Seat to Scale — Edition 19 | By Nicole Chukreeff, Founder of FleetGrowth Partners
When the same driver concern keeps coming back, a fleet needs to understand what is producing it and what needs to change.
AtFleetGrowth Partners, we help trucking fleets investigate recurring operational problems that may be contributing to driver frustration, unnecessary costs, and turnover. Our Driver Experience Diagnostic focuses on one operating group and one central concern. We compare driver feedback with leadership's perspective and relevant operational information, then recommend practical actions and ways to measure progress.
Here is what that work looks like using a hypothetical earnings concern.
A driver raises an earnings concern. Someone takes the call, reviews the settlement, and explains the pay calculation. The conversation ends. A week later, the same concern comes up again.
At that point, I would want to understand what the first conversation actually resolved. Was the driver questioning a payroll calculation? The miles available? The time spent waiting? Or the difference between what they expected to earn and what the job was delivering?
Those questions matter because each answer points toward a different decision. Collecting feedback gives a fleet somewhere to begin. The work that follows is determining what the concern means, what the evidence supports, and who can do something about it.
The time available to act
The 2026 Carrier Survey from Conversion Interactive Agency and People. Data. Analytics. (PDA) puts some useful context around that work. Among responding carriers, 71% were somewhat or extremely confident they understood why drivers leave. Yet 58% typically recognized departure risk less than 30 days beforehand, and another 28% usually found out when the driver resigned.
These are separate overall findings. The report does not establish how individual respondents answered both questions. It also does not tell us which departures could have been prevented.
What it does raise is a practical question: when a fleet recognizes a concern, does it have a process for investigating and responding within the time available?
For a carrier that already collects driver feedback, the practical challenge may be deciding what to do with a concern it has heard several times. That is where a focused investigation can help.
Start with one clearly defined concern
Consider this hypothetical example. Several drivers in one operating group say their earnings are not matching expectations. Leadership believes the advertised pay range is competitive. Payroll confirms that settlements are calculated correctly. Operations points to normal variations in freight.
Each perspective may contain useful information. None, by itself, explains the whole concern.
I would begin by making the question specific: what is contributing to the gap between expected and actual earnings in this operating group? That gives the investigation a defined population and a problem to examine.
It also keeps the organization from immediately jumping to an expensive response, such as changing pay across the fleet, before establishing whether the concern is about the rate at all.
Compare the accounts with the evidence
On the driver side, I would want to understand what earnings they expected, where that expectation came from, when the difference began, and what happened when they asked about it. Gross earnings, take-home pay, and advertised potential need to be distinguished so everyone is discussing the same thing.
On the leadership side, I would ask what drivers are told, which operating conditions make those earnings achievable, and how concerns move between recruiting, operations, and payroll.
Then I would review relevant information the carrier can provide: recruiting materials, comparable weekly earnings and miles, available workdays, detention or downtime records, and previous responses to the concern. The comparison should account for differences such as route type, time off, and tenure.
The purpose is to test explanations. A difference between driver feedback and leadership expectations tells us where to investigate; it does not establish who is right.
Suppose the review shows that payroll is accurate, but recurring delays are reducing earning opportunities. Suppose recruiting materials describe an earnings range without clearly explaining the conditions needed to reach it. The investigation would then point toward operating delays and expectation setting. A payroll correction would not address either issue.
Give each recommended action an owner
A recommendation needs to explain what should change, who has the authority to change it, and when the carrier will review the result.
In this example, operations might review the recurring delays and decide which are within its control. Recruiting might revise how it explains the earnings range. A designated manager could coordinate the response so the driver is not left moving between departments for an answer.
Some constraints may remain. A carrier may be unable to guarantee a particular weekly income or eliminate customer delays. That makes an honest explanation of achievable earnings and available options especially important. The investigation should help leadership make a defensible decision, including when the answer is that a requested change cannot be made.
The driver also needs to hear what was reviewed, what will happen next, and when to expect an update. That follow-through should include checking whether the response addressed the concern the driver actually raised.
Check whether the recurring problem changed
For the earnings example, useful measures could include the frequency of the identified delays, comparable weekly earnings, and repeat concerns about the same issue. Follow-up conversations can help establish whether drivers understand what to expect and whether their experience has changed.
These measures should connect to the finding. If the recommendation addressed delays, counting completed driver calls would tell us little about whether those delays improved.
Retention can be tracked over time, but it should not be the only measure of progress. A driver staying does not prove that a concern was resolved. A driver leaving does not prove that the response failed. Other factors can influence either outcome, and a short diagnostic cannot establish that its recommendations caused a change in turnover.
What the carrier receives
FGP brings the findings together so leadership can see where driver and leadership perspectives align, where they differ, and what the available operational evidence supports. We identify what remains uncertain and provide three priorities for improvement, with recommended ownership and measures for follow-up.
In the earnings example, those priorities could address recurring operating delays, how earnings expectations are explained, and how concerns are coordinated across departments. The actual recommendations depend on what the investigation establishes.
Leadership can use that work to decide what to change, who will carry it forward, and how to check the result. The carrier remains responsible for implementing the changes.
If your fleet has a recurring concern about earnings, home time, communication, or another part of the driver experience that your current process has not explained, that is a reason to talk with FleetGrowth Partners.
Bring one concern and the operating group affected. We can discuss what you already know, what remains unresolved, and whether a focused Driver Experience Diagnostic fits the problem.
Source
Conversion Interactive Agency Agency and PDA - People. Data. Analytics. Data. Analytics. (PDA), 2026 national Carrier Survey, introduction and questions 9 and 10. The report lists 124 responses from 957 surveys sent, a reported response rate of 13%. Fleets above 250 trucks accounted for 81% of respondents. The findings describe this respondent group and should not be assumed to represent every carrier. The earnings example in this article is hypothetical.