The Reality of Staff Turnover

Tutors joining and leaving forms the natural rhythm of tuition business operations. I’ve written about this pattern elsewhere, but the specific challenge of departures without proper notice deserves deeper examination. It’s one of those operational realities that catches new business owners off guard — and continues testing experienced ones.

Why do tutors leave? The reasons fall into predictable categories. Many are university students using tuition work as temporary income while completing their degrees. When graduation arrives, they naturally pursue career opportunities that align with their long-term ambitions. Others leave for straightforward financial reasons — someone offers a higher hourly rate, and they take it. Still others discover that tutoring, while initially appealing as supplementary income, doesn’t fit their future aspirations.

All of this is manageable when proper notice is given. The challenge emerges when tutors simply walk away.

The Four-Week Notice Problem

We enforce a four-week notice period for all tutors. On paper, this provides adequate time to recruit replacements, conduct handovers, and maintain continuity for students. In reality, enforcement proves far more difficult than drafting the policy.

I learned this lesson through a situation that still frustrates me years later. We employed a talented tutor — excellent with students, well-organised, effective in the classroom. On the surface, he seemed like exactly the kind of person you want on your team. But underneath that professional exterior was someone primarily motivated by self-interest.

What happened: He approached me during a break one afternoon and announced he was leaving. Not in four weeks as our contract specified, but in two. His reasoning? He wanted to finish before the tax year ended. His personal financial convenience took priority over our operational needs and his students’ continuity.

I’m not someone who makes life difficult for staff unnecessarily. My brother, who runs his own operation, takes a more ruthless approach with tutors. I’ve always adopted what I consider a more humane style — treating people fairly, assuming good intentions, trying to accommodate reasonable requests.

So I sat down with this tutor and explained our situation. “The four-week notice gives us time to find someone suitable. You’re leaving us in a difficult position. Could you help us by staying the full period?”

He agreed to my face. Said he understood, would see what he could do, and wanted to help. A week later, I received a message — cold, definitive — stating he wouldn’t be serving the full notice and would leave on his original timeline.

The lesson in that moment: No matter what your contract says, no matter how reasonable your policies, you cannot force someone to stay. What was I going to do? Take him to court over a few hundred pounds? The legal fees would dwarf any potential recovery. Sometimes you simply accept the situation and let them go.

But that doesn’t mean you’re powerless.

A Different Approach That Actually Worked

We faced another early departure when a tutor needed to leave for genuine personal circumstances. Having learned from the previous situation, I took a different approach. I explained clearly: “As per your agreement, we have the right to withhold payment for completed lessons until the notice period is served. You’ve already taught these classes, but the payment won’t be released until you’ve completed the term.”

Where this got complicated: Her circumstances were genuinely pressing. She couldn’t stay the full four weeks. But we genuinely needed that time to recruit. Two competing needs without obvious resolution.

I had an honest conversation with her about the business reality. Finding a suitable replacement takes time. Students need continuity. Her sudden departure, however necessary for her, created real problems for us. Could she help solve the problem she was creating?

Thinking quickly, I asked: “Do you know anyone who could replace you? Someone with your subject expertise and availability?”

She did. The new tutor came in during her final week, allowing a proper handover in the same classroom. The students transitioned smoothly because they met the new teacher while the familiar one was still present. This solution served everyone — the departing tutor met her needs, we maintained classroom continuity, and the students experienced minimal disruption.

That conversation taught me something valuable: enforcement isn’t always about holding firm on policies. Sometimes it’s about creative problem-solving that addresses the underlying concern rather than the contractual letter.

The Payment Timing Strategy

The most effective enforcement mechanism we’ve developed is remarkably simple: we pay tutors two weeks in arrears as it takes time to process their payment. 

How this works: If a tutor works throughout February, they receive that month’s payment in mid-March. This creates a two-week buffer where we hold the right to withhold payment for completed work if the proper notice period has not been served.

When I first implemented this, several tutors questioned the delay. Why wouldn’t they receive immediate payment? I explained it as a company-wide payroll strategy change, which was truthful, but also to protect ourselves against sudden departures.

What this accomplished: Years ago, we paid tutors on the final day of each month. This meant any tutor receiving their February payment on February 28th could simply not show up from March 1st onward. They’d been paid in full with nothing holding them accountable to notice periods.

The delayed payment system changed that dynamic entirely. Tutors wanting to leave now have strong incentive to serve their notice — otherwise they forfeit two to three weeks of earned income. It’s not about punishment; it’s about aligning their incentives with proper procedure.

Some tutors initially resisted this change. I emphasised the factual reality: it’s merely a timing difference. They still earn the same total amount. The only change is when that amount hits their account. Eventually, they accepted it because the money still arrives — just offset by two weeks.

Is This Approach Too Harsh?

My brother would argue I’m still too soft. His approach involves stricter enforcement, harder conversations, less accommodation for individual circumstances. My philosophy differs — I prefer treating staff fairly while still protecting business interests.

Where I draw the line: I try to keep departing tutors as long as possible, sometimes even asking if they could extend beyond the four-week minimum. That extra time for recruitment matters enormously. But when someone genuinely cannot stay, I don’t create unnecessary hardship if they’ve been reasonable and professional.

The payment timing strategy provides leverage without requiring confrontation. It works automatically, applying equally to everyone, creating consequences for sudden departures without requiring me to play enforcer.

Legal action remains off the table. Pursuing a tutor through courts over a few hundred pounds makes no financial or practical sense. The legal fees would exceed the disputed amount multiple times over. Beyond cost, it creates negative publicity and bitter relationships. I’d rather absorb the loss and move forward.

The Disruption Reality

Even with proper notice, teacher transitions disrupt classroom environments. New tutors enter without understanding our ethos, teaching culture, or established practices. Students need time adjusting to different teaching styles and personalities. There’s no perfect solution to this reality.

What I’ve learned to accept: Some disruption is inevitable in staffing. The goal isn’t eliminating it entirely but minimising frequency and severity. Tutors who leave on good terms might return later — they’re worth maintaining positive relationships with. Those who leave poorly? I know they won’t be welcome back.

Final Perspective

Tutor turnover creates challenges regardless of how well you manage it. Some departures you can predict and plan for. Others arrive suddenly, without warning, forcing rapid adaptation.

The strategies that work best aren’t about ironclad enforcement or aggressive tactics. They’re about structural protections — like delayed payment — that create natural incentives for proper behaviour. They’re about maintaining relationships even when circumstances become difficult. They’re about creative problem-solving when standard procedures don’t fit unusual situations.

I take departures with equanimity now. A tutor leaving on good terms might return. One leaving poorly won’t. Either way, the business continues. The students still need teaching. The parents still expect quality education. Your job as business owner is ensuring those needs are met regardless of staffing changes.

Protect yourself through smart payment timing. Maintain professionalism even in difficult conversations. Accept that sometimes people will leave improperly despite your best efforts. Focus your energy on what you can control — recruitment systems, handover procedures, maintaining a positive workplace culture that encourages proper notice voluntarily.

The tutors worth keeping will respect your reasonable expectations. Those who won’t — well, you’re better off without them anyway.