The long held idea behind exit interviews is that we, the company, will learn from voluntary departures why they are leaving. We will then take that knowledge and change things for the better, thus preventing the next voluntary departure. More people stay = profit. High fives. Promotions.
Lemme break down the three main things that are wrong with that.
This is still an interview with a company
Nobody is fully open and honest in an interview. Not when they want to join, and not when they leave. Employees smart enough to know not to burn bridges won’t give you meaningful feedback. Anyone not smart enough to behave tactfully has probably already made their feelings known loudly and frequently. It’s really unlikely an exit interview will deliver meaningful insight.
Be honest. This won’t change anything.
Even if an exit interview provided previously hidden knowledge about the org’s working conditions, genuinely consider this: what’s the likelihood the company will change anything? “Really? Jenkins said he’s leaving because he can make more money elsewhere? Quickly! Adjust compensation across the board!” If it was something likely to be impacting a broad swath of employees (comp, benefits, return to office policy), it’s already been considered and there are reasons for having not addressed it. Whatever Jenkins says on his way out won’t make a difference. If he’s leaving for some obscure reason (“A tapioca allergy? Whatever you say, Jenkins. Don’t let the door hit you.”) there’s certainly no point in changing the work environment or processes to prevent the next one-in-a-million tapioca related departure. If it’s something the org has no control over (e.g. Jenkins is moving back home to care for elderly family member) then altering the business makes no sense. Even if something’s uncovered that could be changed, that might impact a lot of people, that no one had ever thought of before…is Jenkins’ departure statistically significant to warrant doing something? Maybe if it’s a 10000 person company losing a dozen people a month and every one of them gave the same cause for departure, maybe consider it. But if one person out of 300 says they’re going elsewhere because the parental leave policy is unforgiving, should the company leap to make changes?
A company truly invested in employee experience would do something before they left
An organization that cares if people stay and that wants to take reasonable steps to make people happy would invest in learning these things before someone quits. And therein lies a better approach than Exit Interview Theater: train your managers to build rapport through regular and frequent 1:1s. If a company is truly learning things for the first time in these interviews – things the org is willing to improve to prevent further departures – I would suggest that the most meaningful change a company should make is to realize it needs a better way to uncover this information than exit interviews.
If you are the person leaving, and you’re wondering what to do for the exit interview, consider sharing how the company is only now learning about why you want out, and suggest how they could prevent having more of these. But…you know…be polite and professional without naming names. Because this is an interview.
image courtesy of Zetong Li via unsplash
2 comments
Comments are closed.