Stay Interview

An exit interview may reveal a fixable problem after an employee has accepted another job, whereas a stay interview asks about working life earlier, with the goal of listening, identifying practical changes and following up. It differs from a performance review, because a performance discussion evaluates work and goals while a stay interview explores the employee's experience, motivation and friction, and combining them can make candid answers harder if the employee fears a rating will be affected.

A manager might ask what keeps the employee there, what work they would like more of, what makes a good day and what they would change, and SHRM's stay-interview guidance recommends open questions and probing rather than a rigid script. Ask about the manager's own effect on the employee's experience, which can be uncomfortable, but defensiveness can close the conversation, so thank the person for specifics instead of arguing with their account in the room.

Choose a private time and give the employee context before meeting, explaining who will see the notes and how the information will be used. Do not promise absolute secrecy if a safety or legal concern might need escalation.

Listen for strengths as well as problems, since an employee might value a mentor, flexible scheduling or the chance to work with customers, and protecting those features can matter as much as removing a frustration. Some changes are immediate, such as clarifying priorities, adjusting a meeting pattern or arranging training, while others require budget or policy review, so separate what the manager can do from what needs a decision elsewhere.

Agree on one or two actions and a date to revisit them, recording the owner and the realistic next step, because a conversation without follow-up can damage trust more than not asking, especially when the employee shared a concern. Be honest when a request cannot be met by explaining the constraint, exploring alternatives and avoiding offering a promotion or pay rise that has not been approved, because listening is valuable but vague promises create another reason to leave.

CIPD's retention guidance treats turnover as a cost involving recruitment, training and lost knowledge, and stay interviews can inform a retention strategy but are not a guarantee of lower departures. Pay, workload, leadership and market opportunities also matter.

Avoid interviewing only people who seem unhappy, since that misses employees who are quietly considering a move and can make the conversation feel like an intervention, and a regular, fair approach helps normalise it. Consider who should run it: the direct manager often has the best ability to change day-to-day work, but a strained relationship may call for HR or another trusted person, so make the route for sensitive concerns clear.

Look for themes without exposing individual remarks widely, because if several people mention unpredictable shifts the organisation may need a scheduling review, and patterns should be shared with decision-makers while personal notes are handled carefully. Measure outcomes cautiously: an illustrative retention rate among interviewed employees is the number still employed after twelve months divided by the number interviewed, using the same cohort, so if 38 of 40 remain, that is 95%.

That figure does not prove the interviews caused retention, because the employees may have stayed anyway, a small cohort can swing sharply, and broader turnover trends and whether agreed actions were completed should be compared. Ask whether the employee noticed a change when following up, since a manager may think a new policy solved an issue when the employee still cannot use it, and for an owner the value comes from good questions, careful handling and visible follow-through, not from a scripted promise to keep everyone.