Why don't all companies hold exit interviews?

I believe some companies look at exit interviews as too little too late. Others look at them as an unneeded extra task. In a way, I agree with both of them to a point. One of the best pieces of advice I have ever recieved about this is that the exit interview should begin the day an employee starts with an organization. Keep an open channel of communication going to learn the reasons someone may want to leave your company while you can still do something about it, if you so desire.

That said, you should do some information collection at time of departure to verify what you hopefully already know. Some are reluctant to give you the whole story while still at the organization. Also, consider having it done by a third party if you can. Exiting employees might be more honest with that set up.

Four points to consider...

(1) If you have dialogue with your employees then exit interviews are worthless. If you don't have dialogue then you prolly have bigger problems.

(2) Exit interviews are ceremonial at best.

(3) If the company has decided to part ways with the employee, the company doesn't really care about the opinion of the dearly departed.

(4) If the employee has decided to part ways with the company, the company doesn't really "trust" the opinion of the dearly departed.

Lastly, I think exit interviews are what we do to show that we care.

The biggest is that they aren't really valide. Some studies show that slightly under 10% of people will say that they are leaving because of someone they work with (often their boss). If asked again 3 months later and the names are protected this rises to over 85%. The other thing of course is that you shouldn't ask questions you don't intend to do things about and often the questions are just asked as a pro forma requirement with no intention to change anything.

Dear Caty, I believe this is simply due to not understanding the benefit an EI brings to any employer. Naturally, one has to be rather sensitive and top notch filtering the received information. Some organizations conduct such interviews face-to-face others anonymously on-line. In any event, the information gathered should very critically be evaluated as often organizations are not even aware of some drivers leading to a separation. The Qs asked should stretch from on-boarding to the final exit, technical and non-technical, work environment to social responsibility in order to provide a holistic picture to extend possible.
In my capacity, I do believe in the value of such interviews.
The downside though, one can never be sure that one receives the truth as some individuals are very disappointed or even bitter.

Don, correct on all counts.

Don is right on.

My question is why aren't most companies doing "Stay Interviews" on a regular bases?

Mel, they do not know how to do them or even why they should do them, To quote my old boss, "Employees complain in good times and in bad times, employees just complain, so why ask them anything."

If the exit interview is well structured and clear and you allow the respondent the choice of a phone, panel or written exit interview then I think this can achieve great results especially if there is a disconnect between the line management and the leadsership of an organization. Part of the issue is also the fact that employees may be leaving a company in droves for a number of very specific reasons that the leadership of an organization may be oblivious to. I think that there are also cultural issues at play here and the nature of the employer:employee contract may also determine whether this is relevant or appropriate.

Surveys of employees have shown that employees will be more honest in exit interviews than in employees surveys. Which makes a lot of sense since they have a lot less to lose on their way out the door.

Stay interviews have a similar name but completely different function. Stay interviews are about the INDIVIDUAL. What can be done to retain that particular person. Exit interviews are about the ORGANIZATION. What can be done to improve the company to increase retention (and productivity, diversity, etc.)

Ninety-Five percent and more of companies DO conduct exit interviews it's just that some do it half heartedly. Why? Because exit interviewing employees on a one-off basis results in anecdotal information that is difficult to use to make improvements.

When companies decide they want to really make a dent in employee turnover, they commit to using exit interviews in a more progressive fashion. They allow employees to complete exit interviews online and then compile the data in such a way that they can easily pinpoint trends and issues. They move the data from anecdotal to objective. That's when they can start really making an impact.

One of the great things about exit interviews is that they create an opportunity for HR to have a huge impact on the bottom line. Real numbers for the company. Reducing turnover by x percent saves massive amounts of money. A great way that HR can contribute financially to the organization.

Beth N. Carvin
Nobscot Corporation
http://www.nobscot.com

Beth where do you get the number that 95% of all organization do exit interviews? I don't have any hard data but most of the companies I have worked with do not have an exit interview process or policy.

We have found that in doing stay interviews that when we fix the things that bother individuals we fix the things that bother most of the employees.

The number has been written up extensively with I think the original attribution being from SHRM.

Stay interviews are very individual as what motivates each individual is different. The idea is for a manager to learn about their employees. Is it an employee looking for a certain type of growth? Are they more motivated by money or by schedule flexibility?

Exit interviews when sliced and diced help you get at the irritations that are drivers of turnover. When a person is still employed they can only guess at what would actually cause them to make that final decision to leave.

Having conducted them and had them given to me, I find them a complete waste of everyone's time. But...if you are going to do them, then get an independent third party to conduct them.

Typically (Let's stress this is typical and is not always the case!), an exit interview deals with dissatisfied employees looking for greener pastures. Most companies aren't interested in knowing their short comings and are myopic when involving the CEO's plan of attack. A truly involved and interested CEO/leader (company) will always want feedback on how the company is operating. People can provide valuable information on the health of a company with their feedback and exit interviews can be brutally honest. Caveat: Yes, some people are disingenuous and can skew results, but you can always gather metrics from such interviews to learn about perceptions of a company and what causes turnover, especially high levels.

Great question Caty! This topic is near and dear to my heart. As someone who has conducted many, many exit interviews myself, I tend to agree with all of the above comments. In the end, why conduct an exit interview if: 1) the data you collect isn't accurate or truthful and 2) nothing is really done with the information anyway? The truth is that people don't leave companies. People leave people. I believe that exit interviews are most important when top performers decide to leave the organization. Understanding why someone you wanted to keep decided to leave is a critical piece of business information. And in that case, if the company is really, really serious about why a top performer is leaving, is HR even the right place for the exit interview to occur? If you want me to believe an organization takes its exit interviews seriously, show me one where the CEO him/herself conducts them personally when top performers leave. Many have argued that CEOs don't have time for this. I say that if it's important enough, the CEO makes the time. If it's not, then don't bother doing them at all.

I would like to clear up one myth that has been perpetuated since its inception and that is that "People leave managers." Yes, sometimes people leave managers. Other times times they leave because of corporate policies, lack of opportunity, dislike of Industry, poor fit for the job and a million other reasons.

Each company has its own unique irritations that cause people to leave and each department within each company has its own unique irritations.

Companies that use exit interviews well focus on unearthing their irritations so they can minimize or eliminate them.

Brenden, the challenge with CEOs conducting exit interviews aside from the obvious that they don't have the time is the more important reason that employees will be to intimidated to tell the CEO anything. You need to create a methodology that will make employees comfortable to share their critiques. Talking to the CEO isn't one of them.

Good points Beth. But, respectfully, I disagree. Who makes policies? People. Who doesn't provide opportunities? People. Dislike of industry - OK, I'll give you that. But corporations are not nameless, faceless entities. They are comprised of people who make decisions that, in most cases, are the reasons people leave organizations. I've seen this too much of this first hand to have any other opinion than that. Anything else just sounds like an excuse to me.

You state companies use exit interviews to focus on minimizing or eliminating issues. Ideally, yes. Unfortunately, my experience is that leadership sees the issues/complaints/concerns of departing employees as whining or the byproduct of an unhappy person. Excuses are made, no one is accountable, and nothing gets done. Is this true in all cases in every company? Of course not. Still, this is my experience.

Secondly, if the environment is such that people are intimidated by the CEO, that's a problem in and of itself. Again, I'm not talking about every exiting employee. I'm talking about the top performers in the organization. As the CEO, how could you not want to hear directly from them?

Thanks for the differing opinion. That's what makes these discussions great!

Hi Brenden,

Thanks for the discussion. The general turn of the phrase is "people leave managers." My point of clarification is that bad managers or bad supervisors are only one of many reasons. You can broaden it to "people leave people" and technically I can't argue with your point that everything ultimately works it's way back to people. But really in an organization many of the irritations are not connected to a single individual but to a set of policies or culture or "way that things are done here" that transcend any one person.

Sure if people are leaving because the temperature of the office is freezing cold you could say, "people leave the facility manager!" but really it's more important to know that we need to do something about the temperature. Or hire people that like to work in the cold.

When we focus it on "people leave people" we risk pointing fingers and blame rather than looking at the things we can improve.

I also agree with you that exit interviews are an area that companies have been slow to move into the 21st century. There is no doubt that when companies do a mediocre job of exit interviews and look at them one at a time rather than in aggregate Managers will make excuses and blame the employee in order to protect themselves.

Today, technology changes everything for exit interviews. Rather than having to look at them anecdotally, companies can use technology to easily spot trouble areas. Smaller companies can use spreadsheets and home made data bases. Larger companies (1000+ EEs) can use exit interview management technology. It's a game changer.

Talking to the CEO is great in a small company and even then top performers feel bad enough about leaving that they don't want to insult the CEO by critiquing. No matter how great a CEO, the title alone is going to make it difficult for leaving employees to verbally provide constructive advice directly face to face with a CEO. It's just not realistic to think employees will be able to do that.

I can tell you that many CEOs are very interested in this information. That's why companies that are tracking trends from the exit interviews are passing the information directly to the CEO. Once the CEO and other senior leaders start reviewing this information they always seem to come back to HR asking for more.

William I love the first line of your post but would have said "If you have dialog with your employees they are worthless. If you don't have dialog with your employees they are worthless."