> "Non-regrettable" attrition means either that the person was fired or laid off.
Unless that's a technical/industry term, I assumed it additionally means people who quit, but the company did not mind seeing them go. That is, their performance was only fine-ish, maybe not down to the level where they'd get fired, but also not at a level where their departure would be lamented by their manager.
E.g. a sales rep is underperforming and decided to leave. The decision at time of termination was technically the employee's (not fired, not laid off), but the company would not seek to retain or rehire.
In companies with good communication and clear incentive structures, this is a somewhat common occurrence, as employees realize there is not a good opportunity for them.
I don't think the methodology is completely standard, but you generally want an objective way to differentiate between the two forms of attrition. One way to do it is to define non-regrettable as having documented performance or behavioral issues at the time they decided to leave. Another way would be to do talent surveys to get an evaluation ahead of time.
Yeah, and any manager will do their best to mark anyone they can as non-regrettable because a manager isn't gonna last long if their good employees are the ones leaving.
Unless that's a technical/industry term, I assumed it additionally means people who quit, but the company did not mind seeing them go. That is, their performance was only fine-ish, maybe not down to the level where they'd get fired, but also not at a level where their departure would be lamented by their manager.