Key performers are retained during the restructuring

When job cuts are announced, all attention focuses on the people who have to leave. Negotiations, selection criteria, termination meetings, severance packages – all of this ties up considerable resources for months.

At the same time, something is happening that is less frequently addressed systematically: those who are supposed to carry the company after the restructuring are beginning to get their bearings. And precisely those people who find it easiest to get jobs are the fastest to do so.

This creates a risk distribution that hardly anyone would consciously choose: The departure of one person is negotiated for months, while the departure of another happens unnoticed – and hits the company harder.

Why high performers are particularly at risk during this phase

The initial situation is ambivalent. High-performing and high-potential employees generally know that the company depends on them. However, this very fact also makes them attractive to other employers – and the uncertainty of a restructuring is a classic reason to at least start looking around.

Added to this is the temporal dimension: the longer it remains unclear what the future holds, the more trust suffers. The duration of the uncertainty is almost more important than its content. Those who receive no information about their future prospects for months begin to construct their own – often outside the company.

A frequently underestimated amplifier is poorly designed volunteer programs. A broadly open, unregulated offering appeals primarily to those who feel confident in the market.

The result is negative selection: the reduction target is achieved, but with the wrong people.

The losses are not limited to actual resignations. Equally damaging is the silent withdrawal – people stay, but reduce their involvement to the bare minimum because they no longer believe the company has a future.

Speak up early, not just after implementation.

The most effective measure is also the simplest: a personal conversation, held before frustration and thoughts of changing jobs have solidified.

In practice, the opposite often happens. Retention discussions are postponed until after implementation is complete because "nothing binding can be said" before then. By then, however, many key personnel have already held discussions.

In individual cases, it may even be advisable to speak with particularly critical key people before the general announcement – or to actively involve them in the restructuring project work.

Those who help shape the transformation experience themselves not as victims, but as creators.

What an effective retention conversation must achieve

A retention conversation follows a different logic than a separation conversation. It's not about delivering a decision, but about enabling a decision – the other person's decision to stay.

Four elements are crucial for this:

Context: Why does the company need this person in the new structure? This question should be answered specifically, not with general expressions of appreciation.

Perspective: What role, what responsibilities, and what development opportunities are envisioned in the target organization? After job cuts, the future is abstract for many. The notion that "everything will be better afterward" is not enough.

Recognition: What exactly does the company value about this person? Observations are far more effective than labels.

Reliability: Which promises can be made with certainty – and which explicitly cannot? The second part is more important. An honest "I can't promise you that today" protects the credibility of all other statements.

It is also important that these conversations are not only conducted by HR. The direct supervisor is the crucial point of contact during periods of uncertainty – and spontaneous, unplanned exchanges are often more effective than scheduled meetings.

Money is rarely the answer – but sometimes it's the right instrument.

Retention bonuses are often discussed as an obvious lever in restructuring. From a management perspective, however, restraint is advisable: they provide short-term stability but do not replace a long-term perspective.

And they create two foreseeable problems: disappointment among those who do not receive a bonus, and expectations for subsequent years.

However, there are situations where retention bonuses are clearly sensible. If employees have already signed a termination agreement but are still needed for a defined period to complete projects or hand over tasks, a financial incentive is the appropriate measure.

The same applies to critical key functions in restructuring or insolvency situations, where a premature departure would jeopardize the entire project.

Legally, it should be noted that retention bonuses are not part of the social plan and cannot be enforced by the works council. They can be regulated via a voluntary company agreement or agreed upon individually – in the latter case, they are subject to content control as pre-formulated conditions.

The most important practical principle is equal treatment : Anyone offering bonuses to only a portion of the workforce needs a sound and documented justification for doing so.

The specific details must in any case be coordinated with the relevant labor law bodies.

Retention begins with the design of the extraction process.

The most effective protection for high performers lies not in downstream measures, but in the design of the program itself .

Targeted volunteer programs, rather than blanket programs, control who is even involved in the decision-making process. Using a list of names to balance interests clarifies key roles.

And those who offer affected employees a professional career reorientation program have a direct impact on those who remain: They observe very closely how their colleagues are treated and draw conclusions about their own future in the company.

This also applies to the separation talks themselves.

A dignified farewell is not a concession to those leaving, but a message to those who remain.

Not every high performer is in their right position.

One final point is almost always overlooked in restructurings: the reorganization of the organization is also an opportunity to bring roles and people together in new ways.

Performance rarely arises independently of context. People who are not convincing in one role are often exceptionally strong in another – if the task and their personal work preferences align.

A structured assessment, especially with external support, makes such alignments visible. In a phase where roles are being redefined anyway, the effort required is less than usual – and the effect is greater.

Conversely, where a permanent fit cannot be achieved, a clearly guided transition is better for both sides than a years-long state of mutual dissatisfaction.

Conclusion: High performers need prospects and reliability.

High performers don't stay because they are tied to the company. They stay when they feel their contribution is recognized, when they see a clear future for themselves, and when the company acts reliably even in difficult situations.

The crucial factor is timing.

Those who wait until implementation is complete are engaging with people who have already made up their minds. Those who speak early, get specific, and honestly address what's still open will retain significantly more people – and avoid losing precisely those who are meant to drive the new beginning.

Where Restart Career supports

Restart Career supports companies undergoing restructuring with professional career assessment and coaching for high performers , with supported reorientation within and outside the company, and with appreciative newplacement for affected employees .

This allows companies not only to manage necessary staff reductions, but also to strengthen and retain those who are intended to support the future organization.