Author: Pamela Holloway

Here are seven Tips & Techniques for Exit Interviews:

1. Select carefully and train well the people that are going to be doing the interviews. Results depend on the skills of the interviewer. If you don’t have that expertise in-house, find it externally. (Third-party interviewers often do a better job because they are able to be more objective.)


2. Don’t ask people to fill out a 10-page questionnaire and mail it to an anonymous mailbox. This is impersonal, annoying, and highly ineffective. Exit interviews work best live. Face-to-face is preferred, over the phone if you have to.


3. Where separations aren’t voluntary and/or where the exiting employee is “emotionally charged,” delay the interview two-three months. By this time there’s a good chance they will have “chilled” and had an opportunity to reflect on their experience. They’re also more likely to have another job and won’t need the reference (which means they’re more likely to be honest).


4. Make it about them. Most people like talking about themselves. Talking about how one does their job and what they’ve accomplished can provide key information to the organization and make the person feel good at the same time.


5. Use the exit interview to build a “parting relationship.” Not so much because you don’t want to end up in court, but because you never know when you’ll cross paths again. You may want to hire this person back some day. Also, it’s likely they or someone they know are prospects or customers of your products and services.


6. Use the information and knowledge collected! Articulate to the troops the value of these exercises and how the information gets used. Give them a reason/incentive to want to contribute.


7. Round out the exit interview process by adding the other Two Es — Entry and Expert. Entry Interviews enable you to gather information when employees first join the organization — when they have “fresh eyes” and new and different perspectives. Expert Interviews are conducted as they develop skills and become subject matter experts.

Headhunter Nick Corcodilos calls exit interviews “The cockroaches of the HR world: No one knows why they exist, no one can justify or eliminate them, and they will likely survive into the third millennium.”

Although I agree with Nick on most things, I’m not ready to give up on this one just yet. Sure, there are things we need to do to improve the process, but there’s also some real potential here.

What if we used the exit interview opportunity to collect not only the basic HR stuff, but also knowledge about what it takes to do the job? Information that could be used to staff the job, improve the organization, and help incumbents and candidates.

And what if we used exit interviews as one of a series of “cradle-to-grave” interviews done to collect knowledge? Like the UK Post Office, for example, who developed–and use frequently –a method called 3E. ^(TM)

The three E’s are Entry, Expert and Exit. Highly skilled (and well-trained) interviewers focus on capturing key knowledge from people in the organization. Exit interviews are important, but they’re not the only time employees are asked for input.

How does a knowledge-focused exit interview differ from a traditional exit interview?

In a knowledge-focused interview, you may collect the typical HR information, but your primary focus is on knowledge — knowledge that would be helpful to the next person in the job or to others in the organization with similar roles and responsibilities. The kinds of questions you’d ask might include: “What did you do? How did you do it? Why did you do it? What skills and competencies are most critical?”

Done correctly, these types of exit interviews are a win-win for both the organization and the exiting employee. The questions enable the employee to articulate their unique contributions to the organization, and in doing so, feel better about leaving, and better about the organization.

If you do only one thing to change the way you do exit interviews, ask the kinds of questions that will get to the heart of what the job is all about and what it takes to do the work.

In doing exit interviews with Help Desk staff, we found that two of the most important competencies for the job were: 1) the ability to calm an angry customer, satisfy their needs quickly and have them leave happy; and 2) the ability to deal with the high noise and activity level in the work setting — to be able to think and deal with customers on the phone amidst all the ruckus.

We also learned the tricks people used to deal with the noise and calm angry people. We learned this information by asking employees what frustrated them most.

This is the kind of stuff you’ll want to learn about your employees’ (former employees) jobs.

The ancient artifacts we call job descriptions haven’t changed much over the last half century. But the world of work has.

Rather than having a single job, most of us perform a variety of roles and activities. What we do changes frequently, and typically bears little resemblance to formal job descriptions.

Isn’t it time for a new approach to defining work? One that’s more in tune with the times and focused on effectiveness rather than efficiency? One that actually provides real guidance and enables “right person right job.” Isn’t it time we put job descriptions to work?

We should start this process by revisiting what we want job descriptions to do. For example, job descriptions should:

• Provide guidance to people as to what to do and how to do it.


• Provide information that could be used in staffing the job — not only technical skill requirements, but also information about the “nature” of the person best suited for the work.


• Provide a basis for “Who’s Who” and Expertise directories that enable people in the organization to know who does what and who knows what.

What do we need to change in order to accomplish these objectives?

I suggest three things:

First, expand job descriptions to include multiple roles and areas of expertise.

Traditional job descriptions no longer work because they’re based on the concept of a single job. But few of us have “a” job or static area of responsibility. We’re involved in different projects and work with different teams. What we do and how we do it changes monthly, weekly, sometimes even daily.

Several years ago, my job title at Mobil was Global HR Process Consultant (which always made for interesting conversation at cocktail parties). During the course of one year, I developed global data standards, negotiated outsourcing contracts, developed web sites, and managed the training function. How would you like to write that job description?

Multiple roles and responsibilities are now the norm rather than the exception. Our job description “language” should accommodate this diversity. In the Mobil example, we might note the types of work processes, such as Strategic Planning, Developing Standards, and Negotiating Contracts and then the contexts within which those activities were performed.

Context elements might be things like the function: HR or IT, Global versus US, the timing, and the depth and breadth of involvement. My job or work profile would include not only those processes and contexts from that one year, but from other years and jobs as well.

Second: “nature of work” characteristics should be added to job descriptions. These are additional attributes of the work that can be used to better match people to activities.

For example, is most of the work hands-on, “in the trenches” or is it more conceptual, planning, and analyzing? Does the work deal mostly with people, data, or things? What’s the level of responsibility, in other words, what are the repercussions of mistake making?

Of all the ways better job descriptions can benefit an organization, perhaps the most important one is their ability to enable right person right job or job fit. Given current turnover rates and the escalating war for talent, we absolutely must do a better job at matching people to work. Job fit is now job one!

In order to accomplish this, we must stop looking at jobs and people as two separate entities and focus instead on the relationship between the two.

We also need to develop a common language for describing work and people, a language that goes beyond technical skills, degrees, and years of experience, and begins to get to the heart of what work is really all about — the behaviors, cognitive skills used and the social context in which it operates.

Finally, job descriptions should be written by or with the person in the job.

I mean, if you look at the benefits of good job descriptions, a common theme emerges. Who is in the best position to supply job information? Who knows better what the job is actually all about and what kinds of skills and competencies are most important? The incumbent!

I’m an advocate for enabling employees to complete their own work profiles and job descriptions. Some people may need help articulating details about their job, but that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be the primary supplier of information. Consider using an interview process for gathering key information.

I’m also in favor of “self-assigned” job titles. Encourage employees to choose their own job title, one that actually means something to them, one that motivates them and makes them feel good about what they do. Chief Visionary. Client Caregiver, Director of Talent.

Job descriptions and job titles provide identity and purpose. Perhaps by redefining work, we can help make employees feel better about who they are and what they do.

You know George. He’s the guy everyone calls when they have a problem. George has worked for his current employer—an oil company—for nearly 30 years and there’s very little he hasn’t faced when it comes to getting oil out of the ground. Rumor has it he can solve a problem, any problem in 15 minutes or less, and he doesn’t have to be onsite to do it.

The good news is you have a tremendous knowledge asset in George. The bad news is he’s opted for early retirement. And when George leaves, so does his knowledge.

So why haven’t you done anything to protect yourself from knowledge walking out the door? Things move too quickly to afford you the weeks, months, maybe even years it would take to rebuild lost knowledge. Time lost trying to replace key knowledge—and more importantly, losses resulting from not having the knowledge there when you need it—can cost a fortune, if not cripple your company entirely.

The good news is there’s been some real progress in the area of tacit knowledge transfer. It’s not only possible to transfer what George knows to other people who need it. It’s possible to accomplish it in a short period of time, it doesn t require a huge investment in technology, and it doesn’t have to cost you an arm and a leg.

The key is not to try to build an elaborate expert system that you teach to think and solve problems like George. Instead, you want to focus on only those key processes, actions and behaviors that illustrate how George does what it does (in this example, George solves well problems). You want to capture the steps of the process—how, what, when and where he does what he does—and deliver this information back in the form of solutions, chunks, or knowledge nuggets that are immediately actionable.

People don’t have to leave for you to lose knowledge.
As if it weren’t enough that we have to worry about knowledge walking out the door, now we also have to worry about losing it inside the organization. It appears that experts don’t have to leave in order for a company to lose their expertise. Sometimes taking another job inside the company can have the same affect.

When people change jobs, the rest of us tend to associate them with the new role and assume that they only know things related to this one job. It’s as though we forget about all the other experience they bring to the table.

I remember sitting in a meeting one day when someone said, “If we only we could find someone with international payroll experience.” One of the guys on the team came unglued. Prior to his current assignment with the U.S. payroll team, he had spent several years implementing international payrolls. He’d been with the company for many years and had worked with several of the people in the room in previous engagements. He was incensed that no one remembered his international experience or even bothered to ask if anyone had the requisite skills.

One of the smartest things you can do to ensure you know who knows what is to implement a yellow pages type of “find the expert” directory. This is generally a low-cost investment in technology, people and time, but one that can offer a dramatic return on investment. The key in making these programs work rests in the quality of the information provided. It should not include basic bio or résumé-type mentions as much as it should include knowledge and expertise applied. It should be a sort of “who’s worked where doing what with what and with whom.”

Find the Georges in your organization.
In order to identify the people in your organization whose brain houses key knowledge, you should start with your business strategies, objectives and core competencies. What is it that you absolutely must do in order to be successful? In the case of George s company, one of the key competencies is resolving well problems quickly and efficiently. Every minute a well’s not pumping, the company is losing money.

Try this simple exercise. Think about people in your organization who, like George, have key knowledge in their heads. You’ll want to focus on knowledge and abilities that aren’t easily available anywhere else or easily replaceable, should the expert decide to retire, pursue other employment or God forbid, get hit by a bus. Take a minute and think about the key knowledge in your organization. It might be:

• Knowledge about and/or a relationship with a particular customer


• Knowledge about a key operational process


• Knowledge about a key technology or system


• Knowledge of a geography or country and its business customs


• Knowledge about how to pick the right person for the right job or how to put together a winning team


• Knowledge about the internal infrastructure—the tools, the culture, “how to get things done around here.”

Remember: Not everyone in your organization is a George or has the potential to be a George. You don’t need to capture and classify everything that everybody knows—even if it were actually possible. You have to learn to recognize which knowledge is most important to the success of your organization, who has it, and who would benefit from it most.

Think of five people who have key knowledge in your organization, and how their knowledge is used. Now imagine what it would be like if these five people were no longer around. What would it be like on a day-to-day basis if you didn’t have access to their skills and knowledge?

Sometimes it will be fairly obvious what kind of knowledge is important (for example, knowing where to drill for oil). In many cases, there may be a fair amount of previously existing explicit knowledge that you can use to build the foundation of capturing employee knowledge. Sometimes, the tool may be a manual or a quick-reference card. Other times, an interactive, computer-based training tool might be more appropriate. Video or live telecasts are also good delivery vehicles. Apprenticeships and mentoring might also be appropriate.

The complexity of the process depends on the nature of the knowledge, where you are today in the process (has any of it been communicated?), how willing the expert is to contribute, and the caliber and skills of people you have to support the exercise.

Maintain relationships after employees leave.
George is looking forward to his retirement. He s buying that ranch he s always wanted and he plans on spending lots of time with his grandchildren—time he didn t have when he was up all hours of the night solving well problems. But the door that closes behind him doesn t have to slam shut. George may be interested in staying connected to what he knows best, and may be willing to continue work on an as-needed basis, so long as you re careful to structure the relationship in a way that gives him time for his new priorities and recognizes the value of his expertise.

Employment is no longer an either/or situation where you are employed or not employed. It takes on various forms including contracting and consulting, and may be part-time or every once in a while. The key is to make sure that when employees leave or change their employment status, they do so on good terms. Make a conscious effort to maintain relationships with former employees—not just with retirees, but with people of all ages who have worked for the company.

Think about it. When people leave your company for another job, chances are they’ll be doing new things that increase their knowledge. They’ll certainly have more external exposure, meet more people, use different kinds of technology, and so on. The knowledge they acquire could well prove useful to you at some time in the future.

Imagine a younger version of George who is potentially as knowledgeable, but you aren t able to give him or her the exposure to the full range of problems and geographies that another company could. George Jr. goes off to a new job or a few jobs for several years, and comes back to you later in his career with just the right knowledge at the right time.