← All articles

Talent Retention & Leadership Development · The Belief Beneath™

Retaining Women Leaders: A Preventable Attrition Guide

Strong performance can hide changes in workload and capacity. Where those signals appear in data you already have, and what to ask.

A tailored blazer draped over an executive chair beside a closed planner on a marble desk in early morning light

Retaining senior female leaders requires organizations to look beyond traditional performance measures. Standard metrics can show strong results while offering limited insight into workload, engagement, career priorities, or how a leader is experiencing the role. Consider what that gap allows. A leader may continue to perform well while carrying a demanding workload, participating less in development opportunities, or reconsidering her longer-term career plans. None of that necessarily appears in performance data, particularly when results remain strong.

So what does consistently strong performance actually tell you? Part of the story, and not all of it. For some leaders, steady results reflect a sustainable and healthy work environment. For others, those same results may coexist with increasing demands or changing career priorities. Neither reading should be assumed. What these patterns offer instead is an opening, and a reason to better understand workload, support, development, and career goals.

This article focuses on observable patterns that may be useful to explore, including sustained changes in workload, participation in development opportunities, and stated career intentions. No single signal provides enough information to draw conclusions about a leader’s well-being or her plans to leave. A more complete picture comes from combining performance data with regular workload reviews, meaningful career conversations, and accessible support.

The goal is straightforward. Senior female leaders should be able to discuss workload, development, career goals, and support needs as part of normal leadership conversations. When those conversations become routine rather than something that waits for performance to decline, an organization learns what its leaders need in order to remain engaged, effective, and successful over time.

Key Points

  • Sixty-three percent of job exits in 2024 were preventable, according to the Work Institute’s 2025 Retention Report.[3] That finding suggests organizations may have opportunities to understand and address the factors contributing to attrition before an employee decides to leave.
  • Potential indicators of preventable attrition among high performers may include faster replies, fewer objections, or reduced use of leave rather than visible declines in performance. Because these behaviors can have many explanations, consider them in context rather than treating any one signal as evidence of an impending departure.
  • Women were less likely than men to say they wanted a promotion, according to the 2025 Women in the Workplace report, which covered 124 organizations and roughly 3 million employees.[1] This difference does not necessarily reflect lower ambition. It may also reflect how employees assess the demands, tradeoffs, and support associated with the next role.
  • Replacing an employee costs between one-half and two times the employee’s annual salary, Gallup estimates, with senior roles generally toward the higher end of that range.[2] The estimate illustrates the potential business impact of attrition, though actual replacement costs vary considerably by role, organization, and circumstances.

The account below is a composite. It draws on real circumstances common to the women in RenewedHER’s coaching work, but it does not represent any single client’s story verbatim, and the name is not real.

Maya closed the accounting books four days early that year. Her controller had never seen a year-end close come in that cleanly or quickly, and the CFO put her name forward for a spot bonus. Maya had already accepted an offer somewhere else. Eleven days later she submitted her notice, and the CFO later described her departure as unexpected.

Was it? In hindsight, several changes had appeared over the preceding year, and any one of them might have opened a broader conversation about her experience and her plans.

Eight months earlier, Maya had declined a larger role covering two additional entities. Her manager understood that she was content in her current role and moved on to another candidate. Over the next two quarters she stepped back from the finance mentoring program and the systems migration steering group. Neither change affected her formal responsibilities, so neither appeared in the usual performance or headcount data.

Her replies also became faster than they had been previously, often arriving after eleven at night. Her manager saw this as a sign of commitment during a demanding period. Over fourteen months Maya took only one day of annual leave, and she continued answering email during most of it.

On its own, none of these details indicated that Maya planned to leave. Each had a reasonable explanation, and her performance remained strong throughout. Taken together, though, they could have served as useful prompts for a conversation about workload, development, career plans, and what she needed from the organization.

The value of looking at patterns like these is not to predict who will leave. It is to create more opportunities to understand what strong performance may be telling an organization, and what it may not be showing.

Why Performance Data May Not Show the Full Pattern

The “Mask of Excellence” describes a pattern in which a leader maintains strong performance even as her capacity, workload, or experience of the role changes. In these situations organizational metrics may not simply miss signs of strain. They may continue to show positive results, which makes it difficult to see what is happening outside the measures being tracked.

Compare that with the situations organizations are already equipped to catch. When deadlines slip, quality declines, or engagement scores fall, there are familiar data points that prompt a conversation. Those measures are genuinely useful. They also do not capture every form of strain or every change in a leader’s experience.

Picture a leader who maintains her output while drawing more heavily on personal resources such as time, attention, energy, or support from outside work. Her performance record may continue to show that she is meeting or exceeding expectations, even as the way she is sustaining that performance changes.

This can be particularly relevant when an organization has come to rely on a leader’s consistently strong results. High performers often receive more responsibility, and they may continue to meet those expectations without raising concerns. That does not necessarily mean they are experiencing unsustainable strain. It does make workload, capacity, and career conversations especially worth having.

None of this suggests that strong performance masks a problem. The point is narrower: performance data has limits. The behaviors described in the next section are not proof of strain or of an intention to leave. They are prompts to ask broader questions about workload, development, support, and career goals.

Where the Signal May Appear

Six signals are described below, and each one can appear in systems that organizations already use. None necessarily requires new technology, surveys, or outside support. The opportunity is to look at these existing sources of information alongside performance data and consider whether they might provide context about workload, engagement, development, or career plans.

Each signal also includes what it does not mean. These behaviors can have many explanations, so avoid treating any one of them as evidence of strain or an intention to leave. Changes from an individual’s usual patterns, particularly when several occur together, may provide a useful reason to start a conversation.

1. Leave that produces little interruption. Look beyond whether a leader takes leave and consider how leave fits into her broader work pattern. Taking time off in single days, cancelling planned leave, or remaining highly responsive while away may be worth exploring, particularly where these behaviors represent a change from her usual approach.

What it does not mean: Someone may prefer shorter periods of leave, have personal reasons for changing plans, or choose to remain lightly connected to work. The pattern becomes more useful when considered against her own baseline and in the context of workload and team expectations.

2. A declined or withdrawn internal move. A high performer who turns down a larger role, withdraws an application, or stops pursuing internal opportunities may have a range of reasons for doing so. The decision can reflect interest in the role, timing, workload, confidence, career priorities, or perceptions of what the next role would require.

Here the survey data provides helpful context. Women in the Workplace 2025 reported that 69% of entry-level women said they wanted a promotion, compared with 80% of entry-level men. The gap narrowed at more senior levels but remained, with 84% of women and 92% of men saying they wanted a promotion. The report also found that 31% of entry-level women had a sponsor, compared with 45% of men.[1] Together these findings illustrate how access to support and perceptions of advancement can shape career decisions.

What it does not mean: A decision to stay in a role does not necessarily indicate lower ambition or reduced engagement. A leader may genuinely prefer her current role, or see it as the right choice for her career at that point.

3. A quiet reduction in voluntary contributions. Mentoring programs, employee resource groups, steering committees, internal speaking opportunities, and cross-functional projects often sit outside a leader’s formal responsibilities. A change in participation can therefore provide information that standard performance measures may not capture. When a leader steps back from several voluntary commitments while her formal performance remains strong, it may be useful to ask whether her priorities, workload, or capacity have changed.

What it does not mean: Reducing discretionary commitments can be a healthy way to focus on a major responsibility, respond to changing priorities, or create better boundaries. The context and the leader’s own explanation matter.

4. Faster replies or later working hours. Changes in response patterns offer another useful point of context. A leader who begins responding more quickly, responds more frequently outside normal working hours, or remains highly responsive during periods of heavy workload may simply be adapting to changing demands. The more useful question is whether the pattern represents a meaningful change from her previous way of working, and whether it continues after the period of increased demand has passed.

What it does not mean: Working late or responding quickly does not necessarily indicate strain. Some people prefer to work this way, and some periods genuinely require additional responsiveness. A temporary change with a clear end point is different from a sustained change in the pattern.

5. Less escalation or pushback. A leader who raises fewer objections, negotiates deadlines less often, asks for fewer resources, or challenges fewer decisions may be experiencing a change in priorities, team dynamics, or workload. It may also reflect greater confidence, stronger alignment, or a genuinely stable operating environment. Where the change is noticeable against how that leader typically communicates, it creates an opportunity to ask how things are going and whether she has what she needs to be effective.

What it does not mean: Less pushback is not inherently negative. A well-resourced team, clear direction, or strong alignment can naturally reduce the need for escalation. The surrounding patterns provide important context.

6. Language moving from agency to accommodation. Changes in language can sometimes provide another source of context. In skip-level conversations, 360 feedback, and written updates, a leader may shift from phrases such as “I want,” “I think we should,” or “I need” toward more accommodating language such as “whatever works,” “I can make that happen,” or “it’s fine either way.” A change from someone’s usual communication style may be worth exploring, particularly when it occurs alongside other changes in workload, development participation, or career conversations.

What it does not mean: Some people naturally communicate in an accommodating style. This signal is most useful when it represents a change from the individual’s own baseline rather than a comparison with someone else’s communication style.

Looking at the pattern

The value of these signals comes from considering them together rather than treating any one behavior as diagnostic. Changes in leave, internal mobility, discretionary participation, response patterns, communication, or escalation may reflect many different things.

Used appropriately, these observations help an organization ask better questions. Has the workload changed? Are current priorities sustainable? Does the leader still see a path for growth? What support would be useful? Are there development opportunities she wants to pursue?

The goal is not to predict who will leave. It is to use information the organization already has as a starting point for better conversations, before a leader’s options, priorities, or experience of the role change without anyone discussing them.

How to Explore the Difference Between Strain and Genuine Stability

Most high performers are doing well, and the signals above should not be treated as evidence that something is wrong. Without context, the same behavior can reflect very different circumstances. Understanding the difference comes through regular, thoughtful conversations rather than through a checklist or an assessment.

This is a management conversation, not a clinical assessment. Managers and HR professionals should not attempt to diagnose burnout, distress, or an intention to leave based on someone’s behavior or responses.

Start simply. Ask how she is doing, and give her space to answer beyond the status of the work. If the conversation moves immediately to projects, deadlines, or results, you can gently ask a second question about how things are going for her personally at work.

A leader who is doing well may still focus on work when asked how she is doing. So may a leader who is experiencing strain. The response alone does not tell you which is true. What matters is whether the conversation creates an opportunity to discuss workload, priorities, support, and what feels sustainable.

Broader questions about life and interests outside the role can help as well. What are you enjoying outside of work right now? What do you want to make more room for this year? Questions like these widen a career conversation beyond performance and responsibilities.

Again, there is no right answer. A leader may talk about family, community, hobbies, other responsibilities, or she may simply say that work is her main focus right now. None of these responses establishes whether she is experiencing strain.

The purpose of these conversations is not to identify a hidden condition. It is to understand the person behind the performance, and to give her an opportunity to raise issues that performance data cannot show. Combined with changes in workload, development participation, career plans, or other patterns, the conversation can help a manager decide whether additional support or a deeper discussion would be useful.

One conversation is not a finding, and no individual signal should serve as a verdict. The goal is to replace assumptions with curiosity, and to give high-performing leaders the same opportunity to discuss capacity, career goals, and support that organizations already provide when performance begins to decline.

The Conversation That Actually Works

Two design principles can make these conversations more useful.

The first is to make questions concrete and time-bound. Broad questions such as “How are you doing?” or “How’s your workload?” can invite familiar answers focused on current projects and deadlines. Something more specific, such as “When did you last take a full day without checking work?”, gives the person something concrete to consider. It can also open a conversation about workload, boundaries, and whether current ways of working feel sustainable.

The second is to frame the conversation so that asking for support does not sound like an admission of failure. High performers may be reluctant to describe challenges in terms of not being able to cope, particularly when they are accustomed to meeting demanding expectations. Questions about priorities, planning, capacity, and support make it easier to discuss what could change without requiring the person to characterize herself negatively.

Applied, that might produce a question set like this:

Two practical considerations also affect how useful these conversations are.

First, consider who is best positioned to have the conversation. A manager may have the strongest understanding of a leader’s work, and the leader may also reasonably hesitate to discuss certain concerns with someone who evaluates her performance. Depending on the organization’s structure and the purpose of the conversation, a skip-level leader, HR business partner, executive coach, or other trusted person outside the direct evaluation relationship may provide a useful alternative. What matters is whether the person can speak openly and whether the organization can protect appropriate confidentiality.

Second, separate the conversation from formal performance assessment where possible. A performance review, development plan, or engagement survey has a different purpose, and that purpose can influence how people choose to respond. A dedicated career or workload conversation creates more room to discuss priorities, support, and sustainability without making every answer part of an assessment.

The purpose is not to get someone to disclose the strain they are experiencing. It is to create better conditions for an honest conversation about the work, the role, and what would help make both sustainable.

What This Costs, and How to Calculate Your Own Number

Gallup estimates that replacing an employee costs between one-half and two times annual salary, depending on the role, with senior and specialized positions generally toward the upper end of the range.[2] That is a useful starting point. A more complete estimate comes from considering several additional costs alongside it.

Start with the direct replacement cost. Use the appropriate salary multiplier as a baseline and include costs associated with recruitment, onboarding, and the administrative work involved in the transition. Because actual costs vary by role and organization, document the assumptions behind the figure rather than treating the multiplier as a precise calculation.

Add the time-to-productivity gap. Estimate how long a successor may take to reach the level of effectiveness expected in the role, then consider the value of the work that may be affected during that period. For senior leaders this can include institutional knowledge, established relationships, decision-making context, and familiarity with complex processes. These costs are difficult to measure, so state the assumptions clearly. We examined the direct replacement side of this in more detail in Replacing a Leader Can Cost 200% of Their Salary.

Consider work that needs to be reassigned. Review the voluntary commitments, cross-functional projects, mentoring responsibilities, and other contributions that may not appear in the formal job description. When a leader leaves, those responsibilities may stop, move to other employees, or require additional resources. Mapping them helps an organization understand the full scope of the role, including the work that sits outside formal responsibilities.

Finally, consider the longer-term organizational effects. Women in the Workplace 2025 reported that for every 100 men promoted to manager, 93 women were promoted. The report also identified larger gaps for some groups of women, including 82 Asian women, 82 Latinas, and 60 Black women promoted for every 100 men. It reported that women held 29% of C-suite positions.[1] These figures provide context for the continuing representation gaps in leadership, and structural penalties that compound at particular career stages are examined separately in The Motherhood Penalty vs. The Fatherhood Bonus.

A senior leader’s departure may affect more than the immediate vacancy. It can change team responsibilities, development opportunities, succession planning, and how employees view their own potential paths within the organization. Those effects are more difficult to quantify and should not be presented as a fixed financial cost. They remain relevant considerations when an organization evaluates the broader impact of leadership turnover.

The first three components can generally support a more concrete financial estimate. The longer-term effects are harder to quantify, though documenting them still helps an organization understand what is at stake and identify where better retention practices may have value.

What to Do When You Find the Pattern

Suppose an organization notices a pattern that may indicate increasing workload or changing capacity. Reducing workload can be one useful response, and it may not address every underlying issue. Some leaders take on additional work when responsibilities are reduced. Others use the opportunity to reset priorities or establish more sustainable boundaries. The right response depends on the individual, the role, and the circumstances.

Three practices can help organizations respond more effectively.

Preventable attrition is easier to address when an organization looks beyond the resignation itself. In Maya’s case, several changes appeared across different parts of her work experience over time. None provided a definitive explanation for her eventual departure. Together, though, they could have created opportunities for questions about workload, development, career goals, and support.

The opportunity is not necessarily to collect more data. It is to use the information you already have as a starting point for better conversations.

Where to Go From Here

If you are responsible for retaining senior women in your organization, HER Impact™ offers keynotes, workshops, and cohort-based leadership experiences focused on identity, capacity, and sustainable leadership. Everything in this article is designed to be useful without outside support. HER Impact™ can also facilitate conversations that may be difficult to hold within a direct reporting relationship, and provide additional space for leaders to explore their goals, expectations, and approach to sustainable performance. Start a conversation here.

If you recognized yourself rather than someone on your team, the Identity Drift Assessment™ offers a way to reflect on the relationship between your sense of worth and what you produce. It is free and self-scored, and the results are yours alone. They cannot be shared with your company.

Frequently Asked Questions

References

  1. LeanIn.org & McKinsey & Company. (2025). Women in the Workplace 2025 (124 organizations, approximately 3 million employees, 9,500 employees surveyed, 62 HR leader interviews).
  2. Gallup. (2019). This Fixable Problem Costs U.S. Businesses $1 Trillion.
  3. Work Institute. (2025). 2025 Retention Report: Employee Retention Truths in Today’s Workplace.

Research assistance and editorial support were used in preparing this article, and every source cited has been verified against its original publication. This is informative, educational content and not legal, business, financial, or medical advice. It is not a clinical or diagnostic instrument.