Stay interview questions: catching flight risk before someone resigns
On this page
A stay interview is a one-on-one conversation a manager has with a current employee, asking directly what keeps them here, what might make them leave, and what would need to change to make the job better — asked while there is still time to act, not after a resignation letter is already written. It works because it asks the departing-employee questions of an exit interview months or years earlier, while the answer can still change the outcome.
Below is a question bank for the conversation itself, who should run it and how often, the signals during the conversation that mean "act this week, not next quarter," and a simple format for turning answers into a retention plan instead of a nice conversation nobody follows up on.
What a stay interview is, and what it is not
It is not a performance review — nothing about the employee's output should come up unless they raise it themselves. It is not an engagement survey — those are anonymous, aggregated, and run for the organization; a stay interview is named, specific to one person, and run for that person. And it is not a disguised negotiation for a raise, though compensation may come up honestly. Its only job is to surface, early, what a manager could actually do something about.
Who should ask, and when
In most cases, the direct manager runs it, because the manager is the one positioned to act on workload, recognition, project assignment and day-to-day frustration. HR should run it instead, or sit in, if the manager themselves is likely to be part of what the employee is unhappy about — the same reason a manager should not run their own team's exit interviews. See HR generalist screening questions for what an HR generalist running these conversations should already know.
A reasonable starting cadence is twice a year for most employees, plus an added check-in after a major event: the first anniversary in a role, right after a reorg, or shortly after a well-liked peer resigns, since departures unsettle the people who stay. Prioritize people who would be hard to replace — strong performers and people with deep institutional knowledge — rather than waiting for someone to already look like a flight risk, since the conversation is most useful before the obvious signs appear.
The question bank
| Question | What a useful answer sounds like | Red flags |
|---|---|---|
| What's your favorite part of your job right now, and what would you change if you could? | A specific answer to both halves — something they'd protect, something they'd fix. | Struggles to name anything they'd protect, or a long list of frustrations with nothing positive. |
| What would make you consider leaving? | A concrete, specific answer: being passed over again for a promotion they've earned, a return-to-office mandate, a manager change they're worried about. | "I don't really think about it," delivered flatly rather than as genuine contentment — sometimes a sign someone has already stopped engaging with the question mentally. |
| If you could change one thing about your role without asking permission, what would it be? | Something specific and actionable: more autonomy on a certain type of decision, less time in a certain recurring meeting. | Nothing they'd change at all, which is either genuine satisfaction or disengagement — ask a follow-up to tell the difference. |
| Do you feel recognized for the work you do? What would better recognition look like to you? | Specific and often modest: being credited in a meeting, a manager who says thank you directly, not necessarily money. | "Recognition doesn't really happen here" stated as an unremarkable fact of how the team works. |
| Where do you want to be in two years, and does the path here get you there? | A real answer with a plausible path inside the company, even if it is a lateral move rather than a promotion. | A clear answer that has no path here at all, stated with certainty. |
| Is there anything happening on the team, or with your workload, that's been weighing on you? | Specific, current, and often fixable: an unbalanced project split, a peer conflict, a deadline they see coming and dread. | Signs of burnout described as normal, or a peer conflict that has gone unaddressed for a long time. |
| What would it take for you to recommend this team to a friend looking for a job? | A specific, believable "yes, because..." or a clear "not right now, because..." | Hesitation followed by a vague, unconvincing yes. |
Signals that need action this week, not next quarter
Most stay interview answers are ordinary and go into a normal retention plan. A few signal urgency:
- A specific, dated trigger. "If the promotion I was told about in January doesn't happen by the next cycle" is a deadline, not a vague future worry. Note the date and follow up before it, not after.
- Mentioning they've already updated a resume, taken a recruiter call, or interviewed elsewhere. This is a much later stage than the conversation is usually meant to catch. Treat it with urgency, and be honest with yourself about whether a counteroffer is the right response — see the counteroffer conversation script for how to think that through.
- A peer's recent departure named as the reason for reconsidering their own future. One departure can trigger several more on the same team within weeks; this needs a team-level response, not just an individual one.
- Burnout language delivered flatly, as routine. "I'm always this tired, it's just the job" is a bigger risk than someone who is visibly upset about a bad week, because it suggests the person has stopped expecting it to change.
How to record the conversation
- Write it down somewhere you will actually revisit, not just in your head. A shared doc, an HRIS note, or a simple tracker works; the format matters less than whether anyone looks at it again before the next review cycle.
- Separate what the employee said from what you plan to do about it. Conflating the two in your notes makes it hard to tell later whether you followed through.
- Keep it out of the formal performance file unless the employee raises a performance-relevant issue themselves. A stay interview should not feel like evidence being gathered against them.
Turning answers into a retention plan
A simple three-column format keeps this from becoming a conversation that goes nowhere:
| What they said | Action | By when |
|---|---|---|
| Example: "I want to lead a project, not just execute on one" | Assign ownership of the next suitable project; tell them directly this was in response to what they said | Next project kickoff |
| Example: "I haven't had a real conversation about my next title in over a year" | Schedule a specific career conversation with a timeline, not a vague "let's talk sometime" | Within two weeks |
The table above uses invented examples to show the format. The step people skip is not asking the questions — it is closing the loop. Tell the employee what you are doing as a direct result of what they said. A stay interview that produces no visible change teaches people that the conversation is theater, which makes the next one less honest.
Adjusting the conversation by tenure and setting
- New hires, first 90 days. Skip "where do you want to be in two years" — too early to mean much — and focus on whether onboarding gave them what they needed and whether the role matches what they were sold in the interview. A mismatch caught here is far cheaper to fix than one caught at month ten.
- Tenured employees. Growth and recognition questions carry more weight, since day-to-day frustrations tend to have already been worked out or accepted one way or another. Ask directly about their two-year outlook; a long-tenured employee with no answer to that question is worth a closer look.
- Remote employees. Add a question about visibility and connection specifically: whether they feel as informed and included as people in the office, since remote employees often underreport this unless asked directly.
- Employees who recently turned down another offer or got a competing one. Do not wait for the next scheduled cycle. Have the conversation now, while the reasons they stayed are fresh, and find out what would tip the answer the other way next time.
Common mistakes
- Running it like an exit interview with different tense. "Why might you leave" framed entirely around problems misses the equally useful "what's working" half of the conversation.
- Only talking to people who already look unhappy. By the time disengagement is visible, you have lost some of the lead time the conversation is meant to buy you.
- Promising things the manager cannot actually deliver. If compensation or title changes require approval above the manager's level, say so honestly rather than implying a commitment that then doesn't happen.
- Treating one round as done. A single conversation eighteen months ago is not a retention program; the value comes from the pattern of asking, acting, and asking again.
Questions people ask
How is a stay interview different from a performance review or an engagement survey?
A performance review is about the employee's output, scored against goals. An engagement survey is anonymous and aggregated across many people. A stay interview is a one-on-one, named conversation with one purpose: find out what would make this specific person leave, while there is still time to act on it.
Who should conduct a stay interview: the direct manager or HR?
The direct manager, in most cases, because they are the one who can actually act on most of what comes up: workload, recognition, day-to-day frustrations. HR should conduct it instead, or sit in, when the manager is part of the reason the employee might be at risk.
Which employees should get a stay interview first?
Start with people you would genuinely struggle to replace: strong performers, people with institutional knowledge, and anyone on a team that has already lost people recently. Running it only for people already showing obvious flight risk misses the point — the conversation works best before there are obvious signs.
How often should stay interviews happen?
Twice a year is a common starting cadence for most teams, with a lighter check-in around major milestones — after a first year, after a reorg, or after a peer's departure that might unsettle the rest of the team.