Pay is only one part of retention. Georgian employers also face the possibility of recruitment delays, lost organisational knowledge and weak handovers when skilled workers leave.

Key Takeaway

Retaining an employee is not a single salary decision. A firm is balancing compensation, working conditions and development opportunities against the cost of finding and integrating a replacement. The difficult question in Georgia is how to calculate that comparison without importing broad international turnover-cost estimates as if they were measured locally.

The Financial Times article “The career costs of non-competes: Your striker is sat on the bench,” published on 26 October 2026, examines restrictions that prevent employees from using acquired knowledge to benefit competing employers. It is not a study of the average cost of retention in Georgia. Its relevance here is a related strategic question: should an employer attempt to retain talent through restrictive agreements, or make staying a stronger proposition?

The Georgian Labour-Market Context

According to Georgia’s National Statistics Office, Geostat, average monthly nominal earnings reached GEL 2,389.3 in the second quarter of 2026. The unemployment rate in the same quarter was 13.8%. Both figures matter, but neither is a measure of how long it takes a specific employer to recruit a qualified worker. High unemployment can coexist with shortages of specialised skills, geographic mismatches and uneven demand across occupations.

Geostat’s published 2025 business-sector figures put aggregate personnel expenses at approximately GEL 22.3 billion, 12.2% above 2024. This is a measure of personnel expenditure, not an estimate of turnover or retention costs. Changes in wages, employment levels, hours or business composition can all influence the aggregate. It would be analytically incorrect to attribute the entire change to staff departures.

What a Departure Can Actually Cost

The costs of replacement can arise at several points: vacancy advertising, screening, interviewing, onboarding, supervisor time and interruptions to work. The consequences differ sharply by role. A departure from a technical, customer-facing or managerial position may create different operational risks. Costs should be counted only when the company has evidence that they occurred, avoiding double counting between wage payments and disruption estimates.

CIPD’s 2024 UK evidence describes difficulties in attracting and retaining skilled applicants. Gallup’s US-based research reports potentially substantial replacement costs across occupational categories. These sources illuminate possible mechanisms, not Georgian industry averages. Foreign percentages cannot be multiplied by a Georgian salary and presented as an observed Georgian business result.

An Illustrative Replacement Scenario

Consider a hypothetical Georgian employer losing a specialist whose monthly pay was GEL 2,500. Assume the direct recruitment and administration charge is GEL 1,200; a manager spends 40 hours supporting selection and induction at an assumed economic cost of GEL 35 per hour; and the employer experiences GEL 1,000 of incremental operational loss during the transition. The sum is GEL 3,600. All amounts are hypothetical. The unspent wage during an unfilled vacancy is not added as a separate loss.

This example does not estimate a nationwide average. If the manager’s time has already been captured elsewhere or the assumed operating loss does not materialise, the relevant item must be adjusted or removed.

Table 1. Illustrative replacement-cost calculation

Retention Takes More Than Pay

Pay matters, yet long-term employee commitment also reflects managerial quality, workload, learning opportunities, predictable schedules and a credible career path. Different people respond differently to these conditions. A retention plan should therefore use employee feedback, reliable workforce metrics and role-specific priorities rather than a generic formula.

Smaller Georgian firms can be especially exposed when one person holds several operational responsibilities. Large organisations may have greater staffing depth, but complex handovers and knowledge transfer still require careful planning. The most effective mix of compensation, training and flexible conditions cannot be assumed identical across sectors.

Non-Compete Clauses Are a Different Instrument

Article 60 of Georgia’s Labour Code permits defined restrictions regarding knowledge and qualifications used for a competing employer under specified conditions. After the end of employment, such a restriction may apply for no more than six months, provided that the former employer pays remuneration at least equal to the amount payable when the relationship ended. The provision excludes employees working in education, science and culture.

A legal restriction is neither a substitute for good working conditions nor a free retention device. Each agreement should be reviewed for legal applicability and cost. Its potential effect on mobility should also be considered independently of the firm’s legitimate need to protect certain business interests.

A Practical Opportunity for Georgia

An achievable first step is to build a role-specific cost record: days to hire, directly paid recruiting expenses, induction hours and actually observed downtime. This makes it easier to compare retention measures with alternatives. Internal training and career progression may lower the vulnerability associated with a single departure, but the expected gains should be tested rather than assumed.

BTU Analytical Assessment

The combination of Georgian official statistics and international recruitment evidence supports a restrained conclusion: retention investments should be assessed against the company-specific cost of losing skills. The available sources do not establish a universal Georgian replacement-cost ratio. The GEL 3,600 scenario is a transparent illustration of a decision method, not an empirical estimate of what Georgian firms typically lose.

Implications for Decision-Makers

Management teams should identify critical roles, document actual turnover costs, distinguish compensation measures from induction and training expenses, and monitor whether changes improve outcomes. Policymakers and educators should focus on the fit between training provision and market demand. The coexistence of unemployment and unfilled specialist roles does not prove that one intervention will resolve both issues.

Conclusion

Keeping talent can be costly; losing talent can be costly too. For Georgia, the main improvement is not a simplistic benchmark borrowed from another labour market, but transparent company-level measurement, sustained skills development and a balanced legal environment for labour mobility.

Data and Main Sources

Financial Times, “The career costs of non-competes: Your striker is sat on the bench” – 26 October 2026, print edition, p. 12; user-supplied copy

National Statistics Office of Georgia, Average Monthly Earnings – https://www.geostat.ge/en/modules/categories/39/wages

National Statistics Office of Georgia, Employment and Unemployment – https://www.geostat.ge/en/modules/categories/683/Employment-Unemployment

National Statistics Office of Georgia, Business Sector in Georgia, 2025 – https://www.geostat.ge/en/modules/categories/64/business-sector

CIPD, Resourcing and Talent Planning Report 2024 – https://www.cipd.org/uk/about/news/cipd-omni-rms-recruitment-retention-report-2024/

Gallup, 42% of Employee Turnover Is Preventable but Often Ignored – https://www.gallup.com/workplace/646538/employee-turnover-preventable-yet-often-ignored.aspx

Labour Code of Georgia, Article 60 – https://www.matsne.gov.ge/en/document/view/1155567?impose=original

This material is for educational and analytical purposes. It does not constitute legal or financial advice; professional consultation is appropriate for specific decisions.

Prepared by the academic team of Business and Technology University and the BTUAI Research Team, Tbilisi, Georgia.