How Is Exit Interview Data Managed?

The exit interview is an HR practice applied in the majority of organisations. Our field observations, however, indicate that a considerable distance often remains between conducting the interview and making use of the resulting data. The interview is completed, the form is filled in and added to the file; yet the information obtained does not become an input to the next recruitment, promotion or training decision. The value of an exit interview derives not from the interview itself but from how the resulting data is classified and to which system it is connected. This article examines how the interview should be designed, how the data should be coded, and how the resulting findings should be transferred into HR systems.

Interview Design: Timing, Format and Interviewer

The timing of the interview directly affects the quality of the data. In interviews held immediately after notice of resignation, responses tend to be guarded. A date close to the final working day allows the employee to assess the whole period of employment. Some organisations add a short follow-up interview one month after departure; clearer statements regarding the reason for leaving can often be obtained in these conversations.

Who conducts the interview is the second determining decision. In interviews conducted by the line manager, the stated reason for leaving frequently points to headings other than the relationship with the manager. It is therefore preferable for the interview to be conducted by HR, and ideally by a specialist who has no day-to-day relationship with the employee's function.

On the format side, a structured question set should be used alongside an open-ended section. The structured section ensures that the data remains comparable, while the open-ended section surfaces findings that do not fall within standard categories. Applying the question set consistently in every interview is a precondition for period-on-period comparison.

The scope of the question set is likewise part of the design. At which stage the decision to leave was formed, what the first development influencing that decision was, to what extent the content of the role corresponded to its description at recruitment stage, and what condition might have led the employee to remain, are headings that produce distinguishing information in most organisations. Framing the questions in language free of judgement improves the clarity of the responses received.

It should also be defined to which departures the interview will apply. Voluntary departures and departures arising from organisational decisions produce data of different character, and the picture becomes misleading when they are assessed within the same pool. Tracking departures occurring within the probationary period separately is likewise advisable. Stating that the interview is not compulsory does not reduce participation; monitoring the participation rate by period, however, provides information about how representative the data is.

Exit Interview Data: Classification and Coding of the Data

Converting exit interview data into system knowledge depends on coding the reasons for leaving against a fixed set of categories. Records held as free text can be read individually but cannot be aggregated. In most organisations the following set of categories provides sufficient differentiation:

•      Pay and benefits positioning

•      Limited perceived opportunity for career progression

•      The relationship with the manager and feedback practices

•      Workload balance and working conditions

•      Role content not matching expectations

•      Working relationships within the team

•      Individual reasons unrelated to the organisation

•      Location and working arrangements

A primary and a secondary reason should be coded separately for each record. Decisions to leave rarely rest on a single cause; a picture in which pay is the primary reason and career progression the secondary one generates different actions from one in which pay alone has been coded. Completing the coding within two days of the interview, by the specialist who conducted it, preserves the integrity of the record.

The data should also be held together with the function, grade, tenure band, recruitment source and manager. Without these breakdowns the reasons for leaving produce an average picture for the organisation as a whole, and the actual area of concentration remains invisible.

Defining the confidentiality framework at the outset directly affects the quality of the data. It should be stated clearly at the start of the interview which information will be shared and with whom. Common practice is for individual records to remain within HR and for only aggregated results to be shared with managers. Where the headcount of a function is low, aggregation may still render an individual identifiable, and reporting for these functions is therefore conducted at longer intervals.

Matching Findings to HR Systems

Coded data is, in itself, only a reporting heading. For it to become system knowledge, each category must be connected to an HR system. Concentration in the pay and benefits category connects to the pay band structure and market positioning; the career progression category to career mapping and internal promotion processes; and the manager relationship category to management development programmes and feedback practices.

The category concerning role content not matching expectations most often indicates two distinct systems: how the position was described during recruitment and the scope of the induction process. Within this category, the proportion of departures occurring within the first six months should be tracked separately.

Departures from critical positions are assessed under a separate heading. For these positions, whether a successor is ready within the organisation should be recorded alongside the reason for leaving. In organisations with a succession plan in place, exit interview data serves as a direct indicator of the positions for which the plan requires updating.

Read together with recruitment source information, the data also provides an input to selection and placement. A concentration of short-tenure departures among candidates from a particular source calls for a review of candidate assessment criteria. In the same way, a concentration of the manager relationship category within specific functions allows training needs analysis to be focused on those functions.

The Reporting Cycle and Tracking of Actions

Exit interview data is reported by period rather than individually. A quarterly cycle provides sufficient volume for a meaningful trend to be observed in most organisations. The report sets out the distribution of reasons for leaving, breakdowns by function and grade, the distribution by tenure band, and the change against the previous period.

The report should not be confined to the distribution of reasons for leaving alone. The picture becomes complete when the movement of the attrition rate by grade and function, the share of first-year departures within the total, and the number of departures from critical positions appear within the same report. Tracking these indicators as fixed headings within the HR dashboard facilitates period-on-period comparison.

Sharing the report with the relevant managers is a separate design decision. A structure in which function-level results are conveyed only to senior management delays the arrival of findings in the area of implementation. Discussing findings with the relevant manager becomes possible when the data is addressed within a systemic rather than a personal framework.

The final step of the cycle is tracking the actions. In each reporting period the status of the actions defined in the previous period is reviewed. Without this follow-up, exit interview data becomes a set of records producing the same headings period after period.

Where the scope of the data is confined to leavers alone, it remains one-directional. Short interviews conducted with employees who remain with the organisation provide a basis for comparison when the same category set is used. A category standing out among leavers carries a different meaning where it is observed at a similar level among current employees, and it changes the way HR sets its priorities.

Managing exit interview data is a systematic exercise extending from the definition of the category set to the establishment of the reporting cycle. Within the scope of our organisation design service, we support organisations in designing their exit interview structure, building the data classification set and connecting the findings to HR systems.

With more than 35 years of corporate experience and more than 25 years of C-level leadership perspective, we deliver strategic and applicable solutions.

To design your exit interview system, please contact us.