January 2026Grace Goldberg
What’s Really Driving MEP Engineer Turnover
Hiring activity across MEP and building systems hiring remains strong. Project pipelines are full, demand for experienced engineers continues to outpace supply, and firms are under sustained pressure to deliver. In that environment, it is easy to assume that engineers change roles primarily for higher pay, but market behaviour does not support that view. Compensation matters yes, but it is rarely the deciding factor. Instead, the primary driver behind most movement is workload.
Why workload is driving MEP engineer turnover
In conversations with engineers exploring the market, pay is rarely the starting point. More often, the discussion centres on the volume of work and the expectation to sustain high output for extended periods. Many firms continue to secure projects without having sufficient delivery capacity in place. From a commercial standpoint, this is understandable. Declining large projects because teams are stretched is difficult in competitive markets. The issue is that delivery pressure is absorbed internally, and what begins as a short-term push becomes routine.
Engineers frequently report extended work weeks well beyond common expectations. Research on long working hours shows that consistently working more than 50 hours per week is associated with measurable effects on brain structure tied to emotional regulation and cognition, and is linked with poorer mental health outcomes when compared to standard workweeks. This kind of sustained workload has consequences beyond a temporary peak period and is not something most professionals can maintain indefinitely without negative effects.
When this level of intensity continues, fatigue builds, engagement drops, and performance suffers. By the time engineers begin exploring new roles, many are already close to burnout.
MEP engineer compensation is more consistent than expected
One of the most persistent misconceptions in MEP and building systems hiring is around pay disparity. Salary bands are tighter than many assume, particularly across mid-sized and larger firms. Base compensation tends to align closely for comparable roles, which is why pay alone rarely triggers movement.
With accurate market data, most experienced hiring managers can estimate compensation for a given profile within a relatively narrow range. Engineers are often surprised by this reality. Many expect a firm change to deliver a significant increase, when most firms are already paying close to market value.
Why pay comparisons create dissatisfaction in MEP teams
Where dissatisfaction often begins is through comparison without context. Engineers compare salaries with peers who appear similar on paper and expect compensation to match exactly. When it does not, frustration follows.
In most cases, higher-paid peers are differentiated by commercially relevant factors rather than tenure alone. These differences usually relate to sector specialisation, particularly in higher-fee environments, professional licensure and signing responsibility, exposure to more complex or higher-risk project types, and involvement in client-facing or commercial decision-making.
As Grace Goldberg, Senior Vice President at LVI Associates, states:
A lot of frustration comes from comparing salaries without seeing what sits behind them. Pay differences usually reflect the type of projects someone is on and the level of responsibility they carry, not just how long they’ve been in the role.
Years of experience alone does not determine compensation in MEP and building systems hiring. The type of experience and level of responsibility matter far more, and when firms fail to communicate this clearly, assumptions form, trust erodes, and dissatisfaction grows even when pay is broadly aligned with the market.
Burnout as the real driver of MEP engineer resignations
From a hiring and retention standpoint, burnout is the accelerant behind most resignations. Compensation may enter the conversation, but workload is the catalyst.
High-performing engineers are particularly exposed. They tend to absorb additional projects when teams are short, resolve delivery issues quietly to protect deadlines, and take on responsibility without added support. Over time, pressure concentrates on a small group of people. Once engineers reach this stage, counter offers rarely succeed. Higher pay does not fix unsustainable conditions and often raises expectations without reducing workload.
Where MEP firms misjudge retention risk
Many organisations continue to focus retention efforts primarily on compensation because it is visible and easy to adjust. In practice, strong engineers are rarely lost because they are underpaid. They leave because the workload remains unmanaged for too long. Growth is prioritised, while delivery teams absorb the cost.
Workload pressure typically comes from a combination of factors:
- Optimistic assumptions about future hiring
- Underestimating effort on complex projects
- Reluctance to challenge fees or decline work
- Uneven distribution of responsibility within teams
These issues rarely surface in salary reviews, but they show up clearly in attrition data.
How MEP engineers decide when to change roles
Engineers rarely leave impulsively. Most stay longer than they should, hoping conditions improve. They wait for staffing changes, leadership intervention, or workload rebalancing. By the time they actively engage with the market, the decision is often well advanced.
At that stage, priorities shift away from salary and toward sustainability. Engineers focus on team structure, project load, realistic working hours, and leadership approach to resourcing and delivery pressure. Compensation still matters, but it becomes secondary.
What this means for MEP hiring managers
What we are seeing across MEP and building systems hiring is consistent. Burnout moves people faster than compensation ever will. Firms that rely only on pay adjustments remain reactive, responding after disengagement has already set in. Those who retain talent longer take a more deliberate approach to workload management, communication, and growth planning, even when they are not leading the market on salary.
Preventing burnout does not require eliminating pressure entirely. It requires managing it realistically. The firms performing best on retention tend to focus on a few practical areas:
- Aligning project wins with confirmed delivery capacity, not projected hires
- Monitoring workload distribution so the same high performers are not carrying sustained overload
- Being transparent about why compensation differs across roles and responsibilities
- Setting clear expectations around working hours and escalation when teams are stretched
- Planning growth at a pace that delivery teams can absorb without prolonged strain
For hiring managers looking to fill MEP roles, these dynamics are critical. Candidate hesitation is rarely driven by compensation alone. Capacity, workload, and team structure increasingly shape hiring outcomes, particularly for experienced engineers who have already experienced burnout elsewhere.
If you are struggling to hire MEP professionals or seeing strong candidates hesitate late in the process, request a call back from the LVI Associates team. A focused discussion can help clarify current market conditions, identify where roles may be misaligned with candidate expectations, and position opportunities more effectively in a constrained hiring environment.
