If they were going to listen to me about things that needed changing, I wouldn’t be leaving. Why should they care what I think if I don’t work there anymore?
Just say, “I have a better offer in another state. I wish you all the luck in the world.”
Regards,
Shodan
I would have loved an exit interview. When I retired from a company where I’d worked 30-plus years, they mailed me a form to complete. It was a short version exit interview, with check-off boxes and small-space “closed probe” questions skewed to elicit sunshine and rainbows and stories of happiness and gratitude.
It was ridiculous. I did not send it back. I did, however, use it in the business classes I taught at a local university, as an example of a bad questionnaire, with the company name masked.
I don’t burn bridges. Also if I’m mad at my former employer, giving them constructive criticism isn’t high on my list of things to do.
I’ve actually been on the giving end of more exit interviews than receiving. I don’t work in HR, and I think any exits conducted by the HR department are BS. They’re too far removed from the actual work to make any sort of day-to-day impact.
I head up a program at my workplace, and (for a while, not so much recently) every time someone left, I would schedule an exit to find out what they thought worked and what they didn’t like. Big picture stuff relating to the employer I couldn’t do anything with, but day-to-day stuff, or stuff related to trainings, I could and did implement changes based on what exiting employees said.
So if you’re exit interviewing through an HR person, if you want it to be constructive, don’t give feedback that will result in HR telling a supervisor or another employee to do something different. It won’t go over well, and likely won’t be implemented. No one likes being told what to do by HR. If it’s big picture policy feedback, or something like the microwave, then go ahead and vent away to HR.
If you’re exit interviewing with someone in your department, I think getting specific on day-to-day work conditions is good. Name names even, as long as you don’t do it in a mean way or burn bridges.
In short, look at the person you’re talking with. Figure out what sort of things they can effectively change as a result of your feedback, and focus your answers on that.
I’d think I’d keep it very vague and cordial unless they specifically asked for advice or suggestions.
For example, if they said “What would you say that we can do to make the day easier for people in your position.” I might answer with something along the lines of free coffee would be nice. I wouldn’t however, go into anything too critical.
Excellent idea. Does anyone try to do this for people who are not leaving? It might reduce turnover, and if some stuff gets acted on word would get around.
I know about surveys, and I’ve sat on committees looking at survey results, and it is easy for them to blow off constructive feedback. Massive unhappiness might actually do something.
If some managers are open to actually changing stuff, and are willing to listen, and people are willing to talk without feeling threatened, then chance can happen. I’ve actually seen this.
I guess I am not used to big corps. I always use individuals as references, and they always act as individuals. Well I guess that’s not completely correct- I’ve had some companies with the “only verify dates of employment,” but I still use human beings.
It only counts for people who used to work for your company, and it is because you can be considered as a representative of the company - thus the company is liable if you screw up or if there is some impact. Never any problem about doing references for someone not in your company.