Edson Pindza

Cybersecurity start-up founder. Innovator. Uloq. confisense

When I discovered a natural aptitude for math and science, I discovered a natural problem-solver hence I founded eccenscia in 2019 through pure determination, perseverance, and obsession to make navigating the digital space safe for everyone...

Founder & CEO

We focus on developing Intelligent digital security solutions that keep you ahead of digital risks. So you can navigate your business and personal life with confidence, freedom and peace.

Employee Engagement Specialist | Organizational Change Coach | Empowering Organizations to build a competency for ongoing change | Lean-Agile implementation expert with 30+ Years of Innovation | SPCT | Candidate ILM

Your best people aren't going to tell you they're leaving. They're just going to leave.
By the time someone hands in their notice, the decision was made months ago. A promotion path that went nowhere. A manager who stopped listening. A conversation that never happened.

Most companies find out too late. Then they pay 4x what they thought turnover costs when you add the productivity loss, the project delays, the knowledge walking out the door, and the team stretched thin covering the gap.

I spent 20 years implementing transformation programs at Fortune 500 companies. Watched them obsess over efficiency while bleeding millions in preventable departures they never saw coming.

I co-authored "The Trillion Dollar Problem" to document what most executives miss. Then I co-founded 
Clover ERA to fix it.

Clover ERA shows you which teams are about to break. Before the resignations start.

Daily anonymous check-ins surface what's building beneath the surface. Managers see the patterns and get specific prompts to act. You intervene while there's still time.

We don't prevent every departure. We prevent the ones that didn't have to happen. The ones where someone was waiting for a conversation that never came.

Preventing one departure costs a fraction of replacing them.
If you're losing people you didn't see coming, let's talk.

📅 Schedule Your Free Turnover Analysis: https://outlook.office.com/book/TurnoverAnalysis@cloverera.com/?ismsaljsauthenabled
🔍 Or take the free Team Health Assessment: https://cloverera.com/team-health

Clive Hays

A CFO told me he had 1:1s with his VP of Operations every two weeks for three years.
$520K to replace her. She'd raised the issue twice. 

He just didn't hear it as an issue.

Once in February she asked about leadership development. 
Once in June she flagged that another VP had more budget visibility than she did. 
He said he'd look into both. He never came back to either.

She gave him 22 more 1:1s after that. Twenty-two chances to revisit the only conversations that mattered. He used every one to review timelines.

I talked to her after she left.

"Every one of those meetings was a chance for him to show me I mattered beyond my output. I brought him two things that weren't about projects. 

They were about me. He turned them into action items he never actioned."
Your 1:1s are not what you think they are. Your employee isn't updating you. They're deciding whether you're worth being honest with. Every meeting is a test you don't know you're taking.

The things people stop mentioning aren't resolved. They're abandoned. Every abandoned request is a permission slip to start looking.

Neil and I found these patterns everywhere. 78 of them. The book is called Already Gone. It's out.

What did someone on your team bring up once, maybe twice, then never mention again?

I help CEOs/CFOs stop pre-automation turnover bleeding competitive advantage before AI works

A manager told me she changed one question in her 1:1s. Nothing else. 
It saved $680K.

She'd been running the same format for years. How's the project going. Any blockers. Anything you need from me.

Good questions. Safe questions. She got the same answers every week.

I asked what made her change.

"I lost two people in four months. Both said everything was fine the week before they resigned. I realised I was asking questions they could answer without telling me anything."

So she replaced all of it with one line: "What would you change if you knew I'd actually do it?"

First time she asked, she got silence. Second time, one of her engineers said the deployment process had been broken for a year and everyone had given up mentioning it.

She fixed it in a week. A week. The thing that had been draining her team for twelve months took five days once someone actually asked.

Over the next quarter, three people who had been quietly disengaging came back. Not because of a program. Not because of a survey. Because one question told them someone was finally listening and would actually do something about it.

Your 1:1s are full of questions your team can answer on autopilot. One of those questions could be replaced tomorrow morning.

What would happen if you asked your team something they didn't have a safe answer for?

"Are you thinking about leaving?"
She said no. 
Her first interview had been two months earlier. 

$290K to replace her, and she was telling the truth.

A head of operations told me she asked her senior project manager directly in November. 
By September, the project manager was already interviewing.

"She's one of the most honest people I've ever worked with. I can't figure out how she looked me in the eye and said no."

She didn't lie.

By the time someone has decided to leave, they are not "thinking about leaving." Thinking means weighing options. Going back and forth. She was past that. The decision was done. Interviews, start dates, how to tell her team.

Her manager asked "are you thinking about leaving?" The honest answer was no. She wasn't thinking about it anymore.

That question is not a safety net. It's a trapdoor. It gives a decided employee a way to answer honestly while you walk away believing you've done your job.

Neil and I documented 78 of these. We called it Already Gone. It's out today.

Who on your team would answer that question right now and mean something you're not ready to hear?

CFOs tell me they lose $4M+ to turnover. I show them where it’s actually hiding | Co-Founder, Clover ERA

A VP of HR showed me her 2025 exit data last month.
"$3.1M in replacement costs. But we know exactly why they left."

I asked if she'd spoken to any of them since.

Three. All friends.

What they told her over coffee wasn't on any exit interview. Their manager had gone quiet months before the resignation. Promises made about progression. No follow-through. One of them had raised the same concern four times. The last time, she stopped raising it.

"Why didn't they say that in the interview?" she asked.

Because they needed the reference.

Nobody tells the truth in an exit interview. The real reasons get told to friends, to recruiters, to the next company's hiring manager. Not to the person who controls the final paycheck and the reference call.

Exit interviews don't tell you why people left. They tell you what people were willing to say.

Who on your team has a version of events they'd never put on paper?

A VP of HR showed me her 2025 exit data last month. Forty-seven departures. $3.1M in replacement costs. Every single one with a completed exit intervi

Open article: The $3.1M Lie Nobody Talks About by Clive Hays • 4 min read

A COO told me their operations director resigned on a Monday. 
"Totally blindsided," he said. "No warning."

I asked if I could talk to her manager.

He told me everything. He just didn't know what it meant.

Week 1: She updated her LinkedIn. Changed "Operations Director at [Company]" to "Operations Leader | Process Design | Team Development."

Week 3: She started declining optional meetings. "I thought she was finally learning to protect her time," he said.

Week 5: She documented every process she owned. "I praised her for it in our 1:1."

Week 6: She trained her backup on two critical systems. "I put it in my report as strong bench development."

Week 7: She took three calls during lunch. "I assumed they were personal."

Week 8: She gave notice.

He had all the information. The system never taught him what to do with it.

$340K to replace her. The warning signs were free.

What changed on your team in the last 8 weeks?

Your best people won’t threaten to leave. They’ll just leave. Clover ERA shows you which teams are about to break before they do | Co-Founder

A team lead followed the manager playbook for two years. Every page. 
It cost $340K.

Weekly 1:1s. Never missed one. Feedback delivered the way the training said to deliver it. Career conversations every quarter.

Her best engineer resigned on a Wednesday. No warning.

I asked what she thought happened.

"Nothing happened. That's what I can't get past. I did everything I was supposed to do."

She did. That was the problem.

She ran her 1:1s from a template. Same questions every week for two years. Her engineer answered them on autopilot. The conversations felt productive. They were rituals.

She gave feedback the way she'd been trained. Timely. Specific. Balanced. Her engineer said thank you, went home, and updated her resume. Because the feedback was always about last sprint. Never about next year.

She didn't miss the signs. The playbook she was following doesn't have a page for signs.

The tools managers get trained on were designed to make managers look competent in a review. Not to tell you what someone's thinking about on a Sunday night.

What's the one question you ask in every 1:1 that you already know the answer to before they say it?

A Head of Product told me her senior PM left for a competitor last month. Zero warning. "Probably cost us $180K," she said. I ran the numbers. $340K. 

I asked if the PM had shown any signs. "None. We talked every Friday. She told me everything." I pulled the 1:1 notes from the last four months. 

In August, the PM asked to lead the enterprise rollout. Her manager said the timing wasn't right. 

In September, she asked again. Same answer. 

In October, she stopped asking. She also stopped challenging priorities in sprint planning. 

Stopped sending those long Friday recap emails her manager used to joke took ten minutes to read. Her manager noticed. "I figured she was finally learning to pick her battles." 

That's not what was happening. She'd started interviewing in October. 

The signals were there for 90 days. 

Her manager saw every one of them. 

She just filed them under "growth" instead of "gone." 

What did someone on your team stop doing that you filed under progress?

$810K in replacement costs. 162,000 people read the two stories this week. 165 of them didn't debate. They shared their own.

One person wrote: "After 33 years, I got a write-up for not attending a voluntary event while on PTO. That broke it."

That wasn't the only one. People named the meeting. The request. The silence that followed. Not hypothetically. From their own careers.

This week's newsletter breaks down what those 165 responses reveal about why the system keeps missing signals that are right in front of it.

Something happened this week that I didn't expect. I published a story about a CFO who had 1:1s with his VP of Operations every two weeks for three ye

Open article: They're telling me their stories by Clive Hays • 2 min read

A CFO told me last month they lost $4.2M to turnover last year. I asked what they were doing about it.

"We have someone for that. Talk to HR."

I did. The Head of People showed me their budget. $340K. Annual surveys. A recognition platform with 11% adoption. Quarterly pulse checks that leadership reads once then files.

I asked if she had the authority to change comp bands when someone's underpaid. No.

If she could restructure teams when a manager's underwater. No.

If she could override a promotion decision when someone's been passed over twice. No.

"So what CAN you do?"

"I can measure how people feel about the things I can't change."

That's the job you gave her. Measure the bleeding. Report the numbers. Watch the best people leave. Then get blamed when the exit interview explains exactly what you weren't allowed to fix.

The CEO handed a $4M problem to someone with a $340K budget and no authority to touch the levers that actually matter. Manager behavior. Workload. Promotion paths. Comp decisions. All of those roll up to operations. None of them roll up to HR.

Then leadership acts shocked when turnover stays high.

You didn't delegate the problem. You just made sure nobody with power was accountable for solving it.

Turnover costs 4x what you're tracking. It's not an HR problem. It's a P&L problem. And the person who owns the P&L just sent me to someone who can't fix it.

Which executive on your leadership team can tell you, right now, what turnover actually cost you last year? Not the rate. The cost.

A CEO asked me last week why his VP of Product resigned. "Zero warning," he said. "Probably cost us $80K to replace her." I ran the math. 
$340K.

"Did her behavior change in the weeks before?"

"Actually... yeah. She got quieter in leadership meetings. Stopped pushing back on roadmap decisions. I figured the town hall aligned her. That she finally understood the bigger picture."

"What did you say at the town hall?"

"The usual. Company update. Market conditions. Mentioned we're exploring AI efficiency gains for 2026."

"When did she resign?"

"Six weeks later."

I talked to her before she left.

"What made you start looking?"

"The town hall. He said we're exploring AI efficiency gains. I heard: we're exploring whether we still need you."

"Did you ask him what he meant?"

"What was I supposed to say? 'Are you planning to replace me with AI?' That makes me sound paranoid. Or threatened. Either way, I lose."

I asked the CEO if he'd thought about how that comment would land.

"I was trying to be transparent. Show we're thinking ahead. I thought it would build confidence that we're not going to get disrupted."

Two weeks after she left, his Head of Engineering resigned. Then a senior designer.

Three people. $890K in replacement costs.

He was trying to show the company he's preparing for the future.

They heard: prepare to be replaced.

What did you say about AI in the last 60 days that your best people are still thinking about?

A manager told me she raised a flight risk to her VP. 
It became her fault.
It cost the company $410K.

She flagged it in March. Told her VP directly. "I think we're going to lose her."

His response: "What are you doing wrong that she wants to leave?"

She wasn't doing anything wrong. The employee was underpaid and everyone knew it. But the flag she raised got turned into a question about her management style.

I asked what she did next.

"Nothing. I stopped raising things after that."

Two months later, the same employee went quiet. Shorter answers in 1:1s. Stopped volunteering for projects. The manager saw every signal. She just didn't report any of them.

The employee resigned in August.

In the debrief, her VP asked why nobody saw it coming.

She almost laughed.

That's how the signal dies in most companies. Not because managers can't see what's happening. They can. They see it before anyone else. But somewhere between the manager's observation and leadership's response, the signal gets turned into blame.

One conversation taught her that raising a risk and owning the fault were the same thing. So she stopped. And the company lost the one person who was paying attention.

Your best managers are watching something right now that they're not telling you about. Not because they missed it. Because they raised something once before and learned what happened next.

What would your managers tell you if they knew it wouldn't come back on them?

A CFO called me yesterday. Four resignations. Eight days. All of them after one email.

He'd read the Citrini memo the weekend it dropped. The one predicting a white-collar recession by 2028. His board called the following Monday.

"We need to be prepared."

By Tuesday he'd made three decisions. Stopped backfilling two open roles. Deferred a promotion that was supposed to happen in March. Sent an email that afternoon freezing the Q2 training budget.

"I thought it would show we were being prudent. That we were taking the future seriously."

I asked how long between the email and the first resignation.

"Wednesday. One day."

A senior product manager. Then Thursday, an engineer. Friday, another engineer. Yesterday, his finance lead.

"Did any of them mention the email?"

"Emily did. The product manager. She said 'I saw the training freeze. I know what that means.'"

I asked what it meant.

"That there's no future here."

I asked if she was right.

Long silence.

"We were preparing for 2028. She needed to know about 2026."

The four resignations cost him $1.1 million to replace. The email took him four minutes to write.

Wall Street is calling it the AI scare trade. Hedge funds shorting white-collar employment as an investment thesis.

Your board read the memo. You sent the email. Your best people read it as confirmation.

Not of what's coming in 2028.

Of what they already suspected in 2026.

What email are you about to send that will confirm what your best people are already thinking?

A CFO showed me his 2025 turnover numbers last month. $4.2M in losses.
I asked who owned it. "HR handles that."

I talked to his Head of People. She had a $340K budget. Surveys. A recognition platform with 11% adoption. Pulse checks leadership reads once then files.

I asked if she could change comp bands when someone's underpaid. No.

Restructure teams when a manager's underwater. No.

Override a promotion decision when someone's been passed over twice. No.

"So what can you do?"

"I can measure how people feel about the things I can't change."

That's the job he gave her. Measure the bleeding. Report the numbers. Watch the best people leave. Then get blamed when the exit interview explains exactly what she wasn't allowed to fix.

Here's what most CFOs miss. Turnover doesn't show up as "turnover cost" on the P&L. It's scattered. Recruiting fees under talent acquisition. Overtime in payroll. Lost deals in sales slippage. Consultant hours in professional services.

By the time you reconcile it, the damage is two quarters old and attributed to something else.

CFOs track CAC down to the dollar. They model gross margin by product line. Then they treat a $4M margin leak like it's an HR initiative.

The levers that prevent turnover—manager behavior, workload, comp decisions, promotion paths—don't roll up to HR. They roll up to operations.

You didn't delegate the problem. You just made sure nobody with power was accountable for solving it.

Turnover costs 4x what you're tracking. It's not an HR problem. It's a P&L problem.

Full breakdown in today's newsletter.

A CFO told me last month his company lost $4.2 million to turnover last year. I asked what he was doing about it. "We have someone for that. Talk to H

Open article: Employee Turnover: A CFO Problem, Not an HR Problem by Clive Hays • 6 min read

Employee Turnover: A CFO Problem, Not an HR Problem

A COO at a mid-size tech company showed me his 2025 retention spend last month. $180K across surveys, a platform, a culture consultant, and manager training workshops.

"We take this seriously," he said.

I pulled up the latest Gallup numbers on my laptop and turned the screen toward him. Global engagement just hit a 10-year low. After the biggest investment in engagement solutions in history.

He looked at the data for about ten seconds. "So the whole industry just... doesn't work?"

Not the way it's being sold.

A survey tells you how someone felt on the day they filled it in. It doesn't tell you what their manager said to them the following Monday. Or didn't say. That's where it lives. Not in a platform. Not in a score. In a conversation that either happened or it didn't.

$438 billion in lost productivity last year. Not because companies didn't try. Because the solutions were measuring the wrong thing and calling it fixed.

The industry sold you the receipt. Not the result.

Which line on your 2025 retention spend changed what a manager actually does on a Tuesday morning?

taplio

The Battle

Edson Pindza

Clive Hays

Followers

Posts

Engagements

Likes

Performance ScoreClive Hays's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

taplio

The Battle

Edson Pindza

Clive Hays

Followers

Posts

Engagements

Likes

Performance Score.css-goub6s{font-size:var(--chakra-fontSizes-md);font-weight:500;color:var(--chakra-colors-gray-600);display:block;margin-top:var(--chakra-space-1);}Clive Hays's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

Performance ScoreClive Hays's LinkedIn Performance