In the high-stakes world of talent management, the departure of a key employee can feel like a seismic shock, especially when it involves a defection to a direct competitor. To navigate these turbulent waters, we sat down with Sofia Khaira, a renowned specialist in diversity, equity, and inclusion who dedicates her work to helping businesses build resilient and engaged teams. Today, she shares her invaluable insights on deciphering the subtle signs of employee disengagement, the critical calculus of retaining vs. releasing a key figure, and the proactive strategies that create a workplace culture so compelling that top talent wouldn’t dream of leaving.
When leadership uncovers irrefutable evidence that a key employee is secretly plotting a damaging defection to a competitor, what are the pros and cons of immediate dismissal? Please walk through the critical steps a company should take in that first 24 hours to manage the situation.
This is one of the most challenging situations a leader can face. When you have clear, irrefutable evidence, the primary pro of immediate dismissal is damage control. You neutralize the immediate threat and prevent the individual from causing further disruption or pulling others down with them. It sends a powerful message to the entire organization that such behavior is unacceptable. However, the con is that it’s a very reactive, and sometimes jarring, move. It can create an atmosphere of fear if not handled correctly and doesn’t address the underlying cultural issues that may have led to the plot in the first place. In those first 24 hours, the first step is absolute certainty about your evidence. Once confirmed, the dismissal should be swift and decisive. The next critical move is to control the narrative. Communicate the departure clearly and professionally to the rest of the team and key stakeholders, focusing on the future and the stability of the organization rather than dwelling on the drama of the exit.
It’s often said that leaders should see the signs of a potential departure early on. What are the most common, yet often missed, behavioral indicators that a high-value employee is disengaging, and what specific conversational tactics can a manager use to address these concerns effectively?
You’re right, these situations rarely happen in a vacuum. A planned defection is usually the final act after a long period of quiet disengagement. The indicators are often subtle—a drop in proactive communication, less enthusiasm in team meetings, or a general withdrawal from the social fabric of the company. Leaders are often so focused on deliverables that they miss these emotional undercurrents. It’s not a single event that causes someone to leave; it’s a slow build-up of feeling unheard or undervalued. The most effective tactic is proactive engagement. Don’t wait for the annual review. Implement regular, informal check-ins and make them psychologically safe spaces. Instead of asking, “Is everything okay?”, try something more open-ended like, “I’ve noticed you’ve been a bit quieter in our strategy sessions lately. I value your perspective, so I wanted to check in and see how you’re feeling about our current direction.” This opens the door for an honest conversation and makes the employee feel genuinely heard.
A senior figure might lose faith in the company’s mission. How does an organization calculate the cost of losing this person versus the risk of keeping someone who might “pull against the team”? Please describe the metrics you would use to make this difficult decision.
This is a strategic calculation that goes far beyond a simple salary figure. The core question becomes: what is the cost of misalignment versus the cost of a vacancy? To quantify this, I’d look at a few key metrics. First, measure the individual’s direct impact on revenue or key projects. Then, evaluate their “team morale” footprint through 360-degree feedback or anonymous team surveys. Are they an energizer or a drain? If you have someone who no longer buys into what you’re trying to achieve, their negativity can be like an anchor, creating drag on the entire team’s performance. This “drag” has a real cost in terms of lost productivity and innovation. You have to weigh that against the tangible cost of recruitment and onboarding a replacement. Often, the opportunity to bring in someone with fresh energy and full commitment to the cause far outweighs the short-term pain of losing a tenured, but disengaged, senior figure.
When a senior but disengaged individual leaves, their team may actually perform better. What practical, step-by-step strategies can a leader implement in the immediate aftermath to harness this new energy, reassure the team, and redefine roles to ensure a smooth and productive transition?
It’s a phenomenon I’ve seen time and again. When a senior figure who was creating a drag on the team leaves, there’s often a palpable sense of relief and a surge of new energy. The first step is to immediately gather the remaining team. Be transparent—without being unprofessional about the departed employee—and acknowledge the change. Reassure them of the company’s stability and your commitment to them. The next, and most crucial, step is to empower them. Frame this as an opportunity. Ask them directly: “What can we do differently now? What ideas have you been holding back on?” This is the moment for team members to step up. You might find hidden leaders and untapped potential right there in the room. Use this transition to collaboratively redefine roles and responsibilities, giving people the chance to take on new challenges. This harnesses that positive momentum and transforms a potentially disruptive event into a catalyst for growth and even better performance.
Given that competitors will always try to poach top talent, what are the core components of a “compelling proposition” that makes your best people want to stay? Please provide concrete examples beyond just salary, detailing how to build a robust retention plan for key individuals.
You can’t stop competitors from calling your people; it’s a fact of life in any industry. So, your only real defense is to build a proposition so compelling that those calls are uninteresting. This goes so far beyond compensation. It’s about creating an ecosystem where your best talent feels deeply valued, supported, and engaged. A robust retention plan starts with identifying who your key talent is. Then, for each individual, you need to understand their unique motivators. For one person, it might be a clear, accelerated path to leadership. For another, it might be the flexibility to work on innovative passion projects. Concrete examples include personalized development budgets, mentorship from senior executives, high-visibility assignments that stretch their skills, and, critically, a culture of meaningful feedback where they feel their voice truly shapes the organization’s future. It’s not a one-size-fits-all program; it’s a bespoke commitment to the growth and well-being of the individuals who are most critical to your success.
Do you have any advice for our readers?
My advice is to stop viewing retention as a defensive strategy and start treating it as your primary growth strategy. The energy and resources you invest in keeping your best people engaged will pay dividends that far exceed any recruitment campaign. Don’t wait for the exit interview to find out what’s wrong. Have “stay” conversations. Ask your top performers: “What would make you leave?” and “What do we need to do to ensure you stay and thrive here?” Be brave enough to hear the honest answers and then be committed enough to act on them. Your people are your greatest competitive advantage—nurture them with intention.
