly it is becoming part of the way workplace disputes and formal processes are handled.

For employers, this means AI generated grievances are unlikely to be something they can simply treat as an occasional novelty. As these tools become more widely used, managers may increasingly receive formal correspondence that has been drafted, expanded or heavily influenced by AI.

At the same time, ACAS wants fewer problems becoming formal disputes

There is another important aspect to the proposed Code because ACAS is also placing much greater emphasis on early and informal resolution. The draft encourages employers to address concerns about conduct or performance informally where appropriate and similarly encourages workers to raise concerns informally where that makes sense, rather than automatically moving straight into a formal grievance process.

There will always be serious matters that need to enter a formal process immediately, and informal resolution will not be suitable in every situation. However, the overall direction is clearly towards dealingwith workplace concerns earlier, before they have the opportunity to develop into larger and more difficult disputes.

There is a significant financial argument behind that approach as well. ACAS estimates that managing formal disciplinary and grievance procedures costs UK employers around £2.36 billion each year, while the estimated annual cost associated with informal resolution is around £250 million.

That is quite a difference, and it raises an interesting question about the growing number of grievances that may be written with the help of AI. Perhaps the answer is not simply becoming better at dealing with increasingly long and formal AI assisted grievances. It may also involve employers becoming much better at having constructive conversations before somebody feels that their only option is to sit down with ChatGPT and produce a six page formal complaint.

Could trade unions become part of this picture too?

There is another development worth considering because the Employment Rights Act 2025 introduces a new duty for employers to provide workers with a written statement informing them about their right to join a trade union. The current government timetable says that this requirement is due to take effect from 1 January 2027.

If these wider changes result in more employees becoming aware of trade unions or choosing to join one, we may see more people seeking support from representatives when workplace problems arise rather than immediately turning to an AI tool for advice about what they should write.

That could potentially mean employees receive more informed support when dealing with workplace concerns, while employers may also find themselves dealing with representatives more regularly during workplace discussions and formal processes. However that develops, there is one part of workplace conflict that AI does not remove from the equation, and that is the people involved.

AI can draft the letter, but it cannot manage the relationship

This is the part employers need to remember because the hardest part of dealing with a grievance is rarely the document itself. The real challenge is understanding what has happened between the people involved, investigating the circumstances properly, reaching a fair conclusion and deciding what needs to happen next.

AI can help somebody put their thoughts into words, but it cannot sit in a meeting and recognise that an employee is becoming upset or uncomfortable. It does not automatically understand the six months of history that may exist between two colleagues, and it cannot replace the judgement required when assessing conflicting accounts or trying to repair a damaged working relationship.

Those parts of the process still require human judgement, experience, communication and good HR. Employers therefore need to avoid becoming distracted by how polished, formal or legally complicated a grievance appears and instead concentrate on what the employee is actually raising.

If a six page grievance suddenly appears in your inbox and sounds nothing like the employee who sent it, there is no need to panic or become overwhelmed by the language. Read it carefully, identify the genuine concerns underneath the wording, establish what needs to be investigated and make sure the process is handled fairly and consistently.

If you are unsure about what the employee is actually alleging, how serious the issues are or what your next step should be, getting HR support before responding can help prevent an already difficult situation from becoming unnecessarily complicated.

EC Human Resources supports employers with grievances, disciplinary matters, workplace investigations and difficult employee conversations, helping businesses understand the issues, follow a fair process and manage workplace problems appropriately from the outset.

A client contacted me recently about an employee whose dad had died. The employee had returned to work and, on the face of it, they were still doing their job, but the employer could see that they were struggling emotionally. They wanted to support them but were not really sure what that support should look like.

I suspect this is where a lot of managers find themselves when somebody returns to work after a bereavement. We tend to understand what to do immediately after somebody dies. An employee tells us that they have lost a family member, we express our sympathy, arrange some time away from work and perhapssend some flowers or a card.

Then the employee comes back to work and, somehow, everyone can feel as though normal working life is supposed to begin again. The problem is that grief does not work like that, and returning to work does not necessarily mean that somebody is ready to carry on as they did before.

Coming back to work does not mean somebody has stopped grieving

People respond to bereavement very differently, which is why there is no single approach that will work for every employee. One person may desperately need time away from work, while another might actually welcome the routine, structure and distraction that returning to work gives them.

Some people struggle immediately after a bereavement, while others appear to cope incredibly well at first and then find things much harder several weeks or even months later. There is no correct way of grieving, and employers need to be careful not to make assumptions based simply on how somebody appears when they first return.

Rainer Derry from The Grief Consultancy works specifically with businesses to help them understand grief in the workplace. Her workshops cover not only bereavement itself, but also anticipatory grief, compassionate communication, returning to work and how managers can support somebody without feeling that they need to become a counsellor.

That distinction is important because a manager's job is not to fix someone's grief or have all the answers. Their role is to create an environment where the employee feels able to talk about what they need, while considering what reasonable and practical support the business can provide.

Sometimes the best thing you can do is have the conversation

Managers can become so worried about saying the wrong thing that they end up saying nothing at all. They might avoid mentioning the person who has died because they are frightened of upsetting the employee or reminding them of what has happened.

The reality is that the employee is probably already thinking about the person they have lost, and silence can sometimes feel considerably worse than a manager simply acknowledging what has happened and asking how they are doing.

It does not need to become an enormous formal conversation. A manager can ask how the employee is managing, whether there is anything at work that is making things particularly difficult and whether temporary changes to their workload, working hours or responsibilities might help.

The important part is to keep that conversation going rather than treating it as something that only happens on the employee's first day back. Agreeing a time to check in again gives both the employee and manager an opportunity to review how things are going, because the support somebody needs during their first week back may be completely different from what they need six weeks later.

The support should not stop after the funeral

This is something employers can easily overlook because there tends to be a lot of support immediately after somebody dies. Friends, family members and colleagues are often checking in regularly, while employers are arranging leave and offering support around the funeral and the employee's return to work.

Grief can become more difficult later, particularly once some of that immediate support has disappeared. There may be anniversaries, birthdays, family events and unexpected reminders that bring the loss back to the surface. An employee who appeared to be coping perfectly well may suddenly have a particularly difficult period several months afterwards.

That does not mean an employer has to remove expectations indefinitely or assume that every difficult day requires a workplace adjustment. It simply means recognising that bereavement is not a neat process with a clear beginning and end date, and that occasional welfare conversations can make an enormous difference.

The law around bereavement is changing too

There are also legislative changes that employers need to be aware of. The Employment Rights Act 2025 expands the framework for statutory bereavement leave by creating a wider entitlement beyond the existing parental bereavement arrangements, with further details about how the new right will operate being set through regulations.

Government implementation plans currently place further bereavement leave measures within the 2027 programme, which means employers should expect to revisit their policies as the detailed rules and implementation arrangements become clearer.

Having an appropriate bereavement policy is therefore increasingly important, but a policy can only provide the framework for how an organisation approaches bereavement. It does not necessarily teach a manager what to say when an employee is sitting opposite them and struggling to hold themselves together.

Manager confidence matters

This is one of the reasons Rainer's work caught my attention. Her workshops are designed to give employers and managers practical tools for dealing with bereavement in the workplace, rather than simply telling managers that they need to be compassionate and leaving them to work out what that means in practice.

A short Lunch and Learn session can introduce employees and managers to different types of grief, common myths surrounding bereavement and practical ways of supporting colleagues. Her longer sessions go further by looking at compassionate conversations, returning to work, workplace strategies and real life situations that managers may find themselves dealing with.

The full day programme also works with businesses on developing a bespoke Bereavement Policy and Bereavement Support Policy, helping organisations put a practical framework around the support they want to provide.

I think that combination is particularly important because a policy and good management serve different purposes. A policy tells employees and managers what the organisation offers, while training gives managers the confidence to know what to do when a real person is sitting in front of them and needs support.

Compassion and good HR are not opposites

Employers sometimes worry about where support ends and normal management begins. They may wonder what happens if they offer flexibility and cannot continue it indefinitely, whether other employees will expect exactly the same arrangements or whether a manager could make matters worse by saying the wrong thing.

Those are understandable concerns, but supporting somebody through grief does not mean abandoning normal management or making promises that the business cannot realistically maintain. Employers can agree to temporary support, set sensible review dates, have honest conversations about what is working and continue to maintain appropriate workplace expectations.

Quite often, good HR is about finding that sensible middle ground. You are running a business and there will still be work that needs to be done, but you are also employing human beings who will experience difficult periods in their lives.

How somebody is treated during one of the worst periods of their life is something they are likely to remember for a very long time. Having a supportive policy is important, but having managers who are comfortable starting a conversation, listening to the employee and responding appropriately can be just as valuable.

If you need support with a bereavement situation, an employee's return to work or reviewing your HR policies, contact EC Human Resources.

For specialist workplace bereavement training, Rainer Derry at The Grief Consultancy offers tailored workshops designed to give organisations and managers the knowledge and confidence to support employees through grief, while EC Human Resources’ Managing Absence service can provide further HR support when managing bereavement related absence and an employee’s return to work.

Smart glasses are becoming increasingly common. They can take photographs, record video and audio, respond to voice commands and, increasingly, use AI to interpret what the wearer is seeing. All very clever, but from an HR and workplace perspective, they also create a fairly obvious question: what happens when somebody walks into work wearing technology that could be recording the people around them?

This is not really a futuristic issue anymore. Camera enabled smart glasses are already prompting organisations to think carefully about where they should and should not be used, with concerns ranging from privacy and security to covert recording. In August 2026, UK cinemas began looking at restrictions around camera enabled smart glasses because of concerns about piracy and privacy. For employers, the same technology raises some very practical questions around HR, confidentiality and data protection.

A phone is obvious. Smart glasses may not be.

Most businesses already have some sort of rule covering mobile phones, photography or recording in the workplace, but smart glasses change the way that recording can happen. Someone holding up a phone during a meeting is fairly noticeable, whereas someone wearing a pair of glasses may not attract any attention at all.

Depending on the device, smart glasses may be able to capture video, photographs or audio while looking relatively ordinary. That creates potential problems involving employees, customers, confidential conversations, commercially sensitive information and personal data. Simply saying that an existing mobile phone policy covers the issue may no longer be enough when the technology can be worn throughout the working day without being particularly noticeable.

GDPR does not disappear because the camera is in a pair of glasses

The Information Commissioner's Office makes clear that data protection principles continue to apply as workplace monitoring technology changes. Its guidance already considers technologies including wearable cameras, body worn devices, webcams, screenshots, location tracking and audio recording, so although the technology may evolve, an employer's responsibilities around personal data remain.

If an employer introduces wearable technology that captures information about workers, it needs to consider the same fundamental points it would with any other form of workplace monitoring. Employers need to understand why the information is being collected, whether collecting it is genuinely necessary, whether there is a less intrusive way of achieving the same result, what lawful basis applies, who will have access to the information and how long it will be kept. Employees affected by the monitoring also need to be properly informed about what is happening and why.

For higher risk monitoring, employers may also need to carry out a Data Protection Impact Assessment. Even where one is not strictly required, carrying out an assessment can still be a useful way of identifying privacy risks and considering whether suitable safeguards are in place before introducing new technology into the workplace.

What if the employee brings their own smart glasses to work?

This is probably where things become even more interesting for SMEs, because an employer may have no intention whatsoever of introducing smart glasses into the business, but that does not stop an employee from buying a pair themselves and wearing them to work.

That leaves employers needing to think about what employees are allowed to record in the workplace, whether particular areas should be device free and how existing confidentiality, privacy and data protection policies apply. An employee could potentially wear camera enabled glasses during a disciplinary meeting, while viewing customer records or while working somewhere that sensitive financial, medical or employee information is visible.

They could also be having what appears to be an ordinary conversation with a colleague who has no idea that they may be recorded. At that point, the technology stops being an interesting new gadget and becomes a genuine HR issue involving privacy, confidentiality, trust and potentially personal data.

Employers therefore need clear rules around recording at work, regardless of whether the technology being used is a mobile phone, smart glasses or another wearable device. The important point is that employees understand when recording is permitted, when permission is needed and when using recording technology could result in further action.

It is not just about employees recording employers

There is another side to this because employees themselves may be recorded by customers, visitors, colleagues or managers using wearable technology. That can create concerns around privacy, dignity, confidentiality and workplace monitoring, particularly where employees may not immediately realise that a device is capable of recording them.

Where employers themselves use video or audio surveillance, they need to be clear about the purpose of that monitoring, consider whether it is necessary and proportionate, identify an appropriate lawful basis and make sure workers are properly informed about how the monitoring is being used. The fact that newer technology can make monitoring easier or less noticeable does not remove those responsibilities.

Employers should therefore be cautious about introducing smart glasses as a management, performance or productivity monitoring tool simply because the technology exists. The ability to collect information does not automatically mean that collecting it is necessary, proportionate or appropriate in the workplace.

There can also be very good reasons for using the technology

A complete ban may not always be the right approach because smart glasses and other wearable technology can have genuine workplace benefits. They may assist someone with a disability, provide hands free access to information, support training, improve safety in certain working environments or help employees carry out specialist tasks more effectively.

There has also been growing discussion around how smart glasses can assist some disabled users, including by helping people access information and navigate their surroundings more independently. Employers should therefore think carefully before introducing a blanket rule that simply says smart glasses are prohibited, particularly where an employee has a legitimate reason for using the technology.

If an employee uses wearable technology because of a disability, there may also be reasonable adjustment considerations. An employer may need to consider the employee's individual circumstances and whether appropriate restrictions can be introduced without removing the benefit that the technology provides. As is often the case with HR matters, the circumstances and reasons for using the device are important.

Your policies probably need to talk about more than phones

Many employee handbooks still talk about mobile phone use, cameras, recording and social media as though they are completely separate things, but technology is increasingly blurring those lines. A sensible workplace policy should therefore be broad enough to deal with recording devices, wearable technology and similar equipment generally, rather than naming one particular product that could be obsolete in a couple of years.

Employers should think about where recording is prohibited, when permission is required, how confidential information must be protected and what happens if somebody records colleagues, customers or workplace conversations without authority. It may also be sensible to identify areas where recording devices should not be used at all, particularly where confidential, commercially sensitive or personal information is routinely visible or discussed.

Data protection, confidentiality, IT, disciplinary and reasonable adjustment policies may all come into play, so it is important that these policies work together rather than contradicting each other. Employees should be able to understand what is acceptable, what requires permission and what could potentially result in disciplinary action.

Technology moves faster than the employee handbook

Businesses do not need to create a completely new HR policy every time somebody launches a new gadget, but they do need policies that are written broadly enough to cope with the way people actually work now and the way workplace technology continues to develop.

Five years ago, few SME employers were worrying about employees walking into a meeting wearing AI enabled glasses capable of recording what they could see and hear. Now it is something worth thinking about, and smart glasses will almost certainly not be the last piece of technology to create this type of workplace issue.

Wearable devices, AI tools and increasingly discreet recording technology are continuing to change the way information can be captured and used at work. Policies that focus too heavily on one particular device can therefore quickly become outdated, while broader rules around recording, monitoring, confidentiality and personal data can remain useful as technology changes.

Rather than asking whether your policies specifically mention smart glasses, it may be more useful to ask a broader question: if somebody introduced new recording, monitoring or AI enabled technology into your workplace tomorrow, would your current HR and data protection rules tell everyone what was and was not acceptable?

Employees should know when recording is prohibited and managers should know what to do if somebody arrives at a sensitive meeting wearing a recording device. Policies should also protect confidential and personal information while still allowing legitimate uses of technology, including reasonable adjustments where appropriate. If your current policies do not provide that clarity, it may be time for a review.

EC Human Resources can review and update your HR policies and employee handbook to make sure they reflect the way people actually work and keep pace with changing workplace technology. Get in touch if yours could do with an update.

From 1 January 2027, two significant changes to unfair dismissal law are due to come into effect. The qualifying period for bringing an ordinary unfair dismissal claim will reduce from two years to six months, while the existing cap on compensatory awards will be removed.

These changes will extend unfair dismissal protection to many more employees and could considerably increase the financial consequences for employers where a dismissal is found to be unfair. For businesses, this makes it increasingly important to recruit carefully, manage probationary periods effectively and follow a fair process when employment needs to end.

The qualifying period will reduce to six months

Currently, most employees need two years of continuous service before they can bring an ordinary unfair dismissal claim. There are already circumstances where no qualifying period applies, including certain automatically unfair dismissals. From 1 January 2027, the general qualifying period for ordinary unfair dismissal will reduce to six months.

This does not mean that an employee cannot be dismissed once they have reached six months of service. It does mean that an employer will normally need to demonstrate a potentially fair reason for dismissal and show that the decision was reasonable in the circumstances. In practical terms, employers will have considerably less time to identify and address concerns relating to conduct, capability, performance or suitability for the role.

Probationary periods will become increasingly important

Many employers already use six month probationary periods, but simply including a probation clause in a contract is not enough. Probation should be actively managed from the beginning of employment, with regular reviews, clear expectations and early conversations about any areas of concern.

Where improvement is required, employees should understand what needs to change and be given appropriate support, training and reasonable opportunities to improve. Waiting until somebody is approaching the end of probation before raising concerns that have existed for several months could make the situation considerably more difficult to manage.

Employers should also think carefully before extending probation. An extension could take an employee beyond the new six month qualifying period. Statutory notice can also count towards continuous service when determining whether an employee has reached the qualifying period, so advice should be taken where dismissal is being considered close to the six month point.

The cap on unfair dismissal compensation will be removed

Unfair dismissal compensatory awards are currently subject to a statutory limit. From 1 January 2027, that cap is due to be removed. Compensation will continue to be based on the actual and projected financial losses evidenced by the employee, rather than becoming automatically unlimited simply because the statutory cap has disappeared.

However, removing the cap could create significantly greater exposure in cases involving substantial or long term financial losses. Future earnings may become particularly important where an employee is likely to remain out of work for an extended period, perhaps because they have specialist skills, work within a limited employment market or experience other barriers to finding comparable work.

The employee will still be expected to take reasonable steps to reduce their losses by seeking suitable alternative employment. Nevertheless, where it reasonably takes longer to secure another role, the value of the claim could increase.

Pension, shares and other financial losses

Salary may only represent part of an employee's overall remuneration. Some employees receive significant value through bonuses, commission, share options, equity arrangements and other incentive schemes. If a dismissal causes an employee to lose the opportunity to benefit from these arrangements, those losses may become relevant when compensation is assessed.

Pension losses can also be important, particularly for employees who are members of final salary or defined benefit schemes. In appropriate cases, a tribunal may need to consider the longer term effect that dismissal has had on the employee's expected retirement benefits.

The removal of the compensatory award cap therefore makes it particularly important for employers to understand the complete financial implications of dismissing higher earning employees or individuals with valuable pension and incentive arrangements.

Could tribunal delays increase the impact?

Reducing the qualifying period from two years to six months will mean that many more employees have ordinary unfair dismissal protection. This could result in additional claims entering the employment tribunal system.

For employers, a lengthy dispute can create costs beyond any eventual compensation award, including management time and legal expenses. Where an employee remains unable to secure suitable alternative employment, a longer period without earnings may also form part of the losses they seek to recover, although any award will depend on the individual circumstances and evidence.

Not every employment dispute needs to reach a tribunal. Early discussions, mediation, protected conversations and appropriate settlement negotiations can sometimes resolve matters before proceedings progress further. These discussions need to be handled carefully, particularly where discrimination, whistleblowing or other legal protections may be relevant.

What should employers do before January 2027?

Employers should use the time before the changes take effect to review how recruitment, probation, performance and dismissal decisions are currently managed.

Contracts and HR procedures are a sensible place to start. Employment contracts should clearly explain probationary arrangements, notice requirements and any provisions relating to extending probation. Disciplinary, capability and performance procedures should also be reviewed to ensure they remain practical and support consistent and fair decision making.

Recruitment processes deserve similar attention. Reducing the risk of an unsuitable appointment begins before somebody joins the organisation. Job descriptions and person specifications should accurately reflect the position, interviews should be structured and appropriate checks should be completed. Where relevant to the role, practical assessments can also help establish whether a candidate has the necessary skills and aptitude.

Once somebody starts work, probation should be actively managed rather than treated simply as a date in the calendar. Expectations should be clear from the outset and reviews should take place throughout the probationary period. Concerns should be raised when they arise, with agreed improvements, appropriate support and accurate records of the conversations that have taken place.

Managers will need to be prepared

Managers are often the first people to identify concerns about performance, conduct or capability, which means they need to understand how to respond appropriately. They should know when an informal conversation is sufficient, when a more formal process may be necessary and when HR advice should be sought.

It will also be important for managers to understand that describing a dismissal as a failed probation does not remove the need to consider the underlying reason for the decision and the process that has been followed.

Good record keeping will support this. Employers should maintain clear and factual records of probation and performance reviews, concerns that have been raised, objectives and improvements required, training and support provided, relevant meetings and the employee's response. Where dismissal is eventually considered, records should also demonstrate what alternatives were considered and why the final decision was reached.

Preparing for greater dismissal risk

The reduction of the ordinary unfair dismissal qualifying period from two years to six months represents a significant change for employers. Removing the compensatory award cap also increases the potential financial exposure in cases where an employee can demonstrate substantial losses.

Employers should therefore use the period before January 2027 to make sure recruitment, probationary processes, employment contracts and manager training are ready for the new rules. Better processes at the beginning of employment can make concerns easier to identify and address before they develop into more difficult and potentially costly disputes.

Where dismissal is being considered, particularly when an employee is approaching six months of service or there are potential discrimination, whistleblowing, health or family related considerations, obtaining advice before acting can help prevent mistakes that may be difficult to correct afterwards.

If you need support reviewing your contracts, probationary processes or approach to managing employee concerns, EC Human Resources can help you prepare for the changes ahead.

For support with managing dismissals fairly and correctly, find out more about our Dismissal Support service.

Skills shortages continue to be a significant challenge for businesses across many industries. Employers regularly tell us that experienced engineers are difficult to find, applicants do not always have the specialist qualifications required, and talented people are being approached by competitors before vacancies can even be filled. When this happens, recruitment naturally becomes a major focus. However, recruitment is only one part of the skills shortage conversation. When experienced and knowledgeable people are already difficult to find, businesses also need to consider how effectively they are retaining the skilled employees they already have.

Replacing somebody who did not necessarily need to leave in the first place can be considerably more difficult and expensive than preventing their departure. An experienced employee takes more than their job title with them when they leave. They can take years of technical knowledge, established client relationships, an understanding of internal processes and practical experience that cannot simply be replaced by recruiting somebody with similar qualifications.

Understanding where your biggest people risks are

Most organisations have employees whose departure would create a significant operational challenge. This might be someone with a specialist technical qualification, an employee who understands a particular system better than anyone else, or a long serving member of the team who has accumulated years of knowledge about the organisation and its clients. In other cases, the risk may come from a skill that has become increasingly difficult to find in the external labour market. A role that was relatively straightforward to recruit for several years ago may now take months to fill, particularly where a combination of experience, technical knowledge and industry understanding is required.

The difficulty is that organisations do not always recognise how dependent they have become on particular individuals until those employees decide to leave. At that point, attention quickly turns to covering responsibilities, protecting client relationships, transferring knowledge and beginning a recruitment process that may have no immediate solution. This is more than an HR concern. It is a genuine business continuity and workforce planning issue.

Retention needs to happen before somebody resigns

One of the most common mistakes with retention is waiting until an employee hands in their resignation before having a meaningful conversation about what would encourage them to stay. Once a valued employee announces that they are leaving, organisations can suddenly become remarkably flexible. A salary increase may become possible, working arrangements might be reconsidered, responsibilities can be changed and opportunities for progression may appear that had never previously been discussed. By this stage, however, the organisation is often trying to solve a problem that has been developing for months. The employee may already have accepted another position and mentally moved on from the business.

A more effective approach is to identify employees who are particularly important to the organisation and understand what matters to them while they are still engaged. If somebody would be difficult to replace, conversations about their development, workload, ambitions and experience at work should already be taking place. Retention should therefore be treated as an ongoing management responsibility rather than an emergency response to a resignation letter.

Salary matters, but retention is about more than pay

Competitive pay is an important part of retaining skilled employees, particularly when people with specialist experience have plenty of opportunities elsewhere. However, salary is rarely the only factor influencing somebody's decision to remain with an organisation. The quality of management can have an enormous impact on an employee's experience. Workload, recognition, flexibility, development opportunities, progression and workplace culture can all influence whether somebody can see a long term future with the business.

This is why benefits alone cannot compensate for fundamental problems in an employee's working environment. An organisation can invest heavily in wellbeing initiatives and employee benefits, but those investments will have limited impact if employees consistently feel undervalued, poorly managed or unable to progress. Effective retention comes from understanding the overall employment experience rather than relying on one incentive to keep people in place.

Understanding what employees actually value

Businesses cannot develop an effective retention strategy without understanding what their employees value, and the simplest way to gain that understanding is through regular and meaningful conversations. These discussions do not need to be complicated or reserved for an annual appraisal or occasional engagement survey. Managers should have enough regular contact with their teams to understand what employees enjoy about their roles, what causes frustration, where they would like their careers to develop and what changes could improve their experience at work.

The answers will not be the same for everyone. One employee may be motivated by greater responsibility and the opportunity to progress, while another may place considerably more value on flexibility. Someone who has taken on additional responsibilities over several years may simply want their contribution and the development of their role to be properly recognised. Employers will not always be able to provide everything an employee would like, nor should retention mean agreeing to every request. What matters is having enough information to make informed decisions rather than discovering what somebody valued during an exit interview when it is already too late to act.

Retention should form part of wider workforce planning

Keeping experienced people is important, but organisations also need to consider what happens when those employees eventually move on. No employee will remain with a business forever, which means retaining knowledge can be just as important as retaining individuals. Businesses that depend heavily on specialist skills should consider how knowledge is being transferred across the organisation. Experienced employees can play an important role in developing junior colleagues, supporting apprentices and sharing technical knowledge that might otherwise remain with one person.

Succession planning is equally important. Where a critical process, client relationship or technical responsibility depends entirely on one employee, the organisation has created a significant point of vulnerability. Developing other employees takes time, which is precisely why workforce planning needs to happen before there is an immediate vacancy to fill. Building capability internally can reduce reliance on an increasingly competitive external recruitment market while also providing existing employees with meaningful development opportunities.

Employee retention is a commercial consideration

Employee wellbeing, engagement and development are sometimes described as the softer elements of HR, but there is a clear commercial argument behind getting them right. Recruitment has a cost. Training a replacement has a cost. Lost productivity has a cost, and so does the time other employees spend covering a vacant role. When somebody leaves with specialist knowledge or established client relationships, the wider impact on the organisation can be considerably greater. For employees who are particularly difficult to replace, good management and retention should therefore be viewed as part of protecting the organisation's capability.

This does not mean treating certain employees as indispensable or agreeing to everything they request. It means recognising where critical knowledge and skills sit within the organisation, understanding the people who hold them and making sensible decisions about retention, development and succession before there is an urgent problem to solve.

Acting before the skills walk out of the door

A skills shortage should not only prompt businesses to look at how they recruit. It should encourage them to look carefully at the skills, experience and knowledge they already have. Understanding which employees would be particularly difficult to replace is a useful starting point. From there, businesses can consider whether those employees are appropriately rewarded, whether they have opportunities to develop, whether their knowledge is being shared and whether there are any underlying frustrations that could eventually encourage them to leave. The objective is not to prevent employees from ever moving on. That would be unrealistic.

Instead, it is about reducing avoidable turnover and ensuring that the organisation is not unnecessarily exposed when an important employee does decide to leave. If the departure of a key employee tomorrow would immediately make the business wish it had acted differently six months earlier, that is a strong indication that the conversation needs to happen today.

Planning ahead can reduce the impact of losing key skills. Find out more about our Succession Planning support.