Flight Risk Conversation Documentation Form

Use it after a retention conversation where an employee is showing signs they may leave, such as disengagement, compensation concerns, workload strain, or repeated mentions of outside opportunities. It is meant to capture what was discussed and what support was agreed to, not to replace performance management notes. If the conversation is purely about performance or conduct, a different HR form may be a better fit. Keep the record focused on observable indicators and next steps.

The manager or HR partner who led the conversation should complete it, ideally right after the meeting while details are fresh. If HR attended, HR can review the wording for neutrality and consistency. The employee should not be asked to write the record unless your process specifically uses a shared summary. Keep the final version limited to people who need it for follow-up.

Document each substantive retention conversation separately, especially when the concerns, support needs, or follow-up actions change. If the issue continues over several meetings, use a new entry or a linked follow-up record so the audit trail stays clear. Avoid merging months of discussion into one vague note. A dated sequence is easier to review and act on.

Include concrete indicators such as reduced engagement, missed development opportunities, repeated compensation concerns, schedule conflicts, burnout signals, or statements about looking elsewhere. Use the indicator_details field to describe what was observed rather than guessing at motives. Do not record rumors or unsupported assumptions. The form works best when it separates observation from interpretation.

It can become part of the HR record, so it should be written carefully and factually. If you collect PII, keep it to the minimum necessary and disclose how the documentation will be used. If the conversation includes a request for accommodation, route that through your ADA reasonable-accommodation process rather than treating it only as retention planning. Keep the language neutral and avoid speculative statements.

Adjust the flight-risk indicators list to match the signals your managers actually see, and tailor the support options to your policies, such as workload changes, development plans, schedule flexibility, or pay review routing. You can also add conditional logic so accommodation fields appear only when needed. If your organization uses HRIS or ticketing tools, map the follow-up owner and due date fields to those systems. Keep the structure simple enough that managers will actually use it.

The biggest mistake is turning it into a performance critique instead of a retention record. Another common issue is leaving the agreed actions vague, such as 'check in later' without a date, owner, or success measure. Teams also over-collect personal details that are not needed for the follow-up. The form should stay specific, minimal, and action-oriented.

No, this template is for a documented one-to-one retention conversation, not anonymous reporting. If your organization needs anonymous submission, use a separate feedback or ethics form with that capability. Mixing the two can confuse confidentiality expectations and weaken the record. Keep this form tied to a known employee and a documented follow-up path.

Informal notes are easy to lose, inconsistent, and hard to review later. This form creates a structured record with fields for concerns, support needs, consent, and follow-up ownership, which makes the next step clearer. It also helps managers avoid omitting key details like disclosure acknowledgment or a specific review date. Use it when the conversation matters enough to require an audit trail.