I've always found exit interviews to be perplexing. In the past I've written about them being somewhat like a divorce in which one partner demands a break-up but it isn't until after the house has been sold and the custody arrangements sorted that the other partner then asks: "So, what went wrong?"
By then it's all too late. Sure, the fresh information might be valuable in preventing the next relationship from reaching the same fate, but really, the damage has been done.
Exit interviews are a bit like that. They're a useful supply of ongoing data but it's data that's dreadfully delayed. By the time you collect it, analyse it, share it and do something about, (assuming you actually do end up doing something about it), the damage has similarly been done.
Much research in recent years has demonstrated exit interviews are frequently ineffective. The reasons can be seen in a small study published earlier this year by scholars at the University of Technology, Sydney. Their analysis of an organisation with high staff turnover found the departing employees were careful to leave without burning bridges.
Of course, this meant they were less than honest in the exit interview. In some cases, they wanted their boss to act as their referee. In others, they were conscious they might want to return in the future. Either way, they were cautious with how much of the truth they exposed.
Ultimately, though, even if they happened to be truthful, the reality is that "despite the perceived benefit of the information being collected, actual changes in organisational policies and/or work procedures … was negligible".
In other words, irrespective of HR's best intentions, the exit interview is often just a tick-box exercise that doesn't really go anywhere, and isn't "as effective in practice as we have been led to believe".
So what can be more effective – and certainly more proactive – than the exit interview? According to research by professors at the University of South Australia published this time last year, the answer is this: the exit conversation.
Here's the difference between the two. The exit interview is initiated by HR and usually facilitated by them, too. The exit conversation, in contrast, is initiated by the employee and facilitated by the employee's manager. It happens at the point of resignation. And what transpires in those ensuing moments – once the employee declares a desire to call it quits – determines the quality of the post-employment relationship and a range of other consequences.
So, what works is when managers show a little remorse, unlike the experience of this former admin assistant: "I think [my manager] took it far too well … [I was] really sad. Heartbroken actually … I wanted him to ask me to stay."
What also works is when managers show some appreciation for their employee's work to date, unlike the experience of this former supervisor: "I always worked hard and it would've been nice if [my manager] acknowledged that I have worked hard in the position."
And what also works is a level of care and interest, unlike the experience of this former customer service rep: "I just spurted out, 'I've decided I'm quitting,' … and [my manager's] like, 'Oh, okay … send me a formal e-mail and I'll make a time to see you in the next few weeks; you can give me back our identity cards'. A bit of a kick in the guts."
The study demonstrated these aggrieved ex-workers were then more likely to enact revenge such as actively discouraging people from working there, publicly disparaging the firm's products and services, and even taking legal action.
According to the researchers, it's those pivotal moments – those initial few minutes – when employees, based on the words and tone of their boss, decide whether they've made the right decision. Say the wrong thing and that decision can instantly become way more than just a resignation.
James Adonis is the author of Employee Enragement.
0 comments
New User? Sign up