Don’t Lie On Your Resume, But Lie Like Hell During Your Exit Interview | Hacker News Reader

Don’t Lie On Your Resume, But Lie Like Hell During Your Exit Interview

robbieabed.com

176 pointsrobbiea126 comments

I'm always honest in my exit interviews, and I've had quite a few of them. I've yet to have this result in "burning bridges", despite often having harsh things to say (I was leaving, after all) - and in a couple cases so far I've been asked to come back to help solve tough problems (often some of the ones I mentioned in my exit interview).

Of course, I don't have a particularly large sample here: just three companies. If I had followed the advice in this article, however, I'd never know what might have happened if I had actually spoken my mind, and I think that's a tremendous waste. If you've already taken the initiative to leave a job, why let yourself be so paralyzed by fear that you won't speak your mind in the exit interview, the interview set up by the company to attempt to capture the reasons for your departure?

I don't believe in corporate loyalty, and I don't believe that you owe a former employer much, but I'll say this: If you want to be viewed with any integrity, and as a person of merit and a person that your coworkers - and even your former employer - would consider worth maintaining a relationship with in the future, you owe it to them to be honest in an exit interview. This doesn't mean you should take it as an opportunity to vent and say horrible things just because you can, but you should be honest. If they opt not to act on your feedback, that's their fault, not yours, but if you fail to give them actionable feedback that's your fault.

For my first exit interview (2.5 yrs, Big3 Indian Consulting Firm), I was leaving purely for the low and unfair HR compensation policies. I had not planned what to say in exit interview, but the way it turned out is I flipped the question back on HR:

"How many exit interviews have you done in the last 3 months? (I knew she'd done atleast 10-15). And tell me top 3 changes or actions that you've taken based on them"

The discussion hilariously turned towards how she didn't really have the power to do anything, except to be a pretty lady face on the way out for soon to be ex-employees and 'give feedback to senior mgmt' but without any power to influence any remedial measures.

If you are working in a big company with more than hundreds/thousands of employees, you are leaving pretty much for one of these 3 things: 1. Compensation 2. Compensation in other name(promotion, rank, perceived status) 3. Bad/asshole mgmt, stupid policies etc everything else that makes Scott Adams successful.

In such orgs, by the time you are giving exit interview, almost anyone responsible up-down in your chain knows why you're leaving. And everyone knows nothing's going to change just because one guy is leaving.

So don't expect much, don't give much. Just say your goodbyes and leave.

Great comment kevin, I'm the original OP.

I value being viewed as someone with integrity. If I'm using this exit interview as a chance to be honest with them for the first time, then it's my fault. By the time I made it to the exit interview, everyone in the room knows 100% why I am leaving. I have already tried to change the situation, and it didn't work.

If a girl asked you if she was fat (and she was) are you going to tell her that she is fat? Or are you going to lie? Everyone in the room knows that she's fat. No, you're not. You're not going to ruin her day. That's how I view an exit interview. We all know the truth and If you're going to make me say it on record on my way out, the message will make it back to management and I will look bad.

I guess this post makes me look like a miserable POS, but it's really the opposite. I've had great experiences working for great companies. At a recent job at Big4 firm, the CEO of the firm sent out my resignation letter to the entire company because of how great it was. It was a positive email, with no negatives. There was some constructive criticism (very, very minor criticism), but it didn't make it to my good bye letter or exit interview. I kept it positive and in the end it worked out great.

If a girl asked you if she was fat (and she was) are you going to tell her that she is fat?

An old coworker of mine had some fun advice... He said if his wife asked if some outfit made her look fat, and it did, then he would say so. He would tell her what he didn't like. As a result, he doesn't have a fat wife with ugly clothing (and he retains a wife).

I value an honest relationship, not one covered in cute little "white" lies. People who deal with me come to understand that. For them, it must be refreshing to not have to question my motivations, to wonder if I really mean what I say. And if I care about them, I am surely doing them more good by answering honestly.

Never confuse honesty with poor delivery. "Heck yeah, you look like a fat, sweaty, slobbering pig." The right words depend on your relationship. You can be sensitive to that person's needs and answer the question they really asked.

So perhaps that was a poor analogy. With regards to the exit interview, I think there is something to be said for focusing on the positive and trying to keep the emotions in check while presenting more objective responses.

If think I am with robbiea on this one, if you get to the point where you are at an exit interview then management should already know why you are leaving, if they don't then that's your fault for not making your grieviences be heard. It should be at this point you leave they have not been able to rectify the situation.

An honest relationship would be where the truths have been told all along. Telling your wife she looks fat as you walk out the door is not gonna give her enough time to try and make a change.

I personally think it is important to remember to be professional. Keep emotions in check because it can be far to easy to vent and say how much of an asshole everyone is.

That said, sometimes a place will piss you off that much that you just don't care. I worked at a place like this once and now look back at it as a learning experience. I am much much more picky and inquisitive about the job, role, tools, machinery, atmosphere etc before I even consider accepting an offer.

It must surely happen coincidentally sometimes. Nevertheless, your choice of adjectives made me think you might have had this in mind:

'big, fat, slobbering pig'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtMU8nvZzOs#t=3m09s

"Close But No Cigar", Weird Al

//I've had great experiences working for great companies. At a recent job at Big4 firm, the CEO of the firm sent out my resignation letter to the entire company because of how great it was. It was a positive email, with no negatives.

But, now that you wrote this post, I guess people are going to doubt what you wrote in that letter... haha

Same here. I've always been open and honest in my exit interviews too, and have never experienced any burnt bridges as a result. And honestly, my sample size is pretty small too.

In all of my exit interviews, I've treated it like an employee review: I talk about the good things about the company (things to continue), the bad things about the company (things to avoid), and my suggestions on how they might be fixed.

If someone's worried about burning bridges as a result of something negative they might say, just end your interview with suggestions on how the situation could be improved.

Personally, I don't think a policy to encourage outright lying is ever a good thing.

One way to be both honest and not burn bridges is to say "I don't talk behind people's back". So either HR will bring in the parties involved (not likely, but in case they do, you can get your point across to them directly, probably in a constructive manner), or they won't, which you get to keep your honesty and integrity.

The crux of this is a simple question: if the company is really interested in honest, constructive, confidential, consequence-free criticism, why only ask the ex-employees?

Companies that really do value honest, constructive, confidential, consequence-free criticism (the best kind in some cases) will value that feedback most from their current employees. But, in doing so, eliminate the need for the soon ex-employees to feel the need to dump reality on management.

I left my first employer after 2.5 years because I didn't like their direction and I didn't like what they were paying me. Everybody there knew I speak my mind - loudly. And I spoke my mind at my exit interview - in a constructive way, sure, but real content.

Why? Not because I thought anything would change (it didn't - it got worse and most of my friends have now left too). I did it because I knew what I said would get out, and I knew when I ran into my past colleagues in the future (it's a small industry) that they'd have good laugh about it all and only have respect for me for sticking to my principles and never backing down.

All the best people I've worked with have been straight-shooters and I admire that and look for it in the people I interview. Every position I've ever taken on has been through word of mouth, including that position. You can use this knowledge to your advantage. I think this blog post is overly conservative.

I totally agree. There's major street cred to be gained from speaking truth to power. But, as the article points out, there are consequences also.

I think the blog article is trying to tell newer/naive employees that, when asked by a soon-to-be former employer to provide an honest exit interview, the whole premise is a charade. How we handle that charade is still up to us, though.

Sometimes declining to do an exit interview sends a stronger message about the culture of a company.

Because current employees have too much to lose if they say the wrong thing to the wrong people.

When I left my last job (Fortune 500 co), the HR exit interview was the usual crap and a total waste of time. But the Director of software engineering pulled me into his office for his own exit interview because, in his words, "I know you can be completely honest now." He genuinely wanted to know from one of the "troops" how things were going and he wanted the data unfiltered by HR policies.

That's the kind of exit interview that makes sense. Not surprisingly for a company with that kind of management, I honestly didn't have anything negative to say about them.

Simply because from the point of view of the employee you'd just have to take their word for it. Why risk it? By definition an ex-employee has much less, if anything, to lose.

What makes you think companies are restricted to doing one or the other? They can be doing both.

The real question is what they do with the feedback (whether it's from an exit interview, or during yearly reviews, etc).

> What makes you think companies are restricted to doing one or the other?

The fact a person feels the need to "vent" at their exit interview shows that the company has not been seeking that kind of feedback during the employment duration.

Because people have the least to lose during an exit so they tend to be more honest with the answers.

Some bridges need to be burned. There is this sickness in business that is a kind of pervasive dishonesty. Apart from just being wrong in a moral sense, this is also counter-productive: it ruins the utility of reputation.

That said, I'd recommend simply refusing the exit interview. That's 20 minutes you're better spending elsewhere.

> There is this sickness in business that is a kind of pervasive dishonesty.

I believe it is also called 'business correctness'. It's like a lifestyle disease. Not exactly a killer on its own, but inviting all sorts of other troubles into work and business. Anyway, am not convinced refusing is in any sense productive/curative of the disease. May be if you refuse and then write a blog about it, but that would be major war and might cause career suicide. So i would rather give feedback and level of politeness, well that's a personal choice.

>Anyway, am not convinced refusing is in any sense productive/curative of the disease.

Refusing doesn't cure anything, but it highlights the silliness of the exit interview, and adds 20 minutes to your life. You are right that sharing your honest opinion with others (which seems to happen over beer, more often than not) is far more curative. Not participating is more like an act of passive resistance protesting the hypocrisy of it.

Some bridges need to be burned. There is this sickness in business that is a kind of pervasive dishonesty. Apart from just being wrong in a moral sense, this is also counter-productive: it ruins the utility of reputation.

Sorry, are you complaining because people are denied an avenue by which to slander others? The utility isn't ruined. You just have to look at it a different way. "Good" people will probably have a good reputation because sharing praise is almost always safe. Bad people will probably have a vague reputation. Doing things this way lets people be rewarded for good behavior, while people who have made mistakes get a chance to learn from their mistakes and "start over".

Some bridges need to be burned.

So true. So very, very true.

I plan on using the same worthsmithing they used during the last layoffs. "This is a great place to work, but due to circumstances out of my control I unfortunately have to realign and focus my goals towards other opportunites"

Good one!

Always good advice. Dan Warmenhoven (CEO of Netapp where I worked at the time) told me that you can't change a company by leaving it. This is so true. Pretty much nothing you say in an exit interview will achieve any positive good, its like taking relationship advice from your soon to be ex-spouse.

You can change a company by leaving it - it will become less like you've been trying to make it.

What reason would there ever be to attend an exit interview at all, if it is forbidden to say anything you think?

You may not have a good reason, but I strongly suspect there are a host of potential legal issues that HR departments are trying to avoid by insisting on an exit interview.

Basic stuff: If two weeks later you sue the company for sexual harassment, it's helpful to have you on file as having claimed you were leaving for salary reasons.

It's one of this silly social traps where you are expected to lie - just like the "greatest weakness" question during the entry interview or your aunt asking how you like the salad.

Who said they exist for your benefit?

The fact that people go to them when they could instead not go to them implies some kind of reason to go.

Or that people are easily convinced that silly rituals are mandatory when they in fact are not.

Note that HR never asks if you'd like to have an exit interview, and just ask you when you'd like to have it, as if it's already a foregone conclusion. This same trick works a lot more than you'd expect in real life. Stating something as a foregone conclusion and redirecting the line of questioning is a pretty sweet strategy for getting what you want.

Well, that would be a reason. Not a very good one. The whole point of asking, I think, is to see whether there's actually a good one, or whether people just go for the reasons you describe.

To sign your severance package.

yes, totally agreed. So many people out there want to change the company on the way out and it always amazes me. I used to think the same thing, but had to figure it out the hard way.

"you can't change a company by leaving it"

Very well said.

I disagree, unless he meant "you, you specifically". An employee's departure can act as a wake-up call for a company's leadership and subsequently lead to changes at the company.

Having been in on the company's leadership meetings where departures were noted with a simple 'regret yes/no' flag it was my experience that no single departure had any effect. Mass departures did, trends did, but one person never did, even when that person was a founder.

The rationalizations always put the issue back on the departing employee, "They were burned out", "They had lost their ability to be effective", "They have moved on", "They just haven't grown with the company" never was it "We failed this person, what are we going to do differently?"

Now an individual manager might do some introspection, but even then the change impact of the departure is insignificant compared to the change that can be wrought by being there and honing your persuasion skills.

And given that, the exit interview is a nop.

That's been my experience in academia as well: any person leaving can be rationalized somehow, and only individual staff personally invested in that person tend to do any introspection about what could've been done differently. Multiple departures can cause a shake-up, though, mostly because the higher-up administration that usually ignores such matters may feel the need to investigate if a trend seems to be developing. Of course, if the problem is the higher-up administration's own policies, that doesn't help, but it can help if the problem was unnoticed malaise in a department.

Different from what the two current sibling posts say, I've experienced a shift in the company's morale when a longstanding employee quit abruptly one morning after hearing about (drastic) changes he didn't agree with. Two weeks after his departure, another team lead left and within the span of three months, I believe five or six people quit. It was never the same after, and a year down the road would see even more turnover.

It honestly probably wouldn't have been as bad as it was if management hadn't tried to coddle the leftovers by telling them everything was going to be okay. Their acknowledgement of the loss made it apparent they were scrambling to figure something out.

That is a really good point, if you don't constrain the term change you have to include 'damage' as a form of change. Certainly it can be damaging to a company for an individual to leave. I've got personal experience with this and I am sure many people have a similar story in their history.

When I left Sun I got an email from another long time Sun employee who had just quit as well. They said that if I was leaving then the place must be irredeemable and so they were moving on as well. It left me feeling profoundly conflicted because while I had given up on the company by that point I had never intended to cause others to leave.

So I have to accept your point that a company can be changed by the departure of an individual. It may or may not be the change the individual was seeking however.

Yup, same experience here. If someone well respected leaves, moral can be completely destroyed. That person doesn't even have to be an important person.

One of the most interesting type of personality is the useless guy who brighten the office up, once they leave, the whole office can fall apart, especially if the office is full of strong personalities.

Yup. Yourdon (or somebody like that) noted the example of an apparently useless team member that had the notable property that whenever he/she joined a team, the project became a success. I've subsequently looked for such examples, and have spotted several likely instances. And perhaps more importantly, I've realized that I can try to be one myself (hopefully without also becoming "useless").

"An employee's departure can act as a wake-up call for a company's leadership"

I highly doubt it unless the employee was a C level. Even then, people come and go at companies. I have quit enough times to know that truth. Just as an example, I call up my old bosses or colleagues and I hear "Its all the same here. same shit different day"

The point is that if you do want to bring change which is extremely tough (even for obama :),you need to stick around and be the champion of change.

I disagree. If you are leaving and if you care at all about the place I don't think you will burn bridges by being honest. Maybe my experience has been different, I have never left a job because of an asshole boss but more freqeuntly because either a) the environment was off or b) I had a better offer somewhere else. In those situations, the exit interview is built to catch exactly those sorts of issues.

I am still friends with my colleagues and my boss at my last job, but I told them in the interview a long list of tweaks to expectations, assignments etc if they wanted to keep folks like me around.

"I am still friends with my colleagues and my boss at my last job, but I told them in the interview a long list of tweaks to expectations, assignments etc if they wanted to keep folks like me around."

The same. Several lunchs later with him (months after leaving), I also know he took some of the criticism to heart. This is really all depended on your boss, your relationship with him and how much you mastered the art of giving advice.

That is a far-cry from the behavior this article (and the Forbes one) is cautioning against. You sound like you didn't burn bridges and you provided your critiques in a professional manner.

That's different than using the exit interview as the opportunity to let out all your frustrations and to "get back" at the company.

The article's advice is specifically "be nice" and hold your tongue, which is silly. Say whatever you want. Obviously calling people assholes is unproductive whether it goes into a sealed file or to the company mailing list.

For example, say, "I'm tired of filling out TPS reports and I felt underpaid." No can argue with your emotions, and it's not like your aversion to unnecessary paperwork or need for a decent salary will get out and kill your career. If enough employees leave for precisely these reasons, that may eventually cause change.

| If enough employees leave for precisely these reasons, that may eventually cause change.

What i'm saying is that it usually doesn't. Usually the feedback that you give is already known. The good companies would have changed it before the company left. Especially if it's a huge known problem.

I don't see why you wouldn't tell them anyway. At the very least they'll know it's a big enough issue that people will quit over it.

If you're not going to answer their questions about why you're leaving you might as well save everybody's time and skip the exit interview.

I would have already spoken up about it and made it aware. I wouldn't wait until the absolute end to provide the feedback.

Probably true at most places, but good companies can definitely drift into bad habits without being aware of it. Sometimes all it takes is a few managers recognizing the problem.

Say it now or forever hold your peace.

You will make a difference. Believe in yourself .

For example, say, "I'm tired of filling out TPS reports and I felt underpaid."

That's a good angle to take. And the choice of words and tone here is key -- it's not a rant, and it doesn't finger-point. It puts the emphasis on you, not them -- and it basically says "look, I'm disappointed and I'm suffering", thereby engendering empathy.

But if in fact they listen carefully, it also expresses criticism which can be quite damning. I like language that works like that.

The first bullet point refers to a Forbes article that I think puts the advice in context. It's not so much "be nice," as it is "don't be nasty."

It's quite possible to simultaneously be honest about a toxic work environment and to do so as a professional.

  I am still friends with my colleagues and my boss at my 
  last job, but I told them in the interview a long list of 
  tweaks to expectations, assignments etc if they wanted to 
  keep folks like me around.

Interesting. Did they make the tweaks after your departure? Were they substantial changes? Did you suggest the tweaks prior to your resignation, and if so why do you think they didn't make them at that time?

Some things have changed, for others it will take more time.

One other thing to note: for me at least, this was the last time I felt comfortable giving them feedback about why I left - I am not going to tell my former boss who I still get drinks with why my new job is so much better now, but I wanted her to know then why it was.

When I was handed my exit survey at my former workplace I didn't lie. I just omitted.

I omitted how repetitive and useless was the work.

I omitted how micromanagement was killing the spirits of the employees.

I omitted how many growth promises they made me were still unattained.

But I did underline some positive aspects of the workplace: the cafeteria and the bar.

What I mean is, there's no reason to lie. Maybe just omitting stuff and praise useless perks would suffice.

Yes, very good points. But I would say that omitting is the same thing as lying. HR is asking for the absolute truth, and here you are "omitting" things which isn't necessarily telling the truth.

The forbes article I linked to had the same omitting points as you made.

> But I would say that omitting is the same thing as lying.

Let's say I think my co-worker is an asshole. How many people do I have to tell to avoid being a liar?

As many who ask you?

An important note: You can decline your exit interview. Unless this requirement is sewn into your signed employment contract, politely decline the request from HR.

Yea, declining is a much better idea. Though in the long term, ideally employees should be able to post these things publicly, which is even better.

I agree. Ideally, that would be nice, but it isn't going to happen. IMO, the most professional approach when you are leaving is to give individuals specific feedback that you think will help them succeed. However, you should already be giving that kind of feedback to individuals, waiting till you are leaving doesn't come off as very helpful or genuine.

Yea, I know that sometimes it is easier said than done.

Glassdoor.com :)

I mean non-anonymously.

I ended up getting a decent raise because of my predecessor's exit interview. She told the HR staff that she was leaving because she didn't get the (actually quite meager) raise she asked for, and she was doing the work of three people. They ended up hiring two additional people to replace her, and I got a 7% raise.

I would say, there's the question of personal branding that has to be considered. I know that sounds like hand-wavy, marketing speak,but hear me out. In every situation, there are ambiguities, and ideally we should be able to rationally consider the probabilities and utility values involved and make a decision maximizing expected value. Unfortunately, we are not Bayesian models when it comes to decisions. So it becomes a question of personal preference or sometimes emotional sustainability. My experience is violent responses tend to affect your judgement for a longer time period after. On the other hand, lying also has a similar effect, although milder. I've come to the conclusion, it's a very hard thing to balance, and easy to over-do for me.

I have lied in a previous exit interview, saying am going for a higher education. while that was true, that was hardly the reason for me leaving. And it still annoys me i did that. I would rather have said, i don't think the management practices make sense, and i haven't been able to change/modify a single bit of it in the last 3 years. So, am better off somewhere else. Infact, both companies after that did not have exit interview per se, so i never got around to saying stuff, but sometimes think i should have. But i would be happy to do something like i mentioned above with my current company when i leave.

Any article instructing people to lie should not be circulated, let alone on the front page of HN.

Glad to see this didn't last long.

Lying is a necessary part of human interaction. I would suggest you read "The Art of Lying" by Kazuo Sakai M.D. and Nakana Ide.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Lying-Kazuo-Sakai-M-D/dp/157826055...

Or if you're pressed for time, the following short TED Talk also explains the realities well:

http://www.ted.com/talks/pamela_meyer_how_to_spot_a_liar.htm...

"Lying is a necessary part of human interaction"

For you maybe.

For you maybe.

I think this is a lie.

More so because it is just another of many rehashes of http://h30565.www3.hp.com/t5/Feature-Articles/Don-t-Bother-B... which has already been covered widely http://slashdot.org/story/12/07/23/2335257/being-honest-in-e...

Why do you say that - is that because you think it is always wrong to lie?

Yes. Lying perpetuates this "save yourself" culture.

Without citing white lies (presumably made to save the person being lied to), please share an example when it is right to lie?

And never lying perpetuates the wage-slave culture of blind loyalty to our corporate overlords that only see people as interchangeable cogs.

Or maybe it's not black and white hyperbole and the real world is a messy place that requires more than unrealistic guidelines like "never lie."

"Are you sure that you have not seen any jews here?"

'Nein nein, no one here at all, Brigadeführer. Will tell you right away if I see any, honest'

In the Jewish/Christian scriptures, Joshua 2 tells the story of Rahab lying in order to hide a pair of Jewish spies. She is considered one of the great heroes of the Bible.

>> Without citing white lies (presumably made to save the person being lied to)

My comment was not about advantaging the person being lied to but the person being lied about (and being saved), in my example a third party.

The white lie example is more like "No darling your bottom doesn't look fat in that dress"

(The Reginald Hunter Youtube clip I included elsewhere illustrates that point in a comedy sketch).

Actually this isn't even the definition of a white lie; White lies are lies about trivial matters.

It's not about saving the other person but about saving face for the other person. From wikipedia:

"White lies are minor lies which could be considered to be harmless, or even beneficial, in the long term. White lies are also considered to be used for greater good."

http://www.samharris.org/images/uploads/LYING.pdf

Why not?

edit: if you're going to downvote, you could at the very minimum explain how I didn't contribute?

Why shouldn't people lie? As an ex-employee you no longer have a duty to tell the truth to your previous employer.

All my exit interviews have been held before the end of my last day, for which I still receive a full day's salary. Typically they end with signing a termination agreement that makes me officially unemployed.

If they called for advice later I still wouldn't lie, though I might want compensation for some kind of really big imposition.

So, would you expect the company to tell you about strategic direction of the company up until the exact second of your leaving? Surely, if you are expected to bare your kimono up until the last second, they would have no problem sharing all of the same confidential information you've been privy to while working there.

Or is it more likely that both sides fully understand that there is an untangling and winding down of trust?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=415gf6vjytU&feature=relat...

If you are leaving a company you don't like, why would you ever tell them anything that would make them better?

1. If you hate them you want them to fail anyway. Tell them things are really good.

2. Even if you don't hate them, your feedback can only cause you harm. There is zero upside to being honestly negative. They obviously don't have a culture that rewarded you for taking risks or being honest, so why take one now?

> If you are leaving a company you don't like...

I've never left a company I didn't like.

This assumes that the company is a stupid, big corporation that can't care less what its employees feel. But a good company should take this opportunity -- the exit interview -- to improve things.

Do you know of any companies that do?

My company (at least for two more days) apparently sends all exit-interview notes to the senior management team and we're a fairly large company.

So if every exit interviewee says the same things, you'd have to think they would eventually address them or keep facing the consequences.

I understand what you're saying; positivity on the way out can ensure that you don't burn bridges as nobody likes being told that they're doing a bad job.

But this isn't the right thing to do.

Show some care for your colleagues.

If you're leaving them in the same position or worse off, then it's your responsibility to say: "I'm going now and I've enjoyed my time here for the most part, but I really hope that you can try and fix some of these things x, y, z for my colleagues Simon, Jack and Andy."

Avoid being rude or selfish.

Reframe the conversation so it's about helping your colleagues out and not negative feelings.

Be positive, caring and constructive at the same time.

the greatest lie in business is that HR is there for you the employee. no! hr is there to ensure the human capital investment is utilized to the fullest extent allowed by the law and policy of the company.

Have your real exit interview with your boss, or her boss, or higher. This can be over a beer, or in the office. Smart bosses will seek you out, not so good ones may not listen anyway.

When I'm leaving, I'm already at the point where I've attempted to give all the possible feedback, and I've become jaded enough that I simply don't care about helping the company any longer.

I write the world's nicest email, praising the technical and personal quality of the team and its leadership, reiterating how much of a dream it was working with them. I make everybody feel great about themselves, and move on with my life, never to look back again.

yes, I agree with this. You have already tried to give the feedback already, you didn't wait until the exit interview.

HR will make it seem like everything you say is confidential, and no one will ever know you said it except him / her ... everyone will find out.

Everyone thinks that this exit interview is your last chance for you to let management know that things need to change. Everyone thinks that they are going to be the change catalyst on the way out of the company. You're going to be the hero!

This all sounds a little over the top.

My experience has been that HR was quite clear they would share the feedback I gave in my exit interviews among company leadership to help improve the work environment or culture. Even if it got out more than that, no big deal. (except if we're talking about an extreme case, e.g. an employee leaving due to sexual harassment.) And, given that I had high respect for many that remained at the companies I've left, I willingly gave honest feedback if it might have any chance of improving their work environment after I left.

I respect the author's opinion, but it sounds like unnecessary hyping of exit interviews, and bad advice ("exit interviews are a fraud, they're worthless, so lie!!").

Related question: is it legal for an employer to hold your last paycheck hostage until you come back in to do an exit interview?

Usually no. Check with your state's department of labor. Most have a guide about when the employer needs to issue you your last paycheck. If they are withholding some or all of the paycheck against the law, you can file a claim.

[EDIT] Here's the one from the state of Illinois. It's pretty helpful: http://www.state.il.us/agency/idol/faq/qawage.htm

Largely no. A severance package may be contingent upon it, but typically your last paycheck is expected to either be paid on the final day of employment, or on the next paycheck cycle (and in most states the former - and is typically done by check to avoid delays, whatever, legal claims).

Probably not. That said, which would you rather do:

* File a complaint/lawsuit and go through a difficult legal process that gets you your paycheck in an undefined amount of time.

* Show up and do an exit interview, lie through your teeth, and probably get your paycheck much more quickly.

Of course, this assumes your employer is being honest and intends to pay you once you've done the exit interview. If you doubt your employer's honesty, the legal route becomes much more viable an option.

In the US at least, I would say No.

I completely disagree with the conclusions made by this article... I worked at a company that had issues, and when employees left, I always found out to some degree what they said in the exit interview.

Employees that were polite and constructive, but honest, in pointing out issues and problems earned much more respect from me than employees who sucked up.

The potential benefits of being truthful in a exit interview largely accrue to those still at the company, the risks largely accrue to the person doing the interview.

Combine that with the fact that companies who have significant problems of the sort that make people want to leave rarely deal with them (if they were that sort of company they wouldn't have those issues in the first place), and on balance it simply makes no sense to offer anything other than a somewhat rose tinted version of the truth at most.

The world is a smaller place than most people think, people know people, word gets around, unofficial references are taken all the time ("hey, this guy worked at place X, I know someone there, I'll give him a call"). Never unnecessarily upset someone, anyone, without very good reason.

And whatever you do, never ever make the mistake of assuming that because you were right, that's how it will be seen (and told) by everyone.

Hmm. People I know including myself wouldn't do an 'exit interview'. Once you know you're gone, you just leave (actually that instant, usually). Why would you waste time talking to pencil pushers? Never gave anyone I know a bad rep either; I don't know if this is the country I live in, but no-one cares about the past basically; references are never called (I tried to do this in my own companies, but everyone on the other end lies, because there is always some kind of deal in place, no matter how someone leaves; it's a money thing so no-one is going to tell you the truth anyway) and people have 'better' stuff to do than talk about you (cocktails might be free for instance or something something olympics!).

Burning bridges, huh? I usually show up on my first day at a job with gas can and matches in hand. By the time I'm leaving a company, any criticisms I've had at all about anything there have been voiced quite publicly and, ideally, to the highest executive I get a chance to expose to my thoughts on any particular subject that might be bothering me. Most of my peers think I'm kind of an ass sometimes, but I'm friends outside of work with many of them and they have a general respect for my willingness to challenge authority on the job. Outside of work, however, I'm a wuss...you never know what you're going to deal with and I could get beat up if I'm too much of a dick!

At my last job I had two exit interviews. In the first HR sent me the typical forms, which I'm sure went straight to the garbage.

In the second my VP sat me down and asked me why I was leaving. I could tell he would have been fine with my BS answer or with my honest one, so I gave him a mix of the two. I avoided the tacky stuff (we were all underpaid, which he knew) and concentrated on my personal development. It was constructive without coming off as petty or angry. He told me he was happy with my work and that I could come back anytime, and wished me luck. That second exit interview was great because HR had nothing to do with it.

What will it (really) accomplish?

Is this something(s) you want?

In other words: Context.

Keep in mind that for "established" organizations, you will be interviewing with HR and not with your own management. (Even if one of them sits in, HR is driving the show.) And HR has its own agenda, goals, and reports.

Amongst other things, if there is a whiff of controversy (that might, even just on an outside chance, turn into arbitration or legal action), it may be best to simply decline the interview.

Right or wrong, I tend to view one's HR file as akin to talking to the cops. 'Anything [in it] can and will be used against you.'

Just an anecdote, during one of my exit interviews, I ranted about the problems, including the ineffective leadership of my boss and my boss' boss. 9 months later, my old boss actually contacted me and asked if I could go back to work in the old company. Being honest and giving constructive criticism don't burn bridge if the recipients can handle it. If they can't handle it, you don't want to work with them anyway so no big deal for those burnt bridges.

Exit interview reminds me of the "Year End appraisals" that happens at companies especially the giant ones. Both are highly ineffective unless constant feedback and engagement is done throughout the year b/w the employer/boss/HR and the employee. I absolutely hated this whole drama which is more of a formality of filling out forms.

Exit interview? Never had one myself, never heard of any one having one, well, an official one at least. Im guessing its more an American thing than a British one?

Anyway, why would one want anything to do with an exit interview? Sounds like a complete mine field. I cant see a reason I'd want to attend one. Are these things forced on people?

I'm also a Brit and have had such interviews both times I left a job (though admittedly these were owned by American or Americanized companies). Of course you wouldn't want to make personal attacks or anything like that, but it's a chance to give a clear statement of your reasons for leaving (which can help you as much as your now-ex employer). The last job I left seemed to be just a bad fit between me and the role, and even now I'm frustratingly unsure exactly what I didn't like about it, but I'm glad that we at least took half an hour and tried to talk it through and figure out where it went wrong.

I've had plenty of exit interviews and some I've been nice and candid and others I dropped daisy cutters and tried to kick the devil on the way out the door.

I've never gained anything from either approach and have since decided not to waste my time any more. Besides, the last person management wants to hear from are disgruntled developers.

Spot on! Take Scott Thompson, disgraced former CEO of Yahoo. In an announcement, Thompson said he was leaving Yahoo due to his health problems... that least very shortly because soon after he joined ShopRunner. So you have a perfect example of a guy that lied on his resume, as well as during his exit. Liar always liar?

Why would you even agree to do an exit interview? I'd rather just opt out than lie throughout the process.

Better solution - and generally recommended by experts - just decline any and all exit interviews.

Some bridges just need to be burned.

Bridges tend to be interconnected - I'm afraid the analogy breaks down here but you know what I mean. It might be tempting and your ego might demand it but the advice in the article is pretty solid. There's nothing to be gained here except feeling smug (probably briefly).

When the thing on the other side of the bridge doesn't share your values i'd say it's healthy, and the fact that connections will likely be burned is a plus. Btw, burn them by default doesn't make sense, on that i can agree.

Any freelancers reading this: I have an idea to allow people to recommend possible replacements upon exit interviews.

"richbridge" "moneydoor" "smartexit"

Perhaps you can already work out the use case and flow. Drop me a line if interested.

Don't be afraid to burn bridge at exit. You don't want to work again with the people you hated anyway. It takes courage to make a stand and here's chance to practice it.

I like how they made a six point list out of one point. This should have been a tweet.

Exit interviews are for suckers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com