How I almost made a huge mistake in an exit interview
joshdoody.com
joshdoody.com
Exit interviews just gracefully decline or say the good things that happened at work, I am sure over time there was some gained experience.
If you truly don't like the place and they did things that will lead them to their ultimate ends, just let them. You are leaving, you are free, it isn't your problem, you tried to help when you were there. Nothing amazing will happen with words if you couldn't change it with actions in possibly years of work.
So take the exit interview (and all other HR interactions) with that in mind.
One of the hidden purposes of an exit interview is to "lock in" your story before you leave. For example, if you say in your exit interview you are leaving because the commute is too long it will be harder for you to credibly say a year from now that you left because your boss was sexually harassing you.
Every one of them decided to be 'professional' to not 'burn bridges' and they did not name names. The toxic individual is still there. He is still incredibly powerful, and he is still destroying value left and right.
I really, really wish they'd named names. Right now management knows that they had ten undesirable voluntary terminations. They don't realize that they all have a single primary contributing factor. As such, there's no possible way the problem will get fixed.
The toxic person was likely valuable early in the company's history (he's great at throwing together prototype-quality code), and that reputation makes him hard to fire.
So? Leaving a company is always uncomfortable. And you're leaving. Who cares if your parting conversation with your ineffectual boss is a slightly worse experience?
If I had been harsh in my exit interview, what could have happened? What might my old boss say if he was called to verify my previous employment?
This seems like much anxiety over theoretical possibilities.
It seems to me that people's attitudes toward hiring would utterly doom anyone who has ever had an incompetent, a-hole boss. Personally, I've found that employers who actually want me will hire me on the spot. Ones who want to dink around with references and confirming employment history have proved to be wishy-washy and overly cautious in everything. If someone wants to chat with your last employer, expect them to be reluctant to approve that new machine you've been asking for all year.
I don't care for the high sounding "rights" justifications. What about the most basic right of everyone to speak the truth as they see it?
Clearly, it is better not to needlessly exaggerate any criticism. Nevertheless, it works both ways. If a leaving employee has only positive things to say, I know he is being disingenuous - and if some friends ask about him/her, I would actually be far less likely to recommend such an "a.se licker".
Look at common intro paragraphs for résumés. They're horse shit, and everyone knows it, but deviate much from the usual "dedicated team player who blah blah blah" and it goes in the bin. Doesn't matter that it's horse shit—it matters that you follow convention.
"Where do you see yourself in 5 years" -> honest answer in 99% of cases is "I don't know, but odds are it'll be more or less the same place as now but slightly richer and fatter". You cannot say this. Doesn't matter that it's true.
"What makes you want to work at our company?" -> honest answer in 99.9% of cases is "it pays enough money and seems less awful than my other options for performing activities that pay similar amounts of money". You really can't say this, and even a heavily buttered-up (that is, coated in bullshit) version isn't likely to pass muster. Lie or GTFO.
Not telling the expected lies is a great way to end interviews, or never get them in the first place. The only actual purpose it can possibly serve, that I can think of, is to weed out some of the crazies and eccentrics very quickly. Someone more conspiracy-minded might come up with a bunch of stuff about how it ensures the applicant is sufficiently cowed by this horrible economic machine we all serve, but I suspect the situation is more of an accident than anything with much intention behind it.
Yes, yes, there are exceptions, but this is the reality that the mass of employment-seekers face most of the time. Tell the right lies or go in the bin. One of the more shocking and difficult-to-cope-with elements of adult life if you're brought up to value honesty. Try to talk to people about it and many seem to become confused. "But that's just what you put on it. Here, you need to add something about how you're a self-starter." Sigh.
[edit] I would add that the "why do you want to work here?" question carries the bonus stupidity/uselessness-factor in that no place where someone wanted to work for reasons other than just money and it being less shitty than the other options would ever feel the urge to ask it. SpaceX doesn't have to ask. They launch fucking rockets in to space. You sell (e.g.) Point of Sale software, so you ask because there's no obvious answer other than "you pay money, I want money". It's a question dripping with insecurity.
My stock answer to this is to quote Carl Sagan and say that prophecy is a lost art.
Maybe if enough people start giving that answer, employers will stop asking this incredibly stupid question.
You're certainly welcome to speak the truth as you see it, just don't be surprised when the people who won't like that truth refuse to help you along the way. Be careful not to confuse 'right' with 'obligation'.
It's a lot more obvious these days with things like LinkedIn. There are very few people that I would talk to for a potential new job who aren't either directly connected or 1 step away from many of my former and current coworkers. People talk, it's better to be remembered as the good guy and not the jerk.
This assumes the bridge isn't already burnt.
If you worked for an incompetent a-hole, chances are he'll have a negative opinion of you regardless of your exit behavior.
I've watched people bust their asses to leave their employer in the best position possible. The employer goes on to hold a negative opinion of them because they were too self-centered and stupid to understand the value that employee created. It was all wasted effort.
I noticed that every person arguing with me over this is using inflammatory language implying unprofessional and irrational behavior.
I'm sorry, so you're now casting my comments under the light of the tautology you're declaring?
The original post was about how it would have been a mistake if he had let his emotions get the better of him.
The original post was about how he stifled his criticisms and caved to the general advice to keep opinions to yourself. The exact statement was:
So I backed off and gave some general feedback—hard to find interesting projects, considering a career change, that sort of thing—without going into too much detail.
As other commenters here are pointing out, this is doing a disservice to the company and to your now-former coworkers.
Nobody is advocating "running your mouth", whatever that highly subjective and inflammatory phrase means to you.
Again: so what? What's in it for _me_?
Second. Its just not professional. If you have some constructive criticism that can be provided without being "harsh" its valuable and reflects well on you.
You assumed that I'm promoting unprofessional behavior. In fact, you appear to be defining the entire discussion such that anything that disagrees with you is inherently unprofessional and, thus, a poor decision.
Also "harsh" is entirely subjective.
I've only ever worked in the 'enterprise' - large consultancies, systems integrators and massive, very well known, software companies.
Every single one of these did a very intense background check on me.
With the exception of Accenture, I have never had a request for a MAC or LINUX machine turned down. I have never had my expenses denied, I have always been paid very well and I have never ever been hired on the spot.
Your expereinces are your own, let's not try to pass them off as the way things are.
I did no such thing.
Explain to me the upside of honesty.
but can definitely see risk and downside
And this is the problem, in my opinion. People are being dishonest with themselves and others, promoting bad work environments, all due to fear of imagined consequences.
You're removing an important piece of context: there's no upside to honesty in an exit interview.
Wrong. As others are pointing out, by stifling your honest feedback you're harming the company and your now-former coworkers.
All because you fear a hypothetical situation.
...and? So what? What's in it for _me_?
The exit interview is unlikely to be read by the audience to which you seem to be referring (or at least, read in any serious way). By the time you've left, the only meaningful feedback to leadership is attrition.
They aren't in business anymore. A company taking a bit of diligence is a comforting sign sometimes.
If you work somewhere good, then you will presumably have tried to change things before leaving. If you work somewhere with issues, then the exit interview won't change anything.
I certainly don't see any value in venting or burning bridges - you've already quit, now let it go; ranting doesn't do you any favours, even if it feels great.
You will probably run into some of these people again or they will know people you use to work with at such-and-such company.
Firstly if you are so positive, then why are you leaving? Secondly even only being positive means you leave things out. How is someone going to feel when they read it, and see you don't mention them or mention them enough.
The good light/positive leaving can be better accomplished by your farewell email, as you get to choose who it goes to (most likely far more people than just the exit interview) and you can put in it whatever you want.
As someone who has given a few exit interviews (albeit at startups, not a big company) we sometimes get really useful feedback. I've never had anyone say anything in an exit interview that made me think any less of them.
People often remember ex-employees more for how/why they left, than what they actually did while employed.
Depending on how high up you were, etc., there's a decent chance word will get around on any relevant bits. I always try to leave places on as good standing as possible. The exit interview can be a great opportunity to solidify that, as well as wrap up any loose threads (asking to use them as a reference, making sure they know they can still reach out if they have questions, etc.). There may be other chances to do so, but depending on circumstances, maybe not.
You can still provide very honest and valuable feedback when you exit a company, without being a jerk. If the move is really about you, and nothing that the company can or should change, then that's fine.
But if there are things that the company did to cause you to leave, or if a once great company changed directions and started diverting from what you considered an awesome place to work, then you are only hurting those you leave behind when you "focus on yourself" and not "focus on others or the company".
If you're exit interview is with HR, then it may very well not do any good. But if you're tactful and constructive with your feedback -- even if it is about things the company could change -- then it shouldn't hurt you. And if the interview is with someone above you -- or if it falls in their hands -- then it could very well benefit the company and the people you leave behind.
If I were your ex-coworker, I would be disappointed that you didn't take the opportunity to help improve the culture I'm still a part of. If I were your manager, I would want you to be honest so that I can improve the culture to attract better talent going forward.
If the company/people you work with don't handle constructive feedback very well, then that's their problem and not yours.
My advice: Be honest, but professional and constructive about it.
Not when the people on the receiving end of that feedback are the ones that associate negativity or uncomfortable opinions with "being a jerk."
If the company/people you work with don't handle constructive feedback very well, then that's their problem and not yours.
The sanitized non-committal vague responses are an evolutionary response to fact American corporate culture generally doesn't handle it well, and can turn it into your problem.
You could also spruce up the decor a bit before you walk out the door for the last time. But, why?
Beyond those factors I am skeptical that it's worth worrying about whether a past manager will have anything bad or good to say about a person.
Even if the chance were worth considering, I think one would do better to view it as a negative signal if a company makes the decision to not hire based on one bad or negative reference. It means the company was looking for any excuse to not hire the candidate, and it seems very likely in that case there wasn't really a good fit. This of course assumes that negative experiences are (relatively) rare. There are people who just can't help but torch the place everywhere they go, but no advice really applies in such extreme cases.
Perhaps feedback like "A lot of people are unhappy about X. If X continues, others may end up quitting as well" will cause them to actually do something about X.
Of course, if you're super cynical you could believe that they're just going to ignore your feedback. But this is why most exit interviews are done by HR and not your manager.
From the original article, I think this guy's approach is almost 100% wrong. There are a few things that are accurate - it's not a place to just rant or blow off steam. But it IS a place to be honest and provide constructive feedback. If there's something going on that you're unhappy about, bring it up. This paranoia about "it will stay in your permanent file" is just cowardly.
Of course, I've worked at places where, before my exit interview, people who are high up in the company (boss's bosses, etc) have always encouraged me to point out the things that can be improved.
"If the company/people you work with don't handle constructive feedback very well, then that's their problem and not yours."
Again, I agree. However, if they don't handle it very well and then I'm applying for a job and they know someone who knows someone at my would-be company and they're asked about me, well, then it is my problem.
But if you think of it in the reality of your life and you are your own master, then you owe it to yourself to be honest and say what's on your mind. This isn't illegal (yet) and yah, you might run into someone who knows someone in the lords network.. But, is that the way to live?
I'm not saying to be rude or insensitive or a jerk on the way out. But once you realize a place isn't for you, then why does it matter what they say or think. Does Mark Hurd care what anyone connected to HP thinks? (Granted, he's an extreme case and if only we didn't have to play by the rules too..)
If you're leaving a place where there were people that were jerks, then sure, it's up to you to tone it down or turn it up. I've seen a lot of both kinds of exits and the people I know that turned it up were never ostracized and denied good jobs later. In fact, most found great jobs that could stay with for a long time.
It sounds like this article's main reason to avoid being HONEST is to avoid the confrontation that be a product of being honest. Yay passive aggressiveness!
ZOMG SOMEONE MIGHT READ MY FILE AND BE UPSET BECAUSE I CALLED THEM OUT.
In reality, if you haven't been honest and confronted the negatives in your job by the time you leave, this is actually pretty good advice.
Life is too short to hate where you work, what you do, or who you work with. Not happy? Put plans in motion to change that. Don't hide from reality. Embrace the confrontation, you'll be happier and in a better place because of it.
Why? To make the place better for the friends I'm leaving. And presumably you like some of the management, so also to help them run a better company.
I can't quite understand the defensively posturing, so I'll assume it's that I've been lucky enough to work in the sort of environments where I feel comfortable saying the things above :)
The article mentions
"If I had written what I really wanted to say in the exit interview, our final conversation could have gone much differently"
Yeah! With the sanitized responses, this conversation is just wasting my time. With the real responses, I can actually respond to your feedback and make the job better for the next guy.
But where's my incentive to care about that?
I'm already leaving, so any problems that I had at the company will disappear. If I tell the truth and it helps the company that has zero impact on me. The problem arises in that any negative comments I make could easily be construed or twisted into something that reflects negatively on me.
Especially if the same themes crop up in multiple exit interviews, hopefully someone in management can change the issues facing people leaving.
"Nothing amazing will happen with words if you couldn't change it with actions in possibly years of work."
This is it. Plain and simple.
Of course they bring up my answers in the exit interview, and when I told them "I thought that was anonymous." they told me, "Oh it is, only HR is allowed to see it. We remove the names from the surveys before we send it to [the boss]."
Of course turnover is low enough there that the boss could easily match the responses to the employees. So essentially, the "anonymous" aspect is a giant lie. Wish I could go back and amend the anonymous survey to tell the what I think about companies which lie to their employees, even if said employees are on their way out.
They asked me if I'd consider working for another team.
I laughed.
Add to that the fact that employees carefully cultivate positive references and you have just one more reason why references are a poor indicator of basically anything.
No thank you, it was an interesting read while it lasted.
Basically, offer them your consulting services if they are actually interested in fixing their problems (spoiler: they're not). Everything else, keep it super anodyne and say the functional equivalent of nothing.
Another point: Companies are most willing to listen to feedback from the people they like. If you are a superstar and leave because the work is not challenging then management will take notice. If you whine about the job being boring everyday then management will write you off as a chronic complainer.
Oh God, this.
Microsoft stack consultants in New York City. You'd think "a few million people live here..." but if you're in your 50's and have been in this game for awhile, you'll know the heads of your competitors. This is doubly true if you present at user groups or meetups.
A good employee left recently and gave honest criticism to how projects were managed and other deficiencies that meant myself and others still had a lot of room for improvement.
Take the lady's advice and just say NO!