How it works
Accolgo asks three people, the new starter themselves, their line manager and their buddy, a short set of questions about how things really feel, reads their answers together, and tells the line manager, in plain English, when a supportive conversation would help. Before someone quietly decides to leave.
The rhythm
A light check-in on day two, then weekly through the first month, then fortnightly out to about six months. The questions change as the person settles, from landing and first impressions to contribution, standing on their own, and whether they are glad they joined. Time away for leave or illness simply pauses the rhythm and is never counted against anyone.
The first six months
Who is involved
Gets a short, two-minute check-in on a gentle rhythm, asking how their start actually feels: how welcome, how clear, how connected, how the work is going. Every check-in also lets them ask for a word with their line manager, or a private word with someone senior who is not their line manager.
Sees their new starters, with anyone who needs them listed at the top. Clicking on a person shows a plain-English next step, suggested opening lines, and the new starter's own answers week on week. One tick marks a conversation done. They also get a short weekly summary by email.
Answers a few short questions on how the person seems socially: included, settled, part of the team. The buddy's read often sees what a line manager cannot, and it is one of the three that build the picture.
Sees every new starter across every line manager. When a starter asks for a private word, it goes to an allocated senior person, usually the Head of People, and the line manager is never told. They get an email alert the moment a private word is raised, and a Monday overview of everyone.
What the line manager gets
When the three views point to someone who could use support, Accolgo surfaces a short, specific nudge and a few opening lines for the conversation. It never labels the person, and if someone simply does not answer a check-in, that silence itself is treated as worth a look, never written off as missing data. The line manager marks it done once they have had the chat.
Example nudge
It is worth making a little time for Sofia this week. Her own answers have softened across clarity and the tools she needs. A warm, no-agenda chat now tends to pay off well before it becomes anything bigger.
You could open with
“I wanted to check in properly. How are things feeling for you at the moment?”
The safety in it
If a new starter’s worry is about their line manager, every check-in offers a private word with someone senior who is not that line manager. It reaches only that senior person, and the line manager is never told it was raised. More on how we handle data.
The thinking behind the questions
The questions are not a survey someone brainstormed. Each one is chosen to read the few things that genuinely shape whether a new starter stays: whether they feel they belong, whether the job is what they were told it would be, and whether they are set up to do it well. The wording draws on established thinking about why people leave in their first months, refined so it reads as human, never clinical.
There is a full methodology behind how the questions are built, sequenced across the six months, and read together. We are very happy to walk you through it in detail. Just ask.
Questions people ask us
No. Suggestions are matched from a library of reviewed, human-written guidance for the specific situation. On the rare occasion nothing in that library fits, a tightly constrained AI step drafts a fallback line, which then goes through the same fixed checks everything else does before anyone sees it, including no clinical language and no causal claims. AI never decides what's worth a conversation. The rules do that.
Four dimensions that published research has linked to whether someone settles successfully into a new role: their connection to the people around them, whether the role is matching expectations, whether they're properly equipped, and whether they feel they're contributing. We've built our own model around this research rather than adopting something off the shelf.
In the background, our model continuously compares what the new starter says about themselves against what their line manager and buddy independently report. Where the three readings align, nothing happens. Where they diverge, or the trend moves the wrong way, the line manager is prompted. The thresholds behind that are written to be corrected against real outcomes as they play out, not defended.
Yes. The model is designed to work across sectors with very different working patterns, from hospitality and retail through to professional services, healthcare and the public sector.
No. We deliberately do not produce a score or a label of that kind. A line manager receives a considered, supportive suggestion for a conversation, never a rating of the individual.
No. There's no monitoring of the content of anyone's email or messages, and no tracking of general work activity. The only information the model ever sees is what someone chooses to answer in their own check-in.
Some of what someone shares is only ever passed to the person it is intended for, with one deliberate exception: if what someone raises for their manager reads as a concern about that manager themselves, it goes to someone senior instead, never back to the manager it was about. Nobody outside your organisation has access to the answers, and a line manager is never shown an individual score, only a summary and a suggested next step.
The interactive demo shows the line manager view and the Head of People view. No login needed.