Flight Risk Assessment for Key Talent

This template is used to document whether a key employee may be at risk of leaving and why that assessment was made. It combines role criticality, observable retention signals, stay-conversation notes, and a specific action plan. Use it when you need a structured record before deciding on retention steps. It is not a general performance review and should not be used to label someone based on rumor or personality.

Use it when a role is hard to replace, when a high performer shows changes in engagement, or after a stay conversation reveals concerns. It also fits after a promotion denial, compensation review, reorganization, manager change, or return from leave. The best time is before a resignation is likely, not after notice is given. Revisit it whenever the employee’s situation or signals change.

The direct manager usually completes the first draft because they see day-to-day behavior and can run the stay conversation. HR or a business partner can review the assessment for consistency, fairness, and action planning. In some organizations, a manager and HR partner complete it together for key roles. The template works best when the reviewer can cite specific examples rather than general impressions.

An ad hoc conversation often produces scattered notes and no follow-through. This template forces the reviewer to separate evidence, employee-stated motivators, stated concerns, risk level, and next actions. That makes it easier to compare cases, track commitments, and avoid vague judgments. It also creates a clearer record of what was discussed and what the organization agreed to do.

Use observable signals such as reduced participation, missed development opportunities, repeated questions about internal mobility, compensation concerns, or changes in responsiveness. Include evidence from stay conversations, not assumptions about attitude or intent. Avoid trait words like "disengaged" unless you can tie them to specific behaviors and impact. The strongest entries describe what changed, when it changed, and what was said or observed.

Update it whenever new evidence appears, such as after a stay conversation, compensation cycle, promotion decision, or major team change. For critical roles, many teams review it on a regular cadence tied to talent reviews or succession planning. The key is to keep the assessment current enough to support action, not to let it sit unchanged for months. If the risk level changes, the rationale and actions should change with it.

Common mistakes include relying on recency bias, using vague feedback, and failing to record examples. Another pitfall is treating the risk rating as a guess instead of a reasoned assessment tied to evidence. Teams also sometimes skip the development plan or write retention actions that are too broad to execute. This template works best when each section is specific, dated, and tied to follow-up ownership.

Yes. You can tailor the retention signals and action options for sales, engineering, operations, healthcare, or other key roles. For example, a frontline supervisor may need scheduling flexibility, while a specialist may need growth path clarity or project scope changes. Keep the structure the same so assessments stay comparable across employees. Customize the examples, not the logic.

It can support consistent documentation when used with uniform performance criteria and behavior-based notes. Keep the language factual and avoid unsupported assumptions, especially if the record may later be reviewed in an HR process. If the assessment is connected to employment decisions, follow your organization’s EEOC documentation practices and at-will employment guidance. The template should document retention planning, not replace legal review or policy requirements.