research paper on exit interview

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Published: 04 January 2021

Using exit interviews to improve employee experience

• Sabina Mirza 1  

BDJ In Practice volume  34 ,  page 28 ( 2021 ) Cite this article

66 Accesses

Metrics details

One of the best ways to gain insight into your employee job satisfaction is by conducting an exit interview. With your employee leaving, the exit interview is more likely to facilitate open and honest discussion on their experience of working for your practice. You can use the exit interview to assess whether you are a good employer in your employees' view. You can gain a better understanding of the positive and negative factors that contribute to an employee choosing to stay or to leave and any changes you need to make as a practice. What you learn will help you to improve the employee experience for your remaining staff which will contribute to employee retention and to attracting a higher calibre of applicants to your practice. This insight is especially important if you want to stop valued employees from leaving or to reduce high turnover of staff within your practice.

There are benefits for your employees too. For the departing employee, an exit interview provides closure on matters they may not have otherwise raised and demonstrates that you value their opinion. For your other employees it promotes goodwill by demonstrating your commitment to change employment practices for their benefit.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Subscribe to this journal

We are sorry, but there is no personal subscription option available for your country.

Buy this article

• Purchase on Springer Link
• Instant access to full article PDF

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

British Dental Association, 64 Wimpole Street, W1G 8YS, London, UK

Sabina Mirza

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sabina Mirza .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Mirza, S. Using exit interviews to improve employee experience . BDJ In Pract 34 , 28 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41404-020-0628-9

Download citation

Published : 04 January 2021

Issue Date : January 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41404-020-0628-9

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

Making Exit Interviews Count

• Everett Spain
• Boris Groysberg

In the knowledge economy, skilled employees are the assets that drive organizational success. Thus companies must learn from them—why they stay, why they leave, and how the organization needs to change. A thoughtful exit interview—whether it be a face-to-face conversation, a questionnaire, a survey, or a combination—can catalyze leaders’ listening skills, reveal what does or doesn’t work inside the organization, highlight hidden challenges and opportunities, and generate essential competitive intelligence. It can promote engagement and enhance retention by signaling to employees that their views matter. And it can turn departing employees into corporate ambassadors for years to come.

Unfortunately, too few leaders pay attention to this tool; their programs fail to either improve retention or produce useful information. The authors believe this is owing to poor data quality and a lack of consensus on best practices. They suggest six overall goals for a strategic exit interview process and describe tactics and techniques to make it successful. Among their recommendations: Have interviews conducted by second- or third-line managers. Make exit interviews mandatory for at least some employees. And because standard interviews enable you to spot trends, but unstructured ones elicit unexpected insights, consider combining the two approaches in semistructured interviews.

This underused practice can be a powerful tool for retention.

Idea in Brief

In today’s knowledge economy, skilled employees are any company’s most valuable asset. Thus it’s important to understand why they stay, why they leave, and how the organization may need to change.

The Opportunity

Exit interviews, when conducted with care, can provide a flow of thoughtful feedback and insight on all three fronts. They can increase employee engagement and retention by revealing what works or doesn’t work inside the organization.

The Challenge

Too often, exit interview programs fail to achieve their potential for two reasons: First, the data they produce can be spotty and untrustworthy. And second, little consensus on best practices exists. This article attempts to address both concerns.

An international financial services company hired a midlevel manager to oversee a department of 17 employees. A year later only eight remained: Four had resigned and five had transferred. To understand what led to the exodus, an executive looked at the exit interviews of the four employees who had resigned and discovered that they had all told the same story: The manager lacked critical leadership skills, such as showing appreciation, engendering commitment, and communicating vision and strategy. More important, the interviews suggested a deeper, systemic problem: The organization was promoting managers on the basis of technical rather than managerial skill. The executive committee adjusted the company’s promotion process accordingly.

• Everett Spain is an active-duty colonel and the head of the department of behavioral sciences and leadership at West Point.
• BG Boris Groysberg is a professor of business administration in the Organizational Behavior unit at Harvard Business School and a faculty affiliate at the school’s Race, Gender & Equity Initiative. He is the coauthor, with Colleen Ammerman, of Glass Half-Broken: Shattering the Barriers That Still Hold Women Back at Work (Harvard Business Review Press, 2021). bgroysberg

Partner Center

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• HHS Author Manuscripts

Exit Interview-Consultation for Research Validation and Dissemination

Queen Utley-Smith

1 Duke University School of Nursing DUMC P.O. Box 3322 Durham NC 27710 Phone: 919 286-5617 ext 233 Fax: 919 416-4729

Donald Bailey

Natalie ammarell, kirsten corazzini, cathleen s. colón-emeric.

2 Department of Medicine, Division of Geriatrics, Duke University Medical Center. Box 3003 DUMC Durham, NC, 27710. Phone: (919) 660-7517 Fax: (919) 684-8569

Deborah Lekan-Rutledge

Mary l. piven, ruth a. anderson.

Dissemination of research findings to practice and maintaining rigor and validity in qualitative research is a continuing challenge for nurse researchers. Using three nursing home case studies as examples, we describe how exit interview-consultation was used as: (1) a validation strategy, and; (2) as a rapid research dissemination tool that is particularly useful for nursing systems research. Through an exit interview–consultation method, researchers validated inferences made from qualitative and quantitative data collected in three comprehensive nursing home case studies that examined nursing management practices. This exit interview-consultation strategy extends the traditional member check approach by providing confirmation at the individual and organizational level. We examined how using the exit interview-consultation strategy can potentially assist nursing home organizations to increase their capacity for improving operations. Benefits from research participation are often indirect; this study's results suggest that exit interview-consultation can provide direct and immediate benefits to organizations and individuals.

In any research design, rigor, credibility and confirmability are concerns. In this paper, we examine the exit interview-consultation, used as a research validation and dissemination strategy in a multiple-method comparative case study. Using three nursing homes as examples, we show how the exit interview-consultation is a unique mechanism for: (1) confirming research findings through a unique application of the “member check” strategy, and; (2) providing immediate dissemination of findings about the organization's performance and capacity for improvement. The exit interview-consultation refers to structured group and individual sessions conducted with study participants at the end of each case study. Exit interview-consultation facilitated member check, validation of our inferences and our explanations for how we arrived at conclusions. We found that the exit interview-consultation offers an extension to the common use of member check, which is normally done to verify findings at the individual level ( Miles & Huberman, 1994 ). Exit interview-consultation broadened the application of member check by corroborating findings at individual and organizational levels. Study participants were able to validate whether inferences and conclusions about the organization's management practices, processes and interrelationships captured the fundamental nature of the organization. The exit interview-consultation strategy is particularly relevant to nursing systems research because of its emphasis on organizations.

Member checks are a means of establishing credibility in qualitative studies by allowing participants to examine and critique findings and interpretations ( Taylor & Bogdan, 1998 ). A number of qualitative researchers have asserted that member checks enhance the rigor of qualitative studies ( Meadows, Verdi, & Crabtree, 2003 ). Lincoln and Guba (1985) described a comprehensive member check method, analogous to internal validity in a quantitative study, which approximates the member check we conducted in our exit interview-consultation. Unlike the Lincoln and Guba member check, our process incorporates private individual exit interview-consultations, and confirms both qualitative and quantitative findings. Benjamin Crabtree, one of our study's external consultants, introduced us to the exit interview-consultation as a way to disseminate research results for quality improvement.

The purpose of this article is to demonstrate how exit interview-consultation can be used to: (1) assess and enhance study validity through member check, and; (2) provide specific information to study participants that they can use immediately for improving the organization's performance.

Study Context

To fully understand the foundation for the exit interview-consultation and its usefulness as a research validation and research dissemination strategy, we first provide a brief overview of the study processes. This paper references a multiple case study of nursing homes conducted by an interdisciplinary team with the research aims of describing relationship patterns and nursing management practices in nursing homes and their potential links to quality. We present three case examples to illustrate variety in the application and usefulness of the exit interview-consultation.

Over a 6-month period in each nursing home, we collected both qualitative and quantitative data, including structured interviews with residents, participant observation of staff as they worked, depth-interviews with staff, and document review. The University's Institutional Review Board approved comprehensive study protocols for the protection of participating residents, staff, and organizations. Table 1 details the number of participants involved in each type of data collection activity.

Number of Participants and Types of Data Collected by Nursing Home Pseudonym

Complexity science served as the theoretical framework for the research study and therefore shaped the content and presentation of the exit interview-consultation. Complexity science offers an alternative way of looking at the world of long-term care that may lead to a rethinking about how people function within nursing homes, solve problems, get work done, and respond to changing conditions ( McDaniel & Driebe, 2001 ). Because the framework is not central to our discussion of the exit interview-consultation method, we refer the reader elsewhere for more elaboration on the application of complexity science to nursing systems research ( Anderson, Ammarell, Bailey, et al., 2005 ; Anderson, Corazzini, & McDaniel, 2004 ; Anderson, Crabtree, Steele, & McDaniel, 2005 ; Anderson, Issel, & McDaniel, 2003 ).

Two trained field researchers established rapport in the first few weeks of each case study while making preliminary observations of staff, residents, and routines. Early in each case study, we conducted structured interviews of residents using the Resident Experience and Assessment of Life (REAL) survey, developed by Vital Research Incorporated ( Uman et al., 2000 ), to quantitatively measure residents' perceptions of their experiences in six content areas: help and assistance; communication with staff; safety and security; autonomy and choice; companionship; food and environment. Individual residents' responses are averaged and the means reported to the nursing homes during the exit interview-consultation. In the presentation of results, the nursing home's scores were benchmarked against more than 11,000 residents in nursing homes across the country and against standards set by long-term care experts. Benchmarks and standard scores were provided by Vital Research Inc, the company that owns the rights to the REAL survey.

During the remainder of each case study, field researchers observed and shadowed staff as they did their work; including meetings, rounds and shift reports. All levels of staff were engaged in depth interviews, from nursing home administrators (NHA) to certified nursing assistants (CNA). Field notes and recorded interviews were later transcribed verbatim for analysis.

Data Coding and Analysis

The interdisciplinary research team of eight members, representing the disciplines of nursing, medicine, social work, organizational development and gerontology, met weekly to review progress, codes, and emerging themes. All data were coded by at least two team members using Atlas ti software ( Research Talk Inc., 1999 ). Open coding was used to identify descriptions, consequences and staff explanations about management practices, work environment, and care processes. Then data were analyzed to identify higher order themes and stories related to relationship patterns and management practices in relation to quality of care.

We used a series of activities, detailed in Table 2 , to ensure rigor in our methods and validity of the findings. Primary among these strategies was the use of an interdisciplinary team with multiple perspectives, triangulation of multiple sources and types of data, multiple data collectors and analyzers, and external research consultants for independent critique, consultation and feedback. We used the traditional, individual-level member check throughout the study to verify emerging impressions, in particular, while engaged in direct observation activities. Below we describe in detail our exit interview-consultation used to accomplish member checks at both the individual and organization levels.

Strategies for Assuring Rigor of the Case Study Design

Exit Interview-Consultation Planning Process

The planning process for the exit interview-consultation included: (1) advance preparation assignments and tasks; (2) the planning retreat;(3) post-retreat assignments and tasks, and; (4) a follow-up planning team meeting to review and finalize the content of the exit interview-consultation and practice potential scenarios for how the information might be received by the study participants. In advance of the planning retreat, each team member read all study transcripts, making notes about relationship patterns among individuals and groups, management practices that were working (or not), and staff perceptions of the management practices and leader behaviors. In addition, each research team member was assigned one or more nursing home manager or staff member and was to describe, from the data, that particular person's management practices, strengths, and areas for improvement. One team member was assigned to review the REAL data.

During the planning retreat, the research team discussed the data, synthesized impressions and developed a broad outline for the information that would be presented to the nursing home participants. The end goal of the retreat was to articulate an overall picture of the relationship patterns within the organization and a summary of management strengths and weaknesses at the organizational and individual levels. Following the retreat, research team members finalized the actual content for presentation at the exit interview-consultation. For example, the principal investigator developed the main body of the group presentation, the social worker and geriatrician completed the presentation of the REAL findings, and the organizational development specialist and others finalized the content of the individual sessions with management and staff. After completion of these tasks, the team met again to review and finalize the content of the presentation. At this point, the designated presenters practiced the actual presentation and other team members asked questions, attempting to anticipate the response of study participants. Through this process, we were prepared for various ways the discussion with participants might evolve.

Exit Interview-Consultation

The exit interview–consultation at each nursing home consisted of a group session where administrators, middle managers and other staff heard the formal presentation of results and recommendations for improvement. A facilitated discussion followed where participants were asked to verify summative findings and discuss recommendations. The NHA selected the time for the exit interview-consultation and determined who would attend. We encouraged the administrator to invite all managers and key staff. Through the NHA, we extended invitations to all managers and staff to have an individual session with us (approximately 30 minutes), where we would discuss their results in private. We were informed prior to our planning retreat, which managers/staff requested individual exit interview-consultations.

While the exit interview-consultation could be accomplished by as few as two team members, usually about six research team members attended and participated in all aspects of the group presentation. One or more research team members recorded field notes during the formal session. The presentation generally took the following form: (1) an introduction including “first and lasting impressions” and “views from the top and bottom” of the organization; (2) a brief overview of methods; (3) the REAL results; (4) a discussion of management practices that were and were not working and why, along with an overview of relationship and communication patterns; (5) recommendations for improvement; (6) a facilitated discussion to generate new ideas for improvement, and; (7) a member check discussion.

At the beginning of the group presentation, the PI oriented the group to the member check process, preparing them for questions at the end when we would ask them to react to the descriptions, explanations, and conclusions made about the case. The introduction was brief and included characteristics of the organization that we identified early in the data collection period that remained consistent and apparent throughout our six months, such as “friendly facility” or a “clean facility.” In the discussion of views from the top, we summarized what we saw as the dominant themes related to upper managers, such as “clear commitment to improvement,” or “profit-oriented.” In views from the bottom, we presented summative impressions of frontline staff, such as “positive interactions with residents/families.” We briefly described our methods, in particular describing the range of staff we observed or interviewed. Scores from the REAL at each nursing home were presented and compared against national benchmarks and standards. We also distributed a color booklet containing the presentation slides and graphs of the REAL results. Each person attending the presentation received a copy and we left several copies with the NHA to distribute later. At the end of the group session, participants were asked if what they heard represented an accurate assessment of their nursing home. A research team member facilitated this member check discussion and a discussion of recommendations for improvement.

The second portion of the exit interview-consultation consisted of the individual consultations, which were recorded for later transcription. Exit interview-consultations for individual staff members were conducted in private offices and led by one research team member although usually one or two additional team members were present and participated in the discussion. In these private individual exit interview-consultations, participants were asked again if what they heard represented an accurate assessment of the nursing home and themselves.

Although individual exit interview-consultations were held after the group session, giving participants the benefit of understanding the broader organizational findings, in one case study, the individual exit interview-consultations were conducted before the group session to accommodate the facility's schedule. Individual exit interview-consultations were informal and confidential. In advance, research team members prepared notes for each person with bullet points to facilitate discussion of “positives” and “suggestions.” In the first case, we found that individuals wanted copies of these bullet points, which we gave them, and this became the practice in subsequent cases.

Exit Interview-Consultation Case Examples

Below we describe how member check and dissemination of findings, the two main goals of the exit interview-consultation, occurred in each of three nursing homes with differing needs. We describe first the three nursing homes and the staff members that attended the exit interview-consultation.

Sweet Dell is a suburban 120 bed non-profit, religious affiliated facility with residents who were primarily high socio-economic, elderly, and Caucasian. At Sweet Dell, 15 managers and staff attended the presentation. These include: the NHA; Director of Nursing (DON); Chief Financial Officer (CFO); Nurse Supervisor; Staff Development Nurse; Human Resources Manager; Assistant to the NHA; a floor nurse; a volunteer; and the Directors of Quality Improvement (QA), Social Work (SW), Activities, Maintenance, Food Services, and Environmental Services. Twelve received individual exit interview-consultations.

Safe Harbor is a 180-bed facility that was part of a corporate owned, for-profit chain with middle to lower socioeconomic residents of African American and Caucasian descent. Sixteen managers and staff attended the group presentation, including: the NHA; Assistant NHA; DON; Assistant DON; SW; Nurse Supervisor; Behavioral Unit Director; two Minimum Data Set Nurses; Occupational Therapist; Staff Development Nurse; and the Directors of Activities, Maintenance, Admissions, Medical Records, and Environmental Services. Five managers received individual sessions.

Windy Lane is a 100-bed facility that was also part of a corporation-owned nursing home chain. The corporation, however, was smaller and more regionally centered than the corporation that owned Safe Harbor. The residents tended to be low to middle income and largely Caucasian. Eleven managers and staff attended the group presentation, including: the interim NHA; DON; corporate DON (interim consultant role); SW; Minimum Data Set Nurse; and Directors of Activities, Rehabilitation, Medical Records, Maintenance, Environmental Services, and Food Services. Six attendees also received individual exit interview-consultations.

Member Check

Following the large group presentation at each case study nursing home, a research team member facilitated the group in a discussion of the findings with the intent that we would gain confirmation or disconfirmation of our findings and explanations. In addition, we revisited the member check discussions with individuals in the private exit interview-consultations. Across the three cases, affirmative feedback given during the group and individual sessions confirmed that the research team's findings were congruent with the perceptions of the participants. Some examples of comments from each of the case nursing homes are presented below.

In Sweet Dell, for example, the CFO asked the PI where we saw the organization on a continuum between a traditional top-down model and a staff empowerment model. He immediately answered the question himself by saying that he thought we told them they were way over here (indicating the top-down model); the team confirmed the message. He agreed with our assessment and noted that they wanted to be at the other end of the spectrum. The following field note further captures this confirmation.

• Field note: I [Field Researcher] observed body language and facial expressions during the presentation and noted that there were a lot of up and down nods that seemed to indicate resonance with the findings. At the end of the formal exit interview-consultation, the PI asked the CFO if he had any questions or thoughts about the group presentation. He said he felt like we described the nursing home well.

In the individual exit interview-consultations at Sweet Dell, several mid-level managers shared their frustration with the “triangle” of top-level managers (referring to our description of relationship patterns) and expressed some satisfaction that we had identified this group and suggested that its members could reach out to help develop the mid-level managers. The following field note further captures evidence of member check confirmations.

• Field note of session with Assistant to the NHA: She resonated with our finding that things get decided in meetings but then nothing happens. She stated that she “really appreciated the [booklet] and the professionalism of the presentation.”
• Field note of session with SW: She said that she thought we “hit it on the nail.” She said, “I felt validated – that I was not thinking way off base with things. It also made me feel better about the direction that we've been putting in place…”
• Field note of session with Environmental Director: [She] said that she felt as though we captured the facility but that we had “sugar-coated” things. She was concerned that because of this, the NHA would not understand the recommendations and the areas for change.

The results of our quantitative data, from the REAL survey, were more controversial for Sweet Dell participants. In the group discussion and individual sessions, managers asked a number of questions; they were both surprised and concerned that they scored below the benchmark for the activities program and for spending time with residents.

• Field note of session with NHA: [She] mentioned that the lower scores were of concern for the Activities Director. [She] said that everything needs to be looked at, even the activities program.
• Field note of session with QA: “[I] was surprised…that activities scored low. I think that the Activities Director was upset that she scored low.”

Clinical managers placed the REAL findings about “spending time with residents” in context, not seeing the results as surprising.

• Field note of session with SW: [She] stated that she was not really surprised by the [REAL] findings, particularly by the residents' comments [wanting staff to spend more time with them], “…depends on what time of day you ask those questions. If the numbers were really alarming,” she would be concerned.
• Field note of session with DON: “This is right; that with 30 people on one hall, it's hard [to spend time with the residents].”

At Safe Harbor, the PI's presentation of findings was particularly “hard hitting” about managers' over-reliance on rules and punishment. The PI asked the group if they recognized themselves. She allowed silence until the Assistant NHA finally spoke.

• Assistant NHA: “We've all known this; there's really nothing new here. But it is good to have someone from the outside come and tell us. We understand that we need to appreciate staff more. We've made steps toward that.”

The following quote provides an example of an individual exit interview-consultation with a Safe Harbor unit manager, she confirmed the research team's explanation of why she was able to display positive management practices, while other managers were not able to do so in this work environment.

• Field note of session with Behavioral Unit Director: “You know whenever anyone hears [about] their strengths it gives them a pat on the back.” But yeah that's pretty much me. I do have a lot of areas for improvement. But as far as pitching in and trying to work well with others, you've come pretty close. PI: “You are different than other managers—able to create a more positive work environment. We thought this might be due in part to your unit being a locked unit, where nobody wants to come. [This] may work well for you, because you're isolated and maybe they say, ”just let them do whatever is working and leave them alone.” Unit Director: “I think a big part of it has to do with-like you said – the unit being smaller, secured or locked.”

Member check comments in Windy Lane took a different form than in the other cases because of the tremendous turnover that had occurred at this facility during the study. The managers were either interim or recently hired. We still received, however, confirmation of our findings.

• Field note of group session: NHA “This is not a surprise to us. These issues are what we have identified as a team.”

In the individual sessions at Windy Lane, we further explored the participants' impressions of the study's results. All confirmed our findings and explanations.

• Field note of session with SW: “In my humble opinion, you hit the nail on the head when you said the [new] administration acknowledged problems because when I got here [under the old administration]; it was certainly one of denial. The attitude was, I don't really want to recognize it.”
• Field note of session with Environmental Director: “It sounded on target. It sounded right. I know we are in that mode right now and we are working on that…we have a lot more to do and to become a little more intense at what we should do.”
• Field note of session with DON: “A lot of things that you identified in your study I saw when I came on. I came in [about three months ago] as the ADON so a lot of things you identified I saw. There were no systems in place, there was no accountability – no one accepted responsibility…for anything going on in the building.”

Research Dissemination

To address research dissemination, following the large group presentation at each nursing home, a research team member facilitated a discussion of how the findings may be applied for improving nursing home operations and quality of care. We also revisited the topic with individuals in the private exit interview-consultations. Particularly in individual sessions, we heard comments about how the findings would be used to improve management practices for the individual and for the organization as a whole. The following examples from Sweet Dell suggest that participants are thinking about actions to take based on the exit interview-consultation.

• Field note of a follow-up visit to deliver a thank you gift to agency: I [Field Researcher] spoke with the DON. The DON said that the presentation had been “eye-opening” and… “very helpful.” She told me two days after our exit interview-consultation she had her performance review with the NHA. She said that she took to heart what we had said to her [about the lack of clarity between her role and some other managers]. She said she “put it all out there” with the NHA. She said that it had actually gone very well and once more commented that the exit day had been an eye-opener.
• Field note from session with SW: [She indicated that] they could use the information and put it to good use. In particular, she believed they were at a point where things could become stuck. She indicated that our recommendations could help them move past that.

At Safe Harbor, examples of quotes suggest that participants benefit by receiving immediate feedback about positive management practices. Our intent in the exit interview-consultation was to reinforce behaviors that were positive to support continuation. This result is reflected in comments made by the Safe Harbor Assistant NHA.

• Field note of session with Assistant NHA: “Of course it makes you feel good. I think most importantly, it makes me feel like I'm doing something and maybe other people were seeing it… It makes a big difference. And it makes me feel good that somebody sees that.”

The Assistant DON also expressed appreciation for feedback about positive behaviors. Even though we observed this reaction in all facilities, it was particularly evident in Safe Harbor.

• Field note of session with Assistant DON: “That's good, makes me feel good. You know there are days that you feel like you're just not appreciated. You go home and say, why am I even there. So it is nice to hear.”

Additional comments from the Assistant NHA reflect his willingness to receive more personal feedback for improvement.

• Field note of session with Assistant NHA: “Were there any negatives or anything on my part that I could work on? Something that somebody else would like to see me do—or do better?”

A quote from the Assistant NHA confirmed our approach of reinforcing positive behaviors in the exit interview-consultation.

• Field note of session with Assistant NHA: “But also making recommendations in a positive way and not in a negative light it carries a lot more weight.”

In our presentation to Safe Harbor, we presented a fair amount of data indicating that some management practices were not working well. We sought feedback in the group session that these findings reflected the participants' understanding and were received in a way that could lead to change.

• Field note of group session: The Assistant NHA said that they understand that they need to appreciate staff more. The Maintenance Director said, “we've made steps toward that” and then talked about how on recent snow days they got pizza for the staff and thanked them for what they did.

In response to this, one of the research team members responded to reinforce our message that staff appreciation should be done regularly in simple ways for simple things.

• Team member in group session: “I indicated to the managers that often, as [the PI] had said, just saying ‘thank you’ was good. You don't always have to give prizes and incentives to people. Just thank them.” I had passed onto me this wisdom from a man whose wife, of many years, had just died – “she was so pleasant to live with.” What more would one want to have said about them from their life partner?

Managers at Windy Lane talked in ways that indicated they planned to use the results of the REAL survey in improvement efforts. The Food Services Director, who had been with the agency for only 3 days, wanted rapid change and the corporate DON recognized the usefulness of the data.

• Field note of session with Food Services Director: “I can tell you that things will get remedied very quickly…It's about customer service…we need to change the culture. It was negative. It's better now.”
• Field note of session with corporate DON: “I would like all of this information that you have especially the statistics to share with corporate.”

A few days after the exit interview-consultation, the interim NHA at Windy Lane talked about how the findings would be used to improve the organization as a whole and the excitement that managers and staff continued to feel following the presentation. The following field note of an interaction with the NHA represents this dissemination and move toward improvement.

• Field note: “We [Field Researcher and NHA] walked to our cars together and she [NHA] thanked me for our presentation. She told me the staff members were still talking about [the presentation] and that they were pleased and felt they got some ideas and things to act on.”

Using the exit interview-consultation at the close of each nursing home case study, we learned how the exit interview-consultation extends the application of member check validation from the individual level to the organization level. In addition, we found that exit interview-consultation serves as a useful mechanism for rapid dissemination of research findings to aid organizations in improvement efforts. We learned several lessons by examining our exit interview-consultation process that we discuss below as suggestions for improving the process.

In all three cases, we received overwhelming confirmation of the qualitative results. This is a reflection of the rigor of our protocols, and the extent to which the qualitative data allowed for rich description and explanation, through which participants were able to see detailed reflections of themselves, their relationships, and the nature of their organization. Prior to each exit interview-consultation, research team members prepared for potential disagreement or new interpretation of the findings by participants using the practice presentation and question and answer sessions described earlier. In the actual consultation with participants, if the member check had revealed factual errors, we would have corrected the data and findings. Any areas of disagreement about interpretations would have been explored with the participants. If our findings had been disconfirmed during the exit interview-consultation, we would have immediately re-examined our research protocols and strategies for ensuring rigor.

The first lesson we learned was that the exit interview-consultation strategy might be quite useful in presenting quantitative results to participants. At Sweet Dell, for example, the participants were concerned about the residents' dissatisfaction with the activities program as measured by the REAL survey. The exit interview-consultation format gave us an opportunity to help them interpret the results. For example, the resident population at this nursing home was from higher socioeconomic level and likely held higher expectations for care than residents in benchmark nursing homes or perhaps the experts who set the standard scores. Another possibility is that the managers and staff at this nursing home held higher standards for themselves. The REAL results for Safe Harbor and Windy Lane had many more items with substandard scores, but those participants had almost no questions or comments about these. Through the exit interview-consultation process, Sweet Dell participants became aware that they might need to reassess their own impressions of the fit between their activities program and the desires of their residents. This discussion may not have occurred without the exit interview-consultation; they would have been left on their own to interpret the results. Because the REAL findings surprised the Sweet Dell participants, we revisited the quality of the quantitative data following the exit interview-consultation. All team members had previously received a 2.5-day intensive training session on the administration of the REAL survey and protocols were strictly followed to ensure reliability. We believed we had done what was possible to ensure reliable results.

The second lesson we learned concerned how to present negative findings in a constructive way. Sweet Dell's response to the REAL results actually caught us off guard. The results were quite positive, but being slightly low on a few items was very distressing to Sweet Dell participants. In retrospect, we recognized that we needed to be more cognizant of the dynamics of the organization in relation to the data. For example, our data told us that these managers and staff held high standards for themselves and many were very detail oriented-- in fact, this was one of the points of the presentation. This meant, however, that this group did not miss the “details” in the REAL results. It would have been preferable to anticipate this response. A corollary to this lesson was how we learned to present findings of adverse management practices in a positive way that would allow a facility to see potential for improvement, rather than simply a critical review. In an arena where organizational-level feedback is typically provided through the punitive lens of state and federal regulatory processes, our theory-driven research analysis gave us a means of providing critical feedback in a constructive manner. This has reinforced our use of the complexity science framework ( Anderson, Crabtree, et al. 2005 ; McDaniel & Driebe, 2001 ) that focuses on an organization's ability to improve internal capacity regardless of the starting point.

In the exit interview-consultation at Safe Harbor, we learned a third lesson, confirming the value of our usual practice of holding the group presentation prior to the individual session. We reversed this at Safe Harbor because of scheduling difficulties and found that the discussion following the group presentation was limited. Staff received individual sessions without the benefit of the organizational-level information from the group presentation. Safe Harbor participants, therefore, did not have the opportunity to provide a member check response to the organizational level data in private, limiting their ability to respond candidly to our conclusions. We recommend, therefore, holding the group presentation before individual exit interview-consultations. Our process diverges from Lincoln and Guba's (1985) suggestion to exclude individuals whose status might prohibit others from participating in the group session and to contact those individuals for separate interviews at another time. Organizational studies, common in nursing systems research, frequently address management practices and multi-level phenomena. Discussions can be fruitful among members from various levels of the organization, when a facilitator manages group dynamics to create a safe environment. From this, we recognized the need to develop specific strategies for facilitating safe discussions among group members.

A final lesson learned was that our use of the exit interview-consultation as a means of rapid dissemination of results had the potential for practice improvement. As a response to participation in the exit interview-consultation, in all three nursing homes, we saw evidence of upper and middle level managers reassessing the organizational and individual management practices, while contemplating ideas for improving performance. Even at Windy Lane, where administrative turnover was high, participation in the exit interview-consultation by several recently hired managers showed promise in assisting to improve the organization's performance, by identifying and prioritizing problems within the organization. We plan to improve the process by adding some evidence-based strategies to the exit process. For example, research demonstrates that when managers make public statements, their commitment to follow through on those statements increases ( Whyte, 1993 ). In the future, we will facilitate managers in verbalizing the ideas that they want to follow up on as a way to reinforce their commitment to those actions.

Of final note, the participation rates by managers in individual exit interview-consultation sessions varied in the three nursing homes. We believe that variance was due mainly to the quality of the top managers. The top manager in Sweet Dell, who was well respected by her staff, highly valued the research project and encouraged staff to participate in all aspects of the study, including the exit interview-consultation. Her leadership most likely accounted for the higher participation by managers in the exit interview-consultation. Safe Harbor and Windy Lane both experienced turnover in the NHA position during the case study and thus these managers might not have been as encouraging to staff.

Exit interview-consultation proved useful in three different nursing homes with different management practices and very different degrees of tenure among participants. In addition to providing member check validation and rapid dissemination of research findings, it stimulated new ideas within the organization for improvement. We also propose that the exit interview-consultation is feasible for research teams smaller than ours. At each facility our exit interview-consultation required about three hours. The research team split up and conducted individual session in teams of two or more, running two or three sessions concurrently. A smaller team could accomplish the same type of exit interview-consultation but would need more time to conduct the individual sessions, which would be consecutive rather than concurrent. We suggest a minimum of two research team members be involved in all aspects of the exit interview-consultation to ensure that findings are captured and to facilitate dialogue.

We presented the exit interview-consultation to NHAs and DONs as an incentive for their organization to participate in this research and a review of the data suggests that it provided benefits to the nursing home staff. Researchers are hard pressed to find ways to provide real benefit to organizations and individuals participating in research. Based on the findings from our case studies, the exit interview-consultation provides one such benefit.

Acknowledgments

Funded by NIH/NINR (2 R01 NR003178-04 A2, Anderson, PI) with support of the Trajectories of Aging and Care Center (NINR 1 P20NR07795-01, Clipp, PI), the Hartford Interdisciplinary Geriatric Research Center at Duke University (RAND/John A. Hartford Foundation 2001-0349; RAND Project HE546, Colon-Emeric, PI), the Claude A. Pepper Older American's Independence Center AG-11268, and a Paul A. Beeson Award (NIA AG024787), Colon-Emeric, PI). Partial support for Piven was provided by the National Institute of Aging grant AG000-29 to the Duke University Center for Aging and Human Development (Cohen, PI) and for Bailey by the John A. Hartford Foundation BAGNC Scholar grant.

• Anderson RA, Ammarell N, Bailey D, Colon-Emeric C, Corazzini KN, Lekan-Rutledge, et al. The power of relationship for high quality long-term care. Journal of Nursing Care Quality. 2005; 20 :103–106. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Anderson RA, Corazzini KN, McDaniel RR., Jr. Complexity science and the dynamics of climate and communication: Reducing nursing home turnover. The Gerontologist. 2004; 44 :378–388. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Anderson RA, Crabtree BF, Steele DJ, McDaniel RR. Case study research: The view from complexity science. Qualitative Health Research. 2005; 15 (5):669–685. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Anderson RA, Issel LM, McDaniel RR., Jr. Nursing homes as complex adaptive systems: Relationship between management practice and resident outcomes. Nursing Research. 2003; 52 :12–21. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Crabtree BF, Miller WL. Research practice settings: A case study approach. Doing qualitative research. In: Crabtree BF, Miller WL, editors. Sage; Thousand Oaks, CA: 1999. pp. 293–312. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lincoln Y, Guba E. Naturalistic inquiry. Sage Publications; London: 1985. [ Google Scholar ]
• McDaniel RR, Jr., Driebe D. Complexity science and health care management. Vol. 2. JAI Press; Stamford, CT: 2001. [ Google Scholar ]
• Meadows LM, Verdi AJ, Crabtree BF. Keeping up appearances: Using qualitative research to enhance knowledge of dental practice. Journal of Dental Education. 2003; 67 :981–990. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Miles MB, Huberman AM. Qualitative data analysis. 2nd Sage; Thousand Oaks, CA: 1994. [ Google Scholar ]
• Research Talk Inc. Atlas.ti introductory work session materials pack. Bohemia, NY: 1999. [ Google Scholar ]
• Taylor SJ, Bogdan R. Introduction to qualitative research methods. John Wiley & Sons; New York: 1998. [ Google Scholar ]
• Uman GC, Hocevar D, Urman H, Young R, Hirsch M, Kohler S. Satisfaction surveys with the cognitively impaired population. Springer Publishing Company; New York: 2000. [ Google Scholar ]
• Whyte G. Escalating commitment in individual and group decision-making: A prospect theory approach. Organization Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 1993; 54 :430–455. [ Google Scholar ]
• Yin RK. Case study research: Design and methods. 2nd Sage; Thousand Oaks, CA: 1994. [ Google Scholar ]

Root out friction in every digital experience, super-charge conversion rates, and optimize digital self-service

Uncover insights from any interaction, deliver AI-powered agent coaching, and reduce cost to serve

Increase revenue and loyalty with real-time insights and recommendations delivered to teams on the ground

Know how your people feel and empower managers to improve employee engagement, productivity, and retention

Take action in the moments that matter most along the employee journey and drive bottom line growth

Whatever they’re are saying, wherever they’re saying it, know exactly what’s going on with your people

Get faster, richer insights with qual and quant tools that make powerful market research available to everyone

Run concept tests, pricing studies, prototyping + more with fast, powerful studies designed by UX research experts

Track your brand performance 24/7 and act quickly to respond to opportunities and challenges in your market

Explore the platform powering Experience Management

• Free Account
• For Digital
• For Customer Care
• For Human Resources
• For Researchers
• Financial Services
• All Industries

Popular Use Cases

• Customer Experience
• Employee Experience
• Net Promoter Score
• Voice of Customer
• Customer Success Hub
• Product Documentation
• Training & Certification
• XM Institute
• Popular Resources
• Customer Stories
• Artificial Intelligence
• Market Research
• Partnerships
• Marketplace

The annual gathering of the experience leaders at the world’s iconic brands building breakthrough business results, live in Salt Lake City.

• English/AU & NZ
• Español/Europa
• Español/América Latina
• Português Brasileiro
• REQUEST DEMO
• Experience Management

Employee Lifecycle

• Exit Interviews

What is an exit survey?

What is an exit interview, what causes unwanted attrition, why is listening to feedback from leavers important, what are the goals of an effective exit survey, what makes a good exit survey, how to gain maximum insight from exit surveys, key themes to measure in an exit survey, the exit interview process.

• 30 best example exit interview questions for employee exit surveys – and why

Get started with your own exit interview survey

See how xm for people teams works, exit interviews and what questions to ask.

24 min read A good exit process will provide simple, actionable data and insights at scale that clearly pinpoint areas employers can work on to reduce unwanted employee attrition. Here’s what you need to know about exit surveys and exit interviews.

Written by : Ruth D’Alessandro

Fact Checked by : Jake Outram

A departing employee has handed in their notice. Maybe they felt that this wasn’t the right company for them. Maybe they got a new job offer. Maybe you decided their time with the company had simply run its course or they fancied a career change. Maybe you could have helped keep them longer at the company? Who knows?

You should know. Pinpointing why people leave is crucial to your company’s success. People exit organizations every day: it’s called employee turnover and is part of every employee’s lifecycle .

But where it is ‘unwanted attrition’ – losing high-performing employees in critical roles for reasons that could have been prevented – it’s an urgent business issue.

High employee turnover affects a company’s bottom line: The average cost of replacing just one employee can range from one-half to two times their annual salary (Gallup, 2019). Losing high-performing and engaged team members can affect other employees, your brand value , and your ability to deliver high-quality service and products.

So when an employee resigns, companies should have an exit process that combines:

• Exit surveys
• Exit interviews

Get started with our free Employee Exit Interview Survey template

An exit survey, taken at the end of an employee’s time with you, is the best way to find out at scale why people leave your organization. You can identify trends, learn from them, and take action to reduce attrition, such as more robust hiring strategies for new employees or improvements to your company culture, working practices and management styles.

Exit surveys gather honest feedback and understand the reasons behind an employee’s departure.

It’s a chance to learn from leavers’ experiences – the good and the bad. Ideally, exit surveys are supplemented with one-to-one interviews with selected leavers. You don’t have to interview everyone.

Most companies conduct exit interviews. These are qualitative one-to-one interviews with selected departing employees, especially regretted leavers, to gather honest feedback and understand the reasons why they are leaving.

There can be many reasons for unwanted attrition, including:

• Employee job dissatisfaction
• Employees not feeling valued or recognized
• Misleading job description
• Lack of clarity on objectives
• Underwhelming pay and benefits , especially in the current high inflation environment
• Lack of advancement opportunity
• Lack of confidence in the business direction or quality of leadership
• Conflict with a co-worker or manager
• Lack of resources or information to do the job
• Workplace flexibility and options for hybrid working
• Work-life balance
• Career break
• Pursuing further education

These are all things that can build up over time, and the trigger to leave can happen at any stage in the employee lifecycle. In fact, post-Covid, a common pain-point for organizations is attrition among new joiners.

The key to reducing unwanted attrition is to understand:

• Why it happens
• What you can do to prevent the same things from happening to other high-performing employees

Well designed exit surveys and dashboard reports will provide you with this information.

The hiring process is expensive and can take a long time. If at the end of it you employ people who stay with your company only briefly:

• You waste time and money on recruitment
• The leavers may never have fully ramped up in the role
• Every time someone leaves, a bit of company knowledge or process goes with them
• Leavers may also be detractors, affecting your company’s reputation
• There is additional, prolonged pressure on the other team members who are trying to manage with lower headcount
• You are back at the start of the recruitment process

By providing departing employees with the opportunity to give honest feedback, you can gather valuable insights to improve the employee experience for both current and future employees.

An exit survey is a means to an end. The goal is not to prevent the employee from leaving. Instead, it is to learn and use it to gain insights to help retain talent, prevent bad hires, improve management practices, and ultimately drive better organizational performance.

Start gaining insights with our Employee Exit Program

An effective exit survey yields valuable information. It:

• Provides first-hand employee experience data and actionable insights on their environment, team, management, role, and company culture .
• Reveals whether the former employee would promote your organization to other people externally
• Helps you understand why an employee chose to leave, so you can see how this aligns with your company’s attrition risk profile
• Identifies any issues or areas within the business that need improving

Robustly designed exit surveys should:

Have a purpose stated right at the beginning

‘Help us understand more about your decision to leave’

Thank the employee for their service

‘We really appreciate the work you’ve done with us, and we’re sorry to see you go!’

Encourage honest feedback

By using online surveys , which result in more candid feedback (as well as useful data) than a more traditional face-to-face interview

Not shy away from asking tough questions

Particularly ones that shine a light on potential breakdowns within your business

Combine quantitative and qualitative feedback

Quantitative feedback allows you to track trends over time, compare feedback across the business and link feedback to KPIs, such as staff turnover costs, to demonstrate the return on investment (ROI) of your improvements.  Use text fields to elicit rich detail and nuances about an employee’s decision to leave. Text analytics software can automatically process language and analyze sentiment to allow you to gain insight into what your exiting employees really think.

Are automated through a digital open door

By linking an employee feedback platform to your HRIS to automatically send a request for feedback when an employee hands in their notice, reducing the amount of time human resources people need to spend manually administering the surveys

Understand the impact of attrition

By correlating data from different sources. For example, by tying in your exit interview data with 360 performance data or employee engagement data, you can start to identify regrettable and non-regrettable attrition

Pinpoint certain teams, roles, or demographics

With higher attrition rates and take steps to not only understand why they’re leaving, but how you can take action to prevent it from happening in the future

• Make the exit survey part of the standard off-boarding process and use automated systems to reduce the workload
• Conduct the exit survey after employees decide to leave, but just before physically leaving the organization. Organizations typically collect exit survey feedback about 1-2 weeks before an employee’s last day of work. Employees are less likely to respond to the survey once they have walked out of the door
• Keep employee exit survey questions short and simple by focusing on evaluating different job components and identifying where change is necessary
• Assure the respondent that their feedback is confidential. Not to be directly shared with their manager , and most importantly, you must emphasize that it will not affect any reference they may seek in the future

Research by Qualtrics into employee turnover has identified four key performance indicators (KPIs)  that are important to measure through an exit survey:

1.   Experience vs. expectations

“Overall, to what extent did your experience working at this company meet your expectations?”

2.   Likelihood to recommend

“I would recommend this company to people I know as a great place to work.”

3.   Organizational belonging

“I felt a sense of belonging at this company.”

4.   Likelihood to rejoin

“I would consider rejoining this company.”

These allow an organization to understand how much the person leaving:

• has had a positive experience and positive perception
• Is exiting as an advocate or a critic

Qualtrics also identifies six dimensions, or topics, that drive a positive employee experience:

1. Development

Growth is a fundamental human need. Seeking further development opportunities is still emerging as a top driver for finding alternative employment.

It’s measured with: meaningful career development discussions, regular conversations about performance, and giving opportunities to improve skills

2. Enablement

This is having the ability to get work done. When employees, especially for high performers, don’t feel enabled, this can be a great source of frustration. You need to understand if employees had the right resources and physical work environment they needed to be productive.

It’s measured by looking at how: the job makes good use of skills and abilities, the processes support productivity, managers help to remove barriers, and workspace and technology supports productivity.

Receiving fair pay and recognition for individual contributions at work is the backbone of  the employee and employer relationship. When these don’t align, they can compound other perceived issues in the employment relationship.

It’s measured by looking at fair pay, benefits that meet employee needs, and meaningful recognition.

Employees must be valued, respected and not overloaded with work. Today’s workforce increasingly seeks job opportunities where they have the flexibility to manage their workload alongside their personal life.They also seek out work environments where there are high levels of respect and trust.

Support is measured by: trusting relationships, managers treating teams with respect,  the amount of support to adapt to organizational changes, and how much managers care about well-being.

Our 2023 Employee Experience Trends Report found that being employed isn’t just about having a job – it’s a part of a person’s value system.

When employees feel that their organization embodies these values, they’re 27% more likely to have higher engagement scores, and 23% more likely to stay working for more than 3 years.

Departing employees are actually leaving a culture that’s not a good fit for them. Many employees choose to work for organizations whose culture aligns with their own personal values.

Measure values with: open and honest communication, pride in the company’s impact on the world, and checking whether management behavior is consistent with company values.

6. Workload

It’s essential people can balance work tasks with their personal needs. It’s no longer enough to engage employees and encourage them to work hard. Even engaged employees who don’t feel they have a good work life balance are unlikely to see a long-term future with the organization.

Measure whether workload is manageable and flexible enough to meet work and personal needs.

This model is complemented with questions that ask the employees their reasons for leaving, plus a free-text question to understand what (if anything) could have been done to keep them. There are also demographic questions to help understand the differences in employee experiences across different segments of the organization.

Exit interviews are generally only used for selected employees, and they follow on from an exit survey. Follow our employee exit interview tips to collect constructive feedback and make sure people leave on a positive note.

Do’s and don’ts for the exit interview process:

• Make exit interviewing part of your HR policy so when an employee leaves, they know what to expect
• Plan the meeting – you can give the departing employee an exit survey first, following up with a one-to-one meeting
• Ensure full confidentiality for the departing employee
• Remind the employee of their obligations to keep confidentiality about the company
• Ask open questions that require more detail than yes or no answers
• Focus only on the company, with a view to improving it and moving it forward
• Involve the employee’s direct manager
• Analyze the information collected in the interview and act on its findings
• Require every employee to have an exit interview – the process should be voluntary
• Try to persuade the employee to stay – the time of resignation was the opportunity for that
• Wait until the employee’s last day – they will be distracted and disengaged
• Ask about specific people or specific incidents
• Give your own opinions about an individual or incident
• Allow the discussion to descend into office gossip
• Forget that a positive, effective exit interview can create a future company ambassador

When you use Qualtrics’s EXM Exit solution not only will you understand the main reasons why employees leave your organization, you’ll also gather candid feedback. You’ll learn from these insights what you can do to improve the employee experience and minimize regrettable attrition.

30 best example exit interview questions for employee exit surveys – and why

To get the fullest picture of the employee experience and improve retention, pick questions from this Top 30 list of sample exit interview questions and the reasons why you should ask them. They cover:

• The pay and package
• The reason for leaving
• The manager
• The workplace and culture
• The organization as a whole

Example questions – the role

• How long did you work in this role?

Turnover among long-serving employees, who have accrued knowledge and skills, has a greater impact than the loss of a relatively new hire. There may be specific trends or issues prompting resignations among valuable current staff.

• How accurately was the role described to you before you joined the organization?

Assess your hiring, interview, and onboarding processes, and the role they played in selecting the right candidate. This can also yield data about the job description

• How much did the job role change after you were hired?

Certain circumstances may require an employee to take on new or different responsibilities. Find out what these are and the impact they had on the employee by asking them what changed and why.

• How reasonable or unreasonable was the workload for this role?

Burnout and overwork can be a factor  in unwanted turnover. A business could be over-estimating an employee’s capacity for more work, especially if they’re seen as high-performing top talent.

• What were the best and worst areas of your job?

Each employee values different areas of a job, and it may help to understand this employee’s perspective to see obvious patterns. Good aspects can be promoted to keep the role interesting.

• How could we have supported you to continue in your role?

There may be potential areas (poor IT systems, lack of training or tools, etc) that weren’t working in the employee’s role. Help retain your next hire by resolving these issues for a better experience.

• Given the role’s responsibilities today, what things should we be looking for in your replacement?

No one knows the job better than the employee that did the job day in, day out. Their insights can help you update the job description and target the right replacement candidates.

• Would you consider coming back to work in this role in the future?

Rehiring an outstanding employee could be an option if the problems are fixed. Find out whether they are still open to this role and want to hear about future opportunities.

Example questions – the pay and package

• How fair did you feel your total compensation package (pay + benefits + any equity) was compared to other organizations?

This question helps you understand whether you’re competing well in the wider employer market. It may be that the employee likes working for you but has received an offer that’s too good to refuse.

• How good or bad was your benefits package?

Pay is generally a contributing factor to employee dissatisfaction. Other things like low engagement and alignment of personal values with company values, can matter more. Track to what extent pay and the package played a role in the decision to leave.

• Which benefits did you take advantage of?

Understand why an employee used some benefits over others, and where making changes could help benefit uptake. This also helps make your benefits stronger for current and new employees.

Example questions – the reason for leaving

• What was your main reason for leaving the company?

Sometimes, the best way to find out why somebody left is simply to ask them. Employees know their own minds about resigning – intent to leave and actually leaving are strongly correlated.

• Why did you begin looking for another job?

This is phrased to focus on the employee’s wants and desires within the new position. If they’re looking elsewhere for this, you may want to investigate bringing it to your company.

• Was there a specific event or person involved with your decision to leave?

50 percent of Americans have left a job to “get away from their manager at some point in their career”, according to a Gallup employee engagement survey . If employees are resigning because of a direct cause, this needs immediate attention.

Example questions – the managers

• How much did your managers’ actions match their words – ex. did they do what they said they would?

An employee’s relationship with their manager can have a huge impact on their engagement and job satisfaction. Trusting your manager to follow up on what they say helps support a good working relationship.

• What challenges were present when working with your manager?

An employee’s upwards feedback can help strengthen the management of your replacement hire. It can also highlight when to explore training options or review performance levels.

• How were feedback and ideas exchanged and did you feel it worked?

Employees that receive constructive feedback and are able to suggest ideas back can feel valued and supported. As they progress in their role,  employees feel greater job satisfaction .

Example questions – the team

• What was the team atmosphere like?

The dynamics within a team are unique, based on each person’s personality, role, and background. This gives you an idea of the overall picture of the employee’s team and how they work.

• How often did you see your team or have team meetings?

Team collaboration can impact an employee’s job if there is not adequate opportunity to arrange meetings and connect. Managers can review practices to structure team contact time each week.

• Who made a real difference to your employee experience, if anyone?

There are some employees within teams that naturally hold teams together and make an extra effort to help others. These employees are worth knowing and appreciating for making their team better.

• What advice would you like to give to your team?

The advice from the employee could point to a viable or innovative solution. As advice tends to be framed positively, it’s more likely to be constructive and helpful.

Example questions – the workplace and company culture

• How safe or unsafe was your working environment?

Employee safety and how it is perceived within a company culture can have strong positive or negative effects on employee engagement – which in turn is a  driver of retention . It’s essential employees feel safe.

• How would you describe the organization’s culture?

Your view of the company culture at a senior level can vary from the staff working on the ground. See if the cultural values are clear, or if more needs to be done to establish them within the business.

• Who would you speak to in the organization about your concerns?

Explore how connected the employee was and who was in their networks. It will also show well your staff is communicating with each other at a peer-to-peer level, and where this is not happening.

• Have you ever experienced any discrimination or harassment within the workplace?

Harassment and discrimination are serious offenses that must be handled correctly to protect the organization and its employees. If the employee experienced issues, find out why this went

Example questions – the organization as a whole

• On a scale from 0-10, how likely are you to recommend [COMPANY NAME] to a friend or colleague?

This question supplies employer  NPS  data, which provides insight into loyalty and engagement. Engagement, in particular, is negatively correlated with staff turnover, so investigating that could change.

• How fairly or unfairly do you think this company treats all of its employees?

An  employee’s perception of organizational  justice (i.e. how fairly staff are treated) can have an impact on the likelihood of turnover – if the perceived level of justice is low, it could be a factor to consider.

• What would you change about the company?

You’ll find more information on why the departing employee is leaving, or gain the employee’s unique perspective of the company from their interactions with customers, suppliers or other peers.

• In your opinion, where does the organization perform well?

Areas perceived as positive enough to warrant complimenting by a departing employee are likely to be shared in a positive light in the future. Verify the results and explore these ‘gems’ in more detail.

• How can we improve our training and development?

Maybe the employee liked learning in a specific way or using a specific training option. Or did they learn outside of the available training on offer? This could  improve the way training is delivered .

If your company has experienced high turnover, low employee satisfaction scores or you want to boost employee retention , begin to understand why people are leaving by using our  exit interview survey software . We have a  free exit interview survey template,  designed to best practices.

The insight from employees, who have nothing to lose and want to share their honest experiences, can highlight areas for improvement and underlying issues.

Get started with our free exit interview survey template

Related resources

Employee lifecycle 10 min read, employee offboarding 14 min read, ai in hr 17 min read, employee onboarding 21 min read, employee onboarding surveys 9 min read, employee benefits surveys 11 min read, request demo.

Ready to learn more about Qualtrics?

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Exit Interview-Consultation for Research Validation and Dissemination

2006, Western Journal of Nursing Research

Related Papers

Implementation Science

Judy Birdsell

Applied Nursing Research

Peri Rosenfeld , Margaret McClure , Marianne Roncoli

The Gerontologist

Robert Applebaum

Nursing Older People

Analisa Smythe

https://www.ijhsr.org/IJHSR_Vol.8_Issue.6_June2018/IJHSR_Abstract.033.html

International Journal of Health Sciences and Research (IJHSR)

Background: Nurses were facing various challenges and barriers while conducting a nursing research and communicating research findings into practice. The study aims to explore those barriers and challenges. Methods: A descriptive study that applied quantitative and qualitative research methods of data collection was adopted for the study. Data were collected through a Likert scale and open ended questionnaire from 116 registered nurses of India. Quantitative portion of the tool were analyzed by using SPSS version 18.0 and Qualitative portion analyzed by using thematic analysis. Results: Most of the nurses (63.8%) occasionally looks for new literature. 39.7% nurses strongly agree that there is inadequate manpower. There is lake of authority of the nurses in changing patient care procedure (37.9% strongly agree). According to 44.8% nurses, nursing expert often differ in their opinion related to methodology. Thematic analysis of the open ended questionnaire showed that nurses faced problems related to organizational factor, resource related problem, knowledge and competency related problem and communication problem. In organizational factor most of them found ethical constrain as a major barrier; whether resource related factors include all money, material and manpower issues. Different opinion of nursing expert confuses the nurses and they found difficulty in getting related literature. Conclusion: The study result shows that, nurses faced barriers and challenges of conducting nursing research and communicating research findings into practice. Barriers are mainly related to poor organizational support, resources, different opinion of experts on methodology, communicating findings into journal because of high payment, and lake of literature.

Journal of Nursing Administration

Cathleen Lindauer

Dr. Noura Almadani

Nursing research can help address the healthcare needs of patients, enhancing their health and well-being as well as our nurses. So it is essential that nurses are encouraged to undertake nursing research to provide them with the opportunity to address the issues that could be seen in clinical practice. Moreover, the support of hospital leader in research has an important role in achieving research objectives, particularly with regard to identifying and documenting nursing sensitive outcomes. However, no formal studies had been carried out to explore the perception of healthcare leaders in nursing research across the kingdom. The aim of this study is to explore the level of support from hospital leaders towards conducting nursing research in Eastern province to be able to reach nursing department full potential in enhancing an organization's culture, and reshaping care delivery. A qualitative descriptive design is utilized. using purposive sampling for data collection. The data ...

International Journal of Nursing Practice

Fatma Ay , Mukaddes Miral

JONA: The Journal of Nursing Administration

Sameer Desale , Karen Speroni

Susan McClement

BackgroundRecruiting busy health care providers into research can be challenging. Yet, the success of a research project can hinge on recruitment response rates. This article uses a case study to demonstrate how qualitative researchers creatively readjusted their methods when standard methods were not yielding enough recruitment response with the aim of supporting other researchers with their recruitment. MethodsCase Example – Interest was expressed but response rates were low among nurses and health care aides in a research project on person-centred health care in a personal care home research site. The research team reconceptualized the participation design, creating a research ‘event’, which accommodated the time constraints and work culture of the respondents. The research event was much better attended than standard interview recruitment.ResultsThe research event approach overcame barriers to participation. An 80% response rate resulted. Standard response rates for research int...

RELATED PAPERS

أوراق مجمعية

Emad Abdul Latif د. عماد عبد اللطيف

Matthias Bürgi

iJSRED Journal

methaodos revista de ciencias sociales

Adrián Rodríguez

Physica Scripta

Valery Vlasenko

Acta Neurochirurgica

Mohamed Arbab

BioMed research international

Maureen Dollard

Cahiers du Centre de Linguistique et des Sciences du Langage

Lorenza Mondada

Sistema e-Revista CNJ

M. C . P . RIBEIRO

Tzintzun Revista De Estudios Historicos

Marco Antonio Landavazo

Digestive and Liver Disease

Carol Artlett

Archives De Pediatrie

Lamya Karboubi

International Advanced Research Journal in Science, Engineering and Technology

Kalla Dinesh

Circulation Journal

Naokata Sumitomo

Food Control

Stephan Birle

International Journal of Academic Research

MARIMUTHU KN

Aids and Behavior

Halima Dawood

arXiv (Cornell University)

COMPEL - The international journal for computation and mathematics in electrical and electronic engineering

Space Programs and Technologies Conference

Wesley Huntress

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024