Approved retention check-in strategy for must-keep employee list

February 25, 2026 at 4:12 PMpeoplemedium

Situation

Approved the must-keep employee list prepared by Mariah and Chris. Committed to personally leading retention check-ins with must-keep engineering employees. Bjorn leads check-ins for his org. Mariah and Chris excluded their own teams (already monitored closely).

Reasoning

Ian's departure exposed a blind spot — Peter was blindsided and this systematic approach prevents recurrence. This formalizes the two-part response pattern: (1) immediate executive retention attempt (already done with Ian), (2) systematic proactive check across all top performers. Personally conducting engineering check-ins rather than delegating because flight-risk conversations require senior leadership credibility — employees need to feel the CTO cares about their career. Coordinated with the salary adjustments being processed for Ryan's team.

Additional Context

Continuation of the Ian Kaneshiro departure response (captured in Feb 24 reflection). HR Weekly sync with Greg, Bjorn, Mariah, Peter. Brian Dawson cardiac event also discussed in this meeting — heightening awareness of people-related risks. Bjorn noted some employees on his side seem happy (Jonathan, Aaron, Scott Benson, Dave Horn, Lee) but mixed on Brady.

Observed Evidence

Fathom HR Weekly sync: 'Peter's Feedback: Approved the list.' and 'Peter: Will lead the effort for the engineering team.' Fathom action item: 'Schedule 1:1s w/ must-keep Eng employees re: retention (assigned to Peter Nelson)'. Bjorn will lead his org, noted his approach is 'less heavy-handed than Greg's.'

Matching Patterns

30%
Proactive Talent Pipeline Investment(proactive retention investment, same category: people)

Confidence Breakdown

20/35
Evidence
18/30
Pattern
16/20
Source
10/15
Corroboration

Reasoning Depth Analysis

Org Signal:CTO and President personally doing retention check-ins signals 'we value you' at the highest level
Who Affected:Every employee on the must-keep list; their managers who may not realize they have flight risks
Precedent:Establishes systematic retention review process, not just reactive crisis management
Consequences:Early detection of flight risk enables intervention before resignation — proactive vs reactive
Timing:Post-Ian departure, coordinated with salary adjustments being processed — multi-pronged retention effort

Source

reflection

AI Confidence

64%

Related Context

🎥
HR Weekly Team Sync

fathom

Peter's Feedback: Approved the list. Peter: Will lead the effort for the engineering team. Solution: Proactive, direct check-ins with a must-keep list to assess satisfaction and retention risk.

Follow-up Todos

Suggest follow-up todo

Schedule 1:1s with must-keep engineering employees for retention check-ins

@Sarah

From: HR Weekly Team Sync (Feb 24). Fathom action item assigned to Peter. Work from the list Mariah and Chris prepared.

Why: You committed to personally leading these check-ins in front of Greg, Bjorn, and Mariah. Delay undermines the urgency message — every week without check-ins is a week where a flight risk could slip through undetected, exactly the blind spot Ian's departure exposed.

Outcome

No outcome recorded yet.

Decision ID: 87802e63-c8f0-44ed-a97c-2b5c8342356b