Apple being the least tenured certainly breaks the notion that companies with better public images do better at retaining employees.
ETA: Sort of analogous to Amazon’s warehouse workforce.
I couldn’t find it in the source, but I assume they’re only counting people who _have_ left these companies? Otherwise growing companies with a higher percentage of newer employees would be heavily penalized.
Re: Apple, I have a similar but less extreme impression of their engineering org.. but don't know anyone there/from there.
Notice for example MSFT doesn't show up as a high churn shop.
Whereas the hottest companies attract employees who are more career and development focused who are more likely to switch every few years?
Just guesses though.
Looking at this list I had the same thought a couple of times: maybe "long time employees don't want to leave" is not necessarily the sign of a wholesome company where everyone is happy and content.
There's a continuum of "good/bad" to customers & "good/bad" to employees, and companies are rarely good to both.
Some of the most popular consumer facing brands are terrible places to work. One cynical reason may be that they know there is an unlimited supply of bushy tailed workers ready to replace you once they exhaust your will to live. Another less cynical reason might be that to create the best products requires the hardest work, most competition, and generally it burns people out.
It's worth going into the interview process understanding the risk/reward profile. Some companies are high stress & turnover, but at least pay you for the hazard. Others not so much.
Maybe the short short average tenure time is because of the retail employees.