Exit interviews: To be honest or not?

After having enough of your supervisor’s micromanagement, talking down, and harassment, as well as your co-workers’ backstabbing, you are ready to tender your resignation. However, before you are cleared, the mandatory exit interview stands between you and your severance pay.

Do you answer the questions about the toxic workplace honestly and risk having your pay delayed in relation, or do you lie and paint the picture of an ideal employer?

When Mwema* was quitting her job earlier this year, this was among the questions she wrestled with. She did not see how helpful the interview was in offboarding since “everyone knew it was lopsided.

She explains, “It is such a lie to be telling Human Resource (HR) things to improve, yet it was known that they do nothing about the feedback. For example, the question about whether my supervisor acknowledged my input…The answer is no. And the HR officer even told me that’s what others had said in the past!”

Instead of being totally honest, Mwema chose to focus only on issues entailing her work but avoided those that included personality.

But unlike Mwema, Naomi* held nothing back when completing the online exit interview. “My experience wasn’t harsh. I did my part in giving honest responses. Unfortunately, I cannot control what they do with the information, but I hope they will act,” she says.

Importance and principles

Elizabeth Mwangi, an HR manager, says the sole purpose of an exit interview is to obtain constructive feedback from an employee. The information gleaned from this offboarding tool is crucial for identifying areas that need improvement to retain talent.

The questions revolve around the organisation’s culture, line management, job description and role, remuneration, and how other colleagues treated them.

“Depending on the role this employee was holding, the interview questions could phrased thus, “what areas would you want to identify that would pose a risk to the organisation? What areas would you want improved?” She offers.

While Ms Mwangi does not advocate for half-truth answers from employees for fear of burning bridges, she says that emotional intelligence goes a long way.

“Maintain decorum during the interview and ensure that the information shared is what they would want improved if you came back. Basically, answers on what the company would have done differently to retain you,” says Ms Mwangi.

In cases where the employee is leaving a toxic workplace, Ms Mwangi cautions against complaining or being rude when giving feedback.

However, she quickly notes that relationships are two-way, so employers should be equally worried about how employees leave.

She poses, “What would you want people out there to know about your organisation?”

Shortcomings

“Lack of honesty is at the root of the poor attitude toward exit interviews because employees feel that their opinions might not be acted upon,” she elaborates.

Lack of proper implementation of the recommendations made after the exit interviews sends the message to the remaining employees that the management is not eager to improve the workplace.

Vincent Mulungwa, an HR officer at Kaluworks, a manufacturer of aluminium products, shares that cultural differences also affect how employees respond to exit interviews.

“For instance, a German-based company in Kenya. Probably, it has both German and Kenyan employees. So, if the latter are exiting, they might fear speaking their truth because they don’t want to ruin their chances of getting a good reference letter, more so if they are moving to another German company,” he says.

This, Mr Mulungwa clarifies, is not necessarily tied to racial innuendos but also applies within the local tribes in an organisation.

“If an employee from tribe X gives a negative review about the company, all the people left might receive some ‘’backlash.’’ However, if the management is keen on addressing the issues raised during the exit interview objectively, it would actually do more good than harm in retaining the employees left.”

To follow up or not?

After the exit interviews, Mr Mulungwa advises that there is no definite ‘’yes’’ or ‘’no’’ on whether HR should follow up with former employees.

He says, “I do not see the need to do follow-ups if the HR kept the interviews comprehensive and covered all issues. But you should if the exiting employee might be willing and ready to recommend a person.””

This is applicable if there was a question on recommending someone else and the employee had indicated that they could refer.

If an employee resigns, citing (sexual) harassment, Mr Mulungwa says that not taking disciplinary actions against the accused encourages the behaviour and tarnishes the company’s reputation.

“Keeping such a person in the company will not only make people afraid of joining, but it will also send a message that the company is not keen on making its employees feel safe and protected,” he points out.

Though exit interviews are usually conducted in a general format, Mr Mulungwa recommends customising them to suit specific departments and roles. This tailored approach can provide more relevant feedback, which can be instrumental in making improvements for the next person who fills the position.

→ (email protected)