So let’s say you’re working for a company with turnover problems (i.e. losing your best people to competitors) and management comes to Human Resources to figure out why people are leaving. What far too many HR people will suggest is that the organization should use an exit interview to get the information and report on a quarterly basis. Some will even pretend it helps their business chops because they get to report numbers on spreadsheets and create pretty graphs.
Let’s not fool ourselves: the best case scenario is your exit interview actually provides new information because your company management is inept at figuring out what should already be known. That’s the best case scenario!
Acing The Exit Interview
You know what most books and websites say about doing well in an exit interview as the departing employee? Don’t say anything negative. And you know what I say to that? It is absolutely correct. Negative information can get back to the manager (no matter what the HR person promises you). In fact, unless you are leaving a department with a ton of turnover, I would guarantee that anything specifically negative mentioned gets back to the original manager.
Now this may not mean you burned a bridge there. If they are a good manager, they would take any negative feedback and try to improve. But remember back to why I said you were doing the exit interview? Company management is trying to compensate because they can’t figure out the basics (like why employees are leaving). So maybe, just maybe, we’re talking about the type of manager that won’t take your feedback in the best way possible.
Prevention Just Sounds Good
So when exit interviews fail to accomplish their goal (or they do manage to accomplish their goal only to be left with no solution), some in HR will talk about taking preventative steps in order to stop the mass exodus from your organization. They’ll take what little information they got and try to do something with it. Most likely this will include some combination of succession planning, compensation/benefits analysis and adjustment, new training and development programs, and/or adding some new type of benefit program (tuition reimbursement is a common one).
The real problem is twofold. The first one is that it will take forever to get any of these changes approved and that fact alone won’t be communicated with current employees. So if you are actually working on something that you know is a problem and it will take six months or a year, people should at least know that you’re aware of it. The other problem is that management training is rarely a part of the solution because it is rarely mentioned as a problem.
Here’s a clue by four: nobody (and I mean NOBODY) is leaving your organization because of a tuition reimbursement plan. Yes, that is a good benefit that you can offer but it isn’t a make or break deal buster. And it is something you can fix with more money if it really is an issue.
The Real Solution
You need real managers. Ones that know their employees well, that have open lines of communication, that have some basic investigation and analytical skills, and don’t need an exit interview to be told why people are leaving. I’m not even talking about leadership here. These should be basic skills that we can equip any manager with. If we aren’t talking about that, we’re not talking about any realistic, long term solution.
All of those other things are band aids. Yes, your compensation should be adjusted if it is out of whack. Yes, your benefits should be adjusted if they are a problem. But making those adjustments means nothing if you do not have competent managers who are properly equipped with the skills necessary to understand your workforce’s critical needs. If you had that, why would you need an exit interview?
{ 1 trackback }
{ 41 comments… read them below or add one }
I’ve always felt that the purpose of an exit interview shouldn’t be to find out why a person left the company. An employee can always site politically correct replies like more money, closer to home, better hours, etc. And, they might all be true.
But the purpose of an exit interview should be to find out what was the catalyst for an employee to start looking in the first place. That’s what the company really needs to know.
Lance, Lance, Lance………I just don’t know where to begin with this one.
No doubt that managers need to learn how to listen and communicate with their employees. Unfortunately that is not as simple as it seems. Some managers will attempt but still not hear what is really being said. Some employees will not speak for fear of losing their job. Others will learn things from their employees that they are not comfortable sharing with Sr. Management.
The exit interview is the one time when employees have the LEAST to lose. They are already leaving. It’s the one opportunity for a company to hear the REAL story. All the things that the employees don’t feel comfortable sharing with their manager.
For many employees, they appreciate the opportunity to tell the company their side of the story. It feels good to get it off their chest and it gives them one last opportunity to help the company while they still care enough to do so.
AND IT WILL NOT BE USED AGAINST THEM.
May I repeat that, please?
IT WILL NOT BE USED AGAINST THEM.
Why would a company do that?
The companies that use exit interviews effectively aggregate the data that they receive from each employee upon exit. They track trends and identify irritations for various groups of employees. They are not thinking about getting even with an employee who says something negative. They are thinking about how they can make the company better for everyone!
Sure you want to teach your managers to open lines of communication but why would you want to give up a simple way to get lots of feedback on the things that bug employees enough to walk out the door?
@Sharlyn – I wonder what the difference is? If I am unsatisfied with my schedule or my boss, wouldn’t that be the catalyst to both start looking for and accepting a new position?
@Beth – You forget that an employee who is leaving also has the least to *gain* from being honest on their way out. What good is it showing them you care “without repercussions” as they’re headed out the door? What kind of message does that send to employees if you only act on something after someone leaves?
Of course we’d love to say it isn’t used against them and as a company, that’s probably true. But when it comes to manager/employee conflicts, how can you say that the manager won’t put out a bad word about the employee? If the review is scathing, the manager will be counseled and they’ll figure it out. I don’t think most companies out there are up for retribution but I do think that managers that are left in a bind after an unplanned exit feel that way. And the ones that need the exit interview data the most often use it the least effectively.
The company isn’t going to hear the real story in an exit interview. People naturally want to avoid conflict and if there is a light at the end of the tunnel (i.e. a new job), they’ll hold their tongue. Employers haven’t given them any reason to act otherwise.
You are missing the point. You are not acting on things for the benefit of the person who is leaving. You are acting on things for the benefit of those who are left behind.
Believe it or not, most people do want their employers to know about all the screwed up things in the company. Sadly, the only time they feel safe to let the cat out of the bag is on the way out.
In a perfect world, your idea about training the managers to open lines of communication would solve the problem. In the real world, you need as many opportunities as you can find to gather honest feedback from employees. If that means learning from those when they are on the way out then so be it. Why encourage HR to miss out on that opportunity?
I’ve heard some really useful stuff in exit interviews, including things that employees explicitly said they wouldn’t have raised until they were ready to leave, because they were convinced their manager would use it against them. (The problems they raised were all about this manager, and all of them worked off-site so it was difficult to know what was going on until they told me. Oh, and the manager routinely lied to me about things, which the exit interviews helped me uncover. He doesn’t work for us anymore.)
I think I’m understanding what Lance is saying (and correct me if I’m wrong). If an employee is leaving due to the company it often has to do with a poor performing manager. An exit interview is only, at best, going to confirm that fact (because we, or someone, should already know the manager is a poor performer).
This doesn’t convince me to stop with the exit interviews (because something interesting comes up once in a great while), but I get the point. Conducting exit interviews and compiling data isn’t typically going to be the catalyst for a change an organization might hope for.
Shawn brings up an interesting point. One of the great myths out there is that “People leave managers, not companies.” Certainly employees leave crappy managers, but they also leave crappy co-workers, crappy policies, crappy products, etc..
If it was true that the only reason employees left was because of their rotten bosses then the only benefit of exit interviews would be in helping identify which bosses were rotten and what exactly about them was rotten.
In reality, employees leave for a variety of reasons. Exit interviews can help identify the real reasons rather than have you work under assumptions.
No doubt “conducting exit interviews and compiling data isn’t typically going to be the catalyst for a change an organization” but analyzing the data and taking action based on the results will.
Interesting discussion.
It seems to me that a manager would shoulder a varying amount of responsibility for a (good) employee leaving due to crappy coworkers, crappy policies, or a crappy product. Obviously no one is perfect, some people are whiners, and we are totally simplifying the equation here. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not advocating doing away with exit interviews. They aren’t much work and you might get something useful from time to time.
I’m young, I’ve only left one professional job. I neglected to truly get into the reasons for my departure during my exit interview for fear of needlessly rocking the boat (my wife still works there).
@Beth – I don’t think I am missing the point here. Obviously an exit interview isn’t there to save the employee leaving. Disagreeing with your argument is different than not understanding it.
What I am talking about is the intrinsic motivation of the employee to “help” the company. Look at what Shawn says here: “I neglected to truly get into the reasons for my departure during my exit interview for fear of needlessly rocking the boat (my wife still works there).” That excuse can be a million reasons: they still have friends, they want to maintain networking relationships, they might want to come back, they don’t like conflict…
All of the fears play into an employee’s reasoning to not participate fully in an exit interview. “Reality” is that many departing employees don’t trust HR to keep their feedback confidential. And with all of those doubts, they don’t give you the full story. If that’s what you’re relying on for your information about turnover, you aren’t going to go very far.
My point was that exit interviews are oftentimes the default method for analyzing retention issues.
@Ask A Manager – I know the difficulty of rooting out bad managers in remote location situations. That being said, I’ve done it plenty of times outside of the exit interview process. I certainly wouldn’t advocate eliminating it but some HR people rely too heavily on it.
@Shawn – You’re right. I don’t think there is harm in continuing them as long as the person analyzing and making decisions realize their obvious flaws and inadequacies.
I’m not sure what you are basing your opinion on that people don’t want to help and will be afraid to be honest other than some anecdotes and some poor advice from self-proclaimed experts.
I see and review thousands of exit interviews every year and have so for the past 9 years. I can tell you that the data tells a different story. There are plenty of employees that will honestly share helpful information (lots of it) if asked in an appropriate way.
In fact, in an informal survey that we conducted employees said they would be much more likely to be honest in an exit interview then they would be in an employee survey.
Here are the results of that survey:
“Very likely” to be honest in an employee survey: 22%
“Very likely” to be honest in an exit interview: 55%
“Likely or very likely” to be honest in an employee survey: 60%
“Likely or very likely” to be honest in an exit interview: 80%
And yet I rarely hear anyone say that HR shouldn’t bother with employee surveys.
Companies that make an effort to use exit interviews strategically have much to gain.
Does that mean HR shouldn’t work toward helping managers opening lines of communication and train managers how to manage and listen better? Of course not. In fact your exit interview data will point to exactly which managers most need the kind of training that you speak of!
I know it’s not exactly the same thing, but “proving” employees are less likely to be honest in a survey by citing data from a survey sounds a little funny.
You’re right, my anecdote isn’t proof and I’m certainly no expert.
In the situation where I left I had numerous discussions with my supervisor prior to giving notice. She knew it was coming but we couldn’t rectify the situation. A huge reason I was unable to be totally truthful in my exit interview was because, in my eyes, HR was part of the problem yet were comfortable with that position. I didn’t feel comfortable having that discussion with them because of many factors (the wife, the relationship I had with my boss, etc).
Yes, sometimes the situation is such where you just don’t feel you can share. I completely understand.
Out of curiousity, Shawn, what form of exit interview were you given at that company? In person? Telephone? paper? email? online?
Do you think you might have been more honest if the medium was different?
@Beth – Years of experience doing and examining exit interview data and comparing it to other research methods (employee surveys, personal interviews, focus groups, managerial training, etc…). I don’t have any buyers of my product to survey but I have looked beyond “anecdotes and poor advice.” Please see this article along with the cited papers to get a feel for the data I consulted before coming to my conclusion several years ago.
I have no dog in this fight. If exit interviews really work for the organizations that use you as a vendor, that’s fine. Duly noted in fact. And as I’ve already said, I don’t think there is harm in doing exit interviews. I think HR professionals should be extremely cautious about drawing any conclusions from data collected during the exit process though. Independent research seems to confirm this, not just gut feelings, anecdotes and self-proclaimed experts.
In person with the HR Director prior to my departure.
No, I wouldn’t have been more honest through a different medium. It wasn’t format that bothered me, it was who the negative feedback would have been about. The HR Director more or less ran the place and my supervisor (Recruiting Director) reported to her.
Thanks for the link. I look forward to reading it through fully.
I think it boils down to doing exit interviews effectively versus just doing them half-assed. When I ask groups of HR professionals if their companies do exit interviews 90% + raise their hands. When I ask them how many are doing them really well, 10% or less raise their hands.
It’s really not unlike the Performance Review debate. Do you chuck ‘em because your managers don’t do them well or do you train your managers to do them better?
My apologies for turning this into a big debate. You hit upon a pet peeve of mine regarding encouraging employees not to be honest in exit interviews. Honest feedback is a gift and it is generally received that way by the recipients (HR and Sr. Mgmt) of the exit interviews.
Shawn – yes it’s hard when you work in HR and its HR that is doing/reading the exit interviews.
If the process at most companies are ineffective, I don’t see any reason for an employee to be forthright with negative information. If a company has a good process in place and you trust them to use the information correctly, I don’t see any reason why an employee would be dish0nest other than just passivity.
I just think, like your informal survey indicates, most don’t have a great process. I worry about telling people to spill their guts to HR only for it to bite them later down the road. I’ve seen it happen and I think caution is a smart recommendation.
No need to worry about turning this into a debate. I am worried when I post something and everybody agrees with me.
By the time you get to the exit interview, the organization has already failed. Exit surveys are only useful if you are willing to do something with the information you receive, in my experience it seems about 50/50. Organizations can be very selective in determining which information they feel has validity.
I agree though, you need to have real managers who are able to motivate and retain through establishing good relationships. Showing a genuine interest in employees, and demonstrating care for their wellbeing goes a long way in attempting to achieve this goal. There are so many things that make a good manager, but this is a good place to start. Seems simple but apparently it is not easy.
I don’t understand. If the company “failed” because of the exit, then wouldn’t you want them to examine the situation to find out why they failed? How are they going to act on the problem if they don’t know the reason?
You suggest that they “show genuine interest in the employees and demonstrate care for their well being.’ That’s great — something every company should strive for — but it will only improve retention if that is the problem that the company is experiencing. What if the problem is something completely different?
That’s like a doctor prescribing medicine without knowing the condition. Sure, eating vegetables and giving up smoking is a good prescription for everyone, but is it going to cure a broken leg?
@Beth – Independent research that I previously cited seems to suggest that an exit interview isn’t going to give you a more accurate picture of a departing employee’s true beef with the organization. Given that information, how do you get to the bottom of employee/employer issues if you seem so eager to dismiss other techniques as naive, misguided, unrealistic or inaccurate?
Did you actually read the “research” you cited?
The research consisted of watching one company’s exit interview process. There was nothing in there from which to draw any real conclusions whatsoever. (Though they attempted to do so.)
Lance, I don’t dismiss other techniques. On the contrary. I would recommend as many channels for communication and feedback and training as possible, including open lines of communications between managers and their staff. For the purpose of this discussion, I’m simply defending the practice that you dismissed as being useless (bandaids on broken legs).
For the record, I’m all for employee surveys (when done properly). I was attempting to point out that if you like employee surveys, then you should love exit interviews. I’m talking real exit interviews not a manager asking an employee – “So, why are you leaving?”
The bottom line is that every company has their own unique irritations. And within a company, each department, division, job class, tenure groups, gender, etc have their own unique irritations.
Exit interviews are not a band-aid, they are a diagnostic tool to see if the leg is actually broken or just sprained and where exactly the break has occurred.
Don’t you think that the management training that you advise (which I also agree with!) will be a lot more effective if you can target your training to their specific weaknesses?
@Beth – That’s why I didn’t rely on just the one article for my conclusion (I am more familiar with a couple of the papers that the article cited actually). It was just another example of exit interviews done under controlled conditions that didn’t give reliable information. The case against exit interview effectiveness isn’t a single paper though, it is a collection of studies that ultimately reach a similar conclusion. This comes from professional polling organizations like Gallup and peer reviewed academic journals like the Journal of Psychology.
Those findings coupled with the number of organizations that lean on exit data heavily leads me to the conclusion that an exit interview is really not an adequate tool for workforce analysis. It may be part of some solutions (just as a band aid has a purpose at times) but its scope and usefulness is limited.
That being said, I don’t think exit interviews are harmful. If an organization believes that they are useful and they want to continue doing it, than go right ahead. Certainly for the goodwill an exit interview provides, that may be the only reason an organization chooses to do it. All I am encouraging HR pros to do is to look closely at the research, honestly gauge the effectiveness of the exit interview for their organization and examine some alternatives that I believe are more effective in getting the information they desire.
I don’t know much about large corporations. Never bothered to work for one. So after spending 12 years managing/leading business operations in the startup world, I can tell you that, if you need an exit interview to figure out why the person left, than it is time for you to be replaced.
With all due respect, if you are a true HR professional (like most of the talented individuals I worked with), you can smell true reasons before the person even hands in the resignation. But in order for that to happen, you need stop doing the paper-pushing and busy-work, and actually get out of your office and be in the midst of your team!
I think that exit e=interviews, like most tools used by HR or any other departmentt are part of an imperfect toolbox that used together can help to build reference points that can be used to better the organization.
Do exit interviews have high ROI? nope.
Do employee survery done yearly result in better organizations, happier employees, or even better year over year results all the time? nope
I think you have to use a bunch of different information gathering methods to build your reference points and let the data (and anecdotal information collected) guide you as well as possible.
I am not a huge fan of exit interview, because they raerly yield a large anount of valuable intel BUT I think they are worth doing for the nuggets you do find.
Great: I just compared HR to mining for gold. You have to move a lot of sludge and dirt to come up with the really good stuff.
Sound right to me.
I still think exit interviews are lame and reactionary. You can call it a necessary evil, an important step in fixing the company, or just a regular and required ‘check in’ for the system.
If you’re asking me why I quit, you’re asking the wrong question.
I’ve only had a few exit interviews. Most of the time the HR person says they will schedule it and they don’t.
It’s kinda like the boss that does not know your job and asks you to “write up everything you do” like it’s simple!
Exit interviews can be pointless unless the organization’s corporate culture is predicated on open and honest communication. There are not many out there that truly follow this mantra. Essentially, the information collected is not terribly useful if it’s not honest.
To reiterate the aforementioned point in the blog post, people leave managers, not jobs with awesome benefits and killer corporate culture. There is nothing more demotivating than an energy vampire sucking the will to work right out of you. Poor leadership will drive your top talent right out the door!
My reaction to this thread isn’t so much as an HR professional, but as an employee who – in March 2008 – left the company where I had worked for 15 years. The first 14 years were great. The last year SUCKED, for a lot of reasons – some of which had to do with the company, and some of which were out of everyone’s control (including the sudden death of a beloved leader – major suckage, and it still rips me up to think about it).
I dreaded the exit interview, but y’know what? That was probably the most positive 60 minutes I experienced during the entire last horrific year. The HR rep I spoke to asked intelligent, thoughtful questions in a skillful way. I don’t know how the information she gathered was used, but I felt listened to for the first time in at least a year, and it actually put a very positive spin on that experience. I was happy to leave, but didn’t carry the anger that I surely would have been feeling had I just been invited to pack my bags and walk out the door.
I have to say that I was blown away by the HR rep I interviewed with, and can easily see how my interview, in less skillful hands, could have been exactly what I feared it would be. But it wasn’t that at all – I actually enjoyed it, a lot.
So … that’s a little namby-pamby, but one of the big benefits of the exit interview is very personal and based in emotion. The “H” in HR still stands for “human,” and it’s important to remember that.
well, i’m a little late to this conversation… and i can’t get through all the comments here so maybe you’ve covered this… but where i stand is that i don’t expect for a departing employee to give me feedback about why they left or anything so compelling that is going to cause sweeping organizational change to our culture or to processes. that’s not the departing employee’s job.
i do take nuggets from exit interviews, and their good ideas they may come up with… and when i sit back and analyze and think about all these small pieces of information in totality, that’s where i think there’s opportunity for big change.
for me, it’s a conversation, it’s a dialogue, and much less an interview… so i’ll also float ideas past departing staff that have been developed as a result of many exit interviews, or from other forums. it’s a good test group/brainstorming sample to me because they have started to remove themselves… and when you’re too close, sometimes it’s hard to really see how an idea might practically work out. and i also use this as an opportunity to get insight from the departing one of what kind of person they think i need to replace them with.
i think how we look at and think about exit interviews probably needs to change. it’s a conversation but it’s not one to find out why they left…
You guys are all correct when you look at exit interviews individually. There’s not a whole lot you can do with one person’s anecdotal opinion.
The real power is in aggregating the data to spot trends.
I wish you could see the 100+ companies that work with Nobscot’s WebExit that do an amazing job collecting, analyzing, interpreting, reporting and acting upon the information. I’m absolutely sure you would be a convert.
It may sound like I have a vested interest but I got into this business after 15+ years in Recruiting and Human Resources. We created WebExit as a way to make exit interviews one of your most useful tools for your retention planning. Takes the guess work out of it.
Obviously the recent posters here do not work for state government — where no bad manager ever gets reprimanded based on exit interviews! They usually get promoted to go terrorize another group of individuals. In this scenario, exit interviews are useless.
LOL – Lululaa! I have to ask though is it the exit interviews that are useless or the folks who are not using them properly that are useless?
I know a number of state government offices that do a pretty darn good job of it.
This has been a great discussion and I have learned quite a bit about the different perspectives on exit interviews.
I would add a couple of comments that do tend to support the idea of doing exit interviews. Certainly not all key performers who leave the organization have an ax to grind at all. They may be leaving for a career change, their spouse may have gotten a job in a new city, or they want to get their kids in a different school system. These employees may truly have some great insights and suggestions for the organization that are positive and potentially helpful, that an exit interview can elicit. I personally left a great job with an awesome company due to some ‘outside of work’ family issues. Had I been given the opportunity in an exit interview, I would have given some honest, and potentially beneficial suggestions.
My last comment is has to do with the ‘burning bridges’ argument. I think that most would agree that the workforce of the future will not look that much like it does today; there will be more contractors, free-agents, casual workers, basically an extended system of people in various capacities that will ‘work’ for the organization at different times. It does seem that a likely source of these future, flexible workers are those top performers who have previously worked for the organization. Making sure, in the exit interview process, that the organization has begun to develop that potential future relationship may truly be a strategically important action for many firms. I am sure an argument can be made that the traditional exit interview is not necessary to further this purpose, but whatever the process is called, the relationship-building component is an important consideration. So instead of being concerned about employee fears of ‘burning bridges’, it may be more important for the company to worry about ‘building bridges’ with the departing employee.
I think exit interviews are a complete waste of time…..let’s face it, what ever happens to the information that people provide. If anyone does anything with it, they might meet and discuss the information provided but no action plans are established for what is brought up. Usually when there is negative information no one wants to take responsibility are really own up to what has been said…..they are not just making it up!
Steve B. – Nice post. I agree completely. The exit interview is a great place
to leave the door open to future opportunities for the employee if the grass is not greener elsewhere.
Chris – So would exit interviews be a waste of time if HR DID follow up on the information provided?
I like the exit interview opportunity…of course, my last exit interview was based on an internal move, so I did have to be careful with what I said. The HR “Business Partner” knew of my isssues with my manager prior to leaving, he knew of the group’s problems with her, he knew that in a matter of 6 months, that manager had lost or was losing her 2 top performers, and 3 other critical team members…
My point is pretty simple, exit interviews are good if the information collected is analyzed and USED. Appeasing people leaving seems to be a waste of time. Do I think that the 5 of us who left, found better opportunities, yes. But I think we all were looking for new opportunities because of a common issue…the manager. Unfortunately, all our exit interviews fell on deaf ears, and the HR Business Partner was trying to protect the manager and company…
On topic, the exit interview, IMO, is to some HR people a perfunctory check box. These HR types tend to be hired to cover the corporate’s backside. They also probably get little respect until the threat of a suite gets waved.
There are probably some engaged HR professional that also have the respect/authority to act on the data. Does it hurt? Very little IMO. On my way out the door I will talk to anyone about anything.
The value content of what I talk about will vary depending on the individuals level of engagement. (Are they collecting a paycheck or an active professional and how has interaction occurred up to that point.)
That said and slightly off topic, one of the earlier comments mentioned that “People leave managers, not companies.” In larger companies/gov’t an individual can move w/o leaving or interfacing with ex-manager. How many interviews occur during such transitions, especially for the lateral moves? How close is the organization to losing this individual? Is HR playing an active or a passive role in the organization?
If HR is waiting for the exit interview to diagnose corporate issues or managerial problems they are doing a disservice to both the Corporation and the individual. The results of the exit interview is the least of the worries.
I’m wondering why people say, “if you wait until the exit interview you are waiting too long….”
Employees are exiting all the time. There is nothing to “wait” for. Exit interviews give you a continuous stream of data – NOW – with issues to work on and suggestions for improvement. You are not waiting for anything.
Exit interviews ARE useless. I have worked for and with many, many, many companies from bootstrapped startups to Microsoft and Accenture and have had a few exit-interviews. As has been previously stated, if you are in a high-turnover business (traditional management consulting has about a 30% turnover in the first year – please note this is NOT the ‘consulting’ that most people put on their resume but actually working for a ‘consulting firm’) then it is often obvious why people are leaving – and most people know why but don’t address the issues either because they are unable to (HR trying to make changes) or unwilling (line management and executive staff). In fact, at Microsoft, I had a great exit-interview where the HR droid basically said, “while you have great feedback, I can’t do anything with it”. They did not have the ‘juice’ to go to anyone of authority to try to change things (and this is for very smart people who were recruited highly into a very small program).
Oh well, at least I got to squish Bill Gates’ hand when he was only worth $4B….
Will at virtualjobcoach.com
I’m delighted to read this blog on exit interviews, think we need to ask ourselves what do we gain from these? And the answer is, not much. I’m always delighted to hear HR managers returing from one of these interviews stating,”I knew it, our compensation is all wrong – we need to pay people more…..”" As if, yeah, well, fairly predictable, isn’t it and now what or so what?
The funny thing is, most people start planning their departure 6 months before they leave and in the planning stages they reflect on salary because every recruiter or future employer will ask, “what’s your salary expection?” and, if you’re actively interviewing chances are you’re talking salary… when you decide to leave what’s the easiest thing to complain about… $$ and when you’re leaving, typically you’re making more money – which makes exit interviews out of sync, out of date, predictable and unreliable….
A better strategy might be tapping into employees before they start thinking about an exit strategy. Is it always about money, doubtful. Often it’s more about management. Having intuitive managers in-tune with their employees might make all the difference in the world.
If exit interviews need to be conducted, reach out to employees 6 months after they’ve moved on… and take time to listen to their reasons, more is revealed in time when they’re fully involved in a new role. Keeping contact with talent that’s moved on is a better strategy than exit interviews right when they leave.