Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
An exit interview is relative to company policies, working conditions, your contributions (and whether they were recognized), adequate training, what prompted you to start looking for a new job and so on. In other words, it’s about you/your opinion; personally knowing other teams (or you) isn’t necessary to establish such.
Bottom-line, organizations that implement an internal process/HR to conduct exit interviews tend to see (significantly) lower participation rates (vs. a third-party), as a whole; the lower the participation rates, obviously, the less meaningful the data.
I worked for a hospital system with 17,000 employees. The IT department had 400, but many of those were on the medical records team, and away from typical IT operations.
What ultimately ran me off was being brought in late to a project to replace an antiquated paging software system with a SaaS solution. The legacy system was mine, and I did all the contact/data extracts, but the new system was owned by a junior analyst on another team - his team and my team merged one week before go-live. I got handed the hard stuff.
Providers not affiliated with the hospital, and who used a national paging carrier (yes, hospitals still use pagers), brought their devices in and expected all of them to be interoperable immediately. Our hospital system wasn't a customer of this national paging carrier - we used a mom and pop regional provider that we were contracted to for years - and couldn't even get the national carrier to talk us because we weren't their direct client.
Meanwhile, these affiliated providers would complain to our hospital administrative leaders about missed pages. We certainly can't guarantee that BYOD will work if we can't even communicate with your service provider. Further, pages go over radio waves - they don't queue up if the device is powered off, out of service, low battery, or whatever. A cell phone with a dead battery will receive pages sent to it while it was powered off after it powers back on and gets cellular service - with a page, if you missed it, it's just missed forever. All of our pagers were one-way, and didn't send any sort of acknowledgment of message receipt back to the originating party.
I explained the limitations of the old technology to hospital administrators numerous times. It was either not understood or simply ignored. Legal was coming after me multiples every day to "prove that Dr. John Doe got a page" when all I could provide was that there was an attempt to send the message to the device. I told my manager and director numerous times that our inability to prove confirmation of delivery was going to get someone in IT fired when the hospital system got sued because an on-call provider failed to respond, then blamed their lack of response on a "missed" page. There was never any serious upper level IT discussion with hospital leaders in that regard. The solution was to force providers to either use the mobile app from the vendor, or to have communications sent via SMS text, both of which provided irrefutable proof of delivery. There was no political appetite to do so.
I've gone through this spiel I don't know how many times with I don't know how many different people. No one internally cared or listened. There were other reasons I left, but this was the main one.
What good will it do for me to relay this to some third party exit interviewer? They might talked to 100 RNs who are saying the same thing about staffing ratios, pay, inexperienced nurses, traveler vs. FTE pay, etc. My concern was unique and specific, and only a handful of people within the system will even know what I am talking about.
I've gone through this spiel I don't know how many times with I don't know how many different people. No one internally cared or listened. There were other reasons I left, but this was the main one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Serious Conversation
What good will it do for me to relay this to some third party exit interviewer?
I wasn’t suggesting you should; I was simply stating many companies use a neutral third-party service to collect/analyze data (and they tend to have more success relative to such vs. those who implement an internal process).
That said, most folks are able to summarize/categorize their reason(s) for leaving (sans a spiel :-) in terms of operational policies, (perceived) disrespect or lack of communication/response from management, lack of (career advancement) opportunity, poor pay, personal issues/office politics and so on.
Exit interviews are only useful if human resources is gathering information to spot problematic trends in the business. However, I think in most cases the information is disregarded altogether and in rare events, weaponized against the provider of information. I have never confirmed this, but I think that I was a victim of this process years ago. I quit a job, gave my notice, and gave some pretty negative feedback about the management group that came in and created an utterly hostile work environment for those who remained. I didn't even ask for the exit interview, they kept pestering me about it. The only reason I have suspicions is because I applied for a couple positions in other parts of the organization later on, through direct connections that were hiring for the role, and HR never passed my resume along. Could be a giant nothingburger, but it's left me more cynical of this process in general.
Even if they do use the information for "good", how is it benefiting you? You've left. Their problems are no longer your problems.
When I was younger, I used to leave feedback thinking it mattered. These days, I have a pretty firm policy of not accepting an invitation to provide feedback. In most cases, management probably already knows why I'm leaving. It's likely for a new job with better compensation and new opportunities that they couldn't provide.
Exactly, it’s not an interrogation nor is it an opportunity to go in with guns blazing; hence, why would the OP decline to do so? The majority of professional employees are willing to speak-up at annual reviews, at the very least; the exit interview data analysis process just expands on such in order to identify problems or common themes.
Most employees (who are offered such) want to be honest/heard, but they aren’t trying to be antagonistic or burn any bridges, either. If they are, that’s another thread entirely (for the Psychology Forum). :-)
That said, what questions in an exit interview have you not liked/declined to answer?
Too funny re: the thermonuclear variety.
I didn't want to tell them where I was going. I told them why, more money. They asked how much, I said more without a $ amount.
One job had a major systemic issue. I broke it down on the exit interview. They asked for evidence of it. I sent them some emails and screenshots. Then they asked for a follow up. I said no, not my problem anymore. I found out they fired the manager a week later.
My current job might be the only one so far in my career I'd be 100% open with if I were to leave. I say that now as a pretty happy employee. However, its a pretty transparent environment and they have employees come back on a regular basis. So it's all about the company culture. Most companies completely lack this culture which leads to more turnover.
However, its a pretty transparent environment and they have employees come back on a regular basis. So it's all about the company culture. Most companies completely lack this culture which leads to more turnover.
‘Company culture’ and ‘pretty transparent environment’ are nebulous terms; hence the reason some companies choose to implement an internal or third-party data analysis process to identify a specific problem or theme re: turnover (if any).
That said, change is fast in today’s workplace; it’s good/acceptable (or even necessary) to move around and demonstrate one’s ability to adapt and seek new challenges/opportunities. Hence, most professional employees do not have a problem with an exit interview, if offered. They’re already leaving; there is no point in making it a big deal or lying about it, other than to be antagonistic (which speaks volumes in and of itself anyway).
It doesn't have to be phrased in a hostile way. A simple "I'd prefer not having an exit interview" is sufficient. I don't usually sugar-coat on forums.
The word paranoid keeps getting used. It is completely inappropriate. I've been on all sides of employment. I've seen a lot, and understand what goes on behind closed doors. Cautious and private are not "paranoid."
Years ago, I was trained in an interview technique called "polyviewing." Any qualified HR person has a similar bag of tricks, and I can just about guarantee that what an interviewee experiences is only a small part of what an interviewer is gleaning, no matter how innocuous the interview. I have distrust of interviews, especially formal ones, and that distrust comes from knowledge.
Refusing an exit interview is not "burning bridges" unless the corporation is large and hide-bound. In decision making on a re-hire, the reports from supervisors and any merit reports or annual reviews are going to be the determining factors. An exit interview is an opportunity to shoot oneself in the foot with even a casual off-the-cuff remark. Given a choice between good reports and a blank exit interview, and the same WITH an exit interview, the written report of that interview is much more of an exclusionary filter than inclusionary. The report will attempt to provide the reasons for the quit or termination - those are negatives. It will not provide reasons for staying that were successful, because there aren't any. Chances of no good coming from the interview, from the employee's point of view, are extremely high.
An exit interview can also be a time of uncomfortable questions. "I see you had use of a company car. In a past report, your supervisor approved mileage allowance for use of your personal car. Why was that?" "Did you notice, or were you affected by any ADA issues while you were here?" I could think of a hundred questions to rattle someone leaving - all very innocent and within the bounds of legality. Any interview may or may not be pleasant, but by its very nature there is some element of antagonistic questioning.
Anyway, if someone wants to engage in an exit interview when leaving, I don't much care. I just know that I would have to be convinced and remunerated and not be pressured for me to even consider one.
Ever been party to depositions? Had to testify in court? You quickly learn that such systems are set up certain ways, and those are NOT for your benefit. No big deal, but not something you blindly walk into unless you are a fool.
That all sounds way over the top.
They're going to want your access card, your company credit card, your keys, they're going to have you sign some amount of NDA stuff, they're going to collect some basic info like where are you going, is your contact info up to date, how much your unused vacation pay will be, disposition of last 401k deposit, etc.
They may ask leading questions about your relationships with managers, co-workers, subordinates: just give bland non-answers.
So what if they are able to figure out, despite your not saying it, that you're leaving because you're sick of hour long screaming matches with your unreasonable manager? That's going to be common knowledge within the department anyway, and nothing you say or don't say at an exit interview will affect how those remaining behind view it.
Most big organizations are going to have a checklist of stuff to clear in an exit interview. Why not just help them clear the checklist in the most expedient way rather than trying to be Special Susie?
It occurs to me that some may balk at "NDA stuff". I'd submit that if you have been working with confidential information, and you're leaving to work for a competitor, you need to have figured out with your new employer how that'll be handled, long before even giving your notice. Part of your hiring process with the new company should be a review of any existing NDAs you may have signed. At any rate, most people who leave to work for a competitor are escorted out as soon as their notice is received, and allowed to come back in during non-working hours to collect personal belongings, so this whole thing is probably moot for those folks.
‘Company culture’ and ‘pretty transparent environment’ are nebulous terms; hence the reason some companies choose to implement an internal or third-party data analysis process to identify a specific problem or theme re: turnover (if any).
That said, change is fast in today’s workplace; it’s good/acceptable (or even necessary) to move around and demonstrate one’s ability to adapt and seek new challenges/opportunities. Hence, most professional employees do not have a problem with an exit interview, if offered. They’re already leaving; there is no point in making it a big deal or lying about it, other than to be antagonistic (which speaks volumes in and of itself anyway).
Agreed. I've bounced around every 2.5 years or so.
I'm happy now but I've only been with my current job for a year.
My pay is heavily stock based. And it's down since I started. So I'm set to make less this year than last year. About 10%. I'm hoping to get promoted, raises, etc this year to offset it. If not, I'll be forced to leave next year.
My current job might be the only one so far in my career I'd be 100% open with if I were to leave.
What did you gain by being secretive re: an exit interview, or were you angry about something? Else, I can’t think of a reason why someone would intentionally avoid honesty or make a big deal out of it.
Most people just want to hear sweet, nice, positive things. They don't want to hear bad and negative ones. They feel offended; and they are defensive. Only really, really, really good employers want to hear both; so they can learn to improve their companies.
I've had many really good and fair leaders and managers and a couple of very bad, awful, mean ones in my 30+ years so far.
The good ones are the ones who are knowledgeable, understanding, flexible, gentle, kind, giving employees good guidance, support and autonomy. You feel encouraged and like to go above and beyond when you work with the good leaders and managers.
The bad, mean ones are narcissistic, insecure, playing favoritisms, barking orders, threatening and micromanaging (following you every step of your way, blowing nasty air on your neck constantly). With this kind of managers, you feel exhausted, resentful, sick, liking to quit or withdraw. And they may be happy to see you quit. They purposedly to give you hardship to make you quit. So, if you still like your job, don't quit; be strong, stand up, get allies and fight back.
The second type of managers above can leave a very bad influence to lots of employees for a long, long time even after they (the managers) leave. They leave a bad “inheritance” for the next leaders and managers when they move on (resign or get fired). The next ones come will have a VERY, VERY hard time to fix and change employees’ bad attitudes and behaviours and things because those employees got bad influence from the previous bad ones; and they are stuck with them like dried thick glue and dirt. It’s easier to change from good to bad than from bad to good. The new [good] management team probably needs years or a decade to fix the bad “inheritance”.
Someday, if I have an exit interview, I will tell them in general and short. I’ll tell them that I thank them and appreciate the opportunity to work with this company. I admire and appreciate the leaders and managers who gave me support and good guidance to do my work, led and taught me to be kind to others. I’ll mention a few names. I’ll tell them I’ll leave the opposite out and I don’t want to mention any names. I’ll tell them that is all; I don’t want to go any further. They will have to get my hint. If they keep asking more, I will firmly tell them I can’t tell anything else.
Last edited by AnOrdinaryCitizen; 02-11-2023 at 10:08 AM..
Most people just want to hear sweet, nice, positive things. They don't want to hear bad and negative ones. They feel offended; and they are defensive. Only really, really, really good employers want to hear both; so they can learn to improve their companies.
Companies don’t make it personal; hence my point re: the third-party data analysis process to encourage honesty from employees (and they’re already leaving/have secured another job anyway). It’s as if you’re suggesting no one would have a clue as to why, particularly relative to annual reviews; you’re also assuming the majority of employees have ‘really, really, really’ bad things to say which, again, sounds more like antagonism than a reasonable explanation as to why they’re leaving i.e. poor communication, lack of respect, better opportunity/pay or whatever.
The entire point is to identify a problem or common theme; it’s not for an expensive pat-on-the-back, lol.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
