The hidden cost of not replacing people who leave

Behind every treatment, clinical trial and scientific advancement are people doing work that matters. Their knowledge, judgement and commitment deserve recognition. But the importance of their work should never become a reason to overlook their wellbeing.

When an employee leaves and their position is not replaced, the salary may disappear from the budget. Unless the work is also reduced or redesigned, however, their responsibilities remain. Someone else must manage the deadlines, maintain the relationships, make the decisions and complete the tasks. Sometimes those responsibilities are spread across a team. Sometimes they fall largely on one person who already has a full-time role. The question is whether the organisation has genuinely become more efficient or simply transferred the cost of an unfilled vacancy onto the people who are still there.

When temporary cover becomes a permanent expectation

There is a difference between helping a team through a short-term gap and being expected to absorb another person’s job indefinitely. Supporting colleagues during change is part of working life. Additional responsibilities can also create valuable development opportunities.

The problem arises when the workload expands without a corresponding discussion about priorities, resources, training, remuneration or how long the arrangement will last. An employee’s willingness to help should not be mistaken for unlimited capacity. Nor should continued delivery be taken as proof that the arrangement is sustainable.

Safe Work Australia identifies high job demands as a psychosocial hazard when they are severe, prolonged or frequent. Examples include having too much to do in too little time and being given work without the necessary skills or training. This is more than the ordinary pressure of a busy week.

Before deciding that a team is “coping”, leaders should ask what coping actually involves. Are people working longer hours? Which tasks are being deferred? What happens when someone takes leave? The fact that the work is still getting done does not tell the whole story.

Capability is not the same as capacity

In pharmaceutical businesses, redistributing work requires more than identifying a capable person and adding responsibilities to their job description.

Consider a sales representative inheriting another territory. The change involves more than additional accounts: it may also mean more travel, different customer relationships and competing demands on time. A regulatory affairs professional taking responsibility for another portfolio may need product-specific knowledge, support and a revised submission timetable.

Being excellent at one job does not automatically equip someone to perform another. Equally, having the right expertise does not mean having the time to use it properly.

The importance of appropriate preparation is particularly clear in pharmacovigilance. TGA guidance recommends relevant training for staff undertaking pharmacovigilance activities, as well as training for other employees who may receive or process safety reports. Responsibilities need to be supported by the right knowledge and processes, not simply reassigned on an organisational chart.

A genuine development opportunity includes time to learn, appropriate supervision, clear decision-making authority and realistic expectations. Without these, an employee may be carrying accountability for work they have not been adequately prepared to perform.

Calling it a “stretch opportunity” does not resolve that gap.

Pushback is information, not necessarily a poor attitude

How an employer responds when someone raises concerns is an important test of its culture.

An employee who says, “I cannot take this on without something else changing,” may be demonstrating sound judgement rather than a lack of commitment. Questions about priorities, training and capacity deserve practical answers. What should be deprioritised? Who will provide support? Which deadlines can change? How will the additional responsibilities affect existing performance expectations?

Treating these questions as evidence that someone is “not a team player” shifts attention away from the resourcing problem and onto the individual raising it.

Safe Work Australia recommends taking workers’ concerns seriously and respectfully, and ensuring leaders have the time and skills to provide support. Listening should be part of identifying and managing workplace risks, not something that happens only after an employee reaches breaking point.

Reasonable flexibility matters. So does recognising the difference between an unwillingness to contribute and an honest warning that the proposed workload cannot be delivered safely or well.

A more constructive response is: “Let’s look at what you are already carrying and what needs to change.”

Recognition must be more than another thank you

Appreciation matters, but it should not become a substitute for addressing the underlying problem.

Where responsibilities have materially increased, there should be a conversation about role scope, performance measures, support and appropriate remuneration. Employees should not be judged against unchanged targets while also being expected to perform substantial parts of someone else’s role.

Safe Work Australia recognises that a significant or persistent imbalance between employees’ effort and the reward or recognition they receive can itself become a psychosocial hazard. Recognition therefore needs to be practical. It may involve adjusting objectives, removing lower-priority work, providing additional resources or formally recognising a higher level of responsibility.

Pay is part of that discussion, but additional remuneration does not create additional hours in the day. An unsustainable workload remains unsustainable, even when someone receives a salary increase.

Reliability should not become a reason to keep loading more work onto the same person.

The next resignation may begin with an unresolved workload conversation

Retention is not just about persuading employees to stay when they receive another offer. It is also about the experience they have while deciding whether their current role remains worthwhile.

Employees with more positive views of their managers were less inclined to consider leaving. Employees who said work benefited their mental wellbeing were also more likely to contribute additional effort and share innovative ideas. These findings reinforce the connection between the working environment, commitment and contribution.

For an employer leaving vacancies unfilled, the practical implication is clear: assess more than the immediate salary saving. What happens to service, quality and delivery? Is essential work crowding out improvement projects? Are experienced employees spending their time resolving backlogs rather than developing the business? What would another resignation do to the remaining team?

There is a foreseeable cycle to guard against: a departure increases pressure, unresolved pressure contributes to another departure, and the workload becomes heavier again. That outcome is not inevitable. But a resourcing decision is incomplete if it considers the cost of replacing someone without considering the risk of losing others.

Better decisions start with the work, not just the headcount

Not every departure requires a like-for-like replacement. Some responsibilities can be removed, processes improved or roles redesigned. Temporary or specialist support may be appropriate where the gap is limited or the expertise required is specific.

The starting point should be an honest assessment of the work that remains. Before redistributing responsibilities, leaders should establish what must continue, what can stop or be deferred, and who has both the competence and capacity to take ownership.

Safe Work Australia’s guidance supports workforce planning that matches the number and skills of employees to the work, alongside sufficient time and training to complete it safely.

Any temporary arrangement should have a review date, clear priorities and an identified decision-maker who can act when demand exceeds capacity. Managers also need support to escalate resourcing concerns rather than being left to solve an impossible workload within a fixed headcount.

Wellbeing initiatives can complement these actions, but they cannot replace them. The World Health Organization recommends addressing workplace mental health risks through changes that directly target working conditions. Asking individuals to manage stress is not enough when the source of that stress remains unchanged.

Protecting the people behind the progress

October’s Mental Health Month provided an opportunity to reflect on how workplaces support mental health and wellbeing. That reflection should extend beyond awareness messages to everyday decisions about workload, recognition and resources.

For an industry dedicated to improving health, the wellbeing of the people delivering that progress deserves serious attention. The importance of the work should never overshadow the needs of those doing it. Commitment to patients, science and colleagues should be supported, not treated as an unlimited resource.

When someone leaves, the question should not simply be, “Who can absorb their work?” It should be, “What needs to change so that this work and the people responsible for it remain properly supported?”

P.S. The real cost of attrition to replace a like-for-like role is 40% to 200% of the salary.