The ROI of Legacy

Legacy isn’t soft. It’s math.

Building up the next generation of leaders sounds like a virtue. It’s also the highest-leverage financial decision you can make. Here’s the research on what it costs when we lose the next generation leader — and what it returns when you build them up over the mid and long term.

The cost

What losing the next generation of leaders really costs.

½–2×annual salary to replace a single employee — Gallup’s “conservative” estimate
213%of salary — turnover cost for senior and executive roles
$1Tlost by U.S. businesses to voluntary turnover every year
$1Tdestroyed annually by poor C-suite succession in the S&P 1500 alone

Replacing a single employee costs one-half to two times their annual salary — and Gallup calls that estimate conservative. For senior and executive roles, the research puts it as high as 213% of salary. That’s the price of one empty chair, before a single customer notices.

Zoom out and the chairs add up. Voluntary turnover costs U.S. businesses roughly $1 trillion every year. Poorly managed CEO and C-suite successions destroy close to another $1 trillion annually in the S&P 1500 alone.

Losing a leader isn’t a line item. It’s a leak in the hull.

It’s also exactly the problem Human-Rooted Leadership™ was built to solve. Read the full case for Human-Rooted Leadership →

Sources: Gallup (2019); Boushey & Glynn, Center for American Progress; Fernández-Aráoz, Nagel & Green, Harvard Business Review (2021)

The multiplier

A legacy mindset is a retention strategy.

94%would stay longer at a company that invests in helping them learn
87%of the next generation rate growth and development opportunities as important in a job
18–43%lower turnover on engaged teams
70%of a team’s engagement is driven by its leader

Your up-and-comers are watching how you treat the long term. Gallup finds 87% of the next generation rate growth and development opportunities as important in a job — versus 69% of everyone else — and that the chance to learn and grow is one of the top three factors that keep them, the one need that most separates them from prior generations. In LinkedIn’s workforce research, 94% of employees say they would stay longer at a company that invests in helping them learn.

The engagement math also runs in reverse. Engaged teams hold their people — turnover runs 18–43% lower — and the leader drives 70% of that engagement. Build up a leader today and they hold a team tomorrow, who become the leaders who hold the teams after that. That’s not a program. That’s a rootstock.

People don’t leave companies that are visibly building their future. A legacy mindset is the cheapest retention strategy ever designed.

Sources: Gallup, How Millennials Want to Work and Live (2016); LinkedIn Workforce Learning Report (2019); Gallup Q12 meta-analysis (2020); McKinsey (2022)

The part that stings

Most of it was preventable.

52%of people who quit say their manager or organization could have done something to keep them
51%say no one talked with them about their future in their final three months
35%named uncaring leaders as a top-three reason for leaving

Here’s the finding that should bother you most. Gallup reports that 52% of employees who leave voluntarily say their manager or organization could have done something to keep them. And in their final three months, 51% say no one — not their manager, not any leader — talked with them about their job satisfaction or their future.

McKinsey’s attrition research points the same direction: 35% of people who quit named uncaring leaders as a top-three reason, with lack of career development right beside it.

They didn’t leave because someone outbid you. They left because nobody showed them they had a future with you.

The exit interview is just the invoice. The decision was made months earlier, in conversations that never happened.

Sources: Gallup (2019); McKinsey Great Attrition survey (2022), 13,382 employees

The return

The return on building them.

335studies in one meta-analysis: leadership training reliably improves learning, behavior and organizational results
2×the wage return on social skills nearly doubled across a generation of U.S. workers — while the return on raw cognitive skill fell

The good news: leadership development isn’t a leap of faith. A meta-analysis of 335 studies found leadership training reliably improves learning, behavior on the job, and organizational results — especially when it includes feedback, practice, and spaced sessions rather than a one-time event.

And the value of what you’re building is rising. The wage return on social skills nearly doubled across a generation of U.S. workers while the return on raw cognitive skill fell — the human side of leadership is the part AI makes more valuable, not less.

Put the ledger together: losing a leader costs up to 2× their salary and drains the team they held. Building one costs a fraction of that — and the asset appreciates.

Legacy isn’t what you leave behind. It’s the best-performing investment on your books.

Sources: Lacerenza et al., Journal of Applied Psychology (2017); Deming, Quarterly Journal of Economics (2017)

Start here

Ready to see the full case — or build your bench?

Read the research Let’s talk