Blog

In Part 1 of this 3 Part Exit Interview series, "Re-Thinking Exit Interviews”, my point was there’s a better way to conduct exit interviews and the potential information you could collect is too valuable not to have. In Part 2, "Exit Interviews - The Data", we looked at the exit interview statistical data we've collected over the past year and the surprising insight it provided our Clients.

In this final post of the series I'm going to share an example of the type of insight an employer can receive from candid exit interview feedback of former Employees.

I actually thought this was going to be easy. After all, how hard is it to cut and paste comments, received from former Employees and their exit interviews, into this post and add my comments about them as needed?

The answer: Hard.

Yes – there are hundreds of comments from former Employees that, taken as written, say some crazy, scary and awful things about their employment experience. But I couldn’t find a theme other than what we already know: People accept jobs that turn out to be different than what they expected. And they don’t care for it – at all.

Then I found “Anna”.

Anna (an alias) became a popular reference point in one company’s results. After her name appeared for the 4th time, I wondered: Same person? Same store? Yes, to both. Here are a few of the comments:

• “Anna is an all around rude person”.
• “Anna was the most disrespectful person and I ended my assignment on the first day because if my manger disrespect (double sic) her Employees for no reason why work there.”
• “Anna is 100 percent ignorant and a bigot”
• In response to “would you re-apply?”, the answer was yes - “if Anna wasn’t the manager”.

Hmmm.

How does her store’s turnover compare to others in her company? It turns out: Not only was there “smoke” there was the proverbial fire. Note to Reader: This may be too much information. If so, I apologize. Sometimes my “wonk hat” fits too tightly.

Some background on the company:

They are Midwestern based, have 60+ locations and are organized into 7 Regions.

• 4 of the regions are in the state’s largest city (City A).
• 3 are in another town (City B) - approximately 1/10th the size of City A.
• Anna’s location (“Location Z”) is in City A.
• The date range is the previous nine months.

Here’s the overview, based on EZSurveyPro.com invitations sent during the date range:

But back to Anna.

Her store, Location Z (highlighted in yellow above), had the highest turnover within the company: 26% of City A’s and 5.2% of the company’s. Her Region – again, one of seven - accounted for 19.93% of the Company’s turnover. To simplify things:

• During our date range, Location Z lost 30 people – 3.3/month. This was the highest turnover in the company – by a wide margin.
• The next closest store in Z’s region lost 23.

BTW: Did anyone notice that almost all of the respondents (96.4%) were gone within one year? Was it the hiring market? Is it a “big city” problem? Perhaps. However, here’s another data point: For the same date range, 3 stores in Location Z’s region lost 7, 4 and 3 people - compared to Z’s 30 – that’s 3.3 per month!

To me, this is the perfect nexus of the exit interview process, the data it can provide and how a company could use it to improve. Although I’m pretty sure the company knows there’s a problem in Location Z, having the data makes a stronger case for taking action sooner rather than later.

If you want the data, you have to ask for it and asking your former Employees why they left makes sense. As business people, we know this. But doing it in a way that gives everyone an opportunity to participate and having immediate access to the data just makes it “EZier”.

For more information about EZSurveyPro.com, please contact us at Client.Support@EZSurveyPro.com or call (512) 275-1130.

What’s the point of doing exit interviews if you can’t learn something from the results?

In Part 1 of this Exit Interview series, ”Re-Thinking Exit Interviews”, my point was 1) the traditional methods i.e. conversations, written forms, etc., were not as effective as they could be and 2) the potential information was too valuable to leave on the table. There’s a way to resolve these problems.

It’s been almost one year since we began. There were two early adopters. The first, Company A, is a 50+ location convenience store company in the Midwest. The second, Company B, is a southwest based Fortune 300 company with 25,000+ Employees. There are now over 1000 responses and the data is exactly what I’d hoped it would be: objective, actionable and real.

First, some context: I am a “recovering” HR person with just enough HR experience to stay out of trouble. That said, the hiring process has been my area of study for over 40 years. If you’re involved in hiring, you’re most likely involved in firing and that experience is both informative and invaluable. HR Professionals know this.

People leave jobs in two ways: They’re fired or they quit. In our process, the interviews are structured accordingly - each situation receives a somewhat different set of questions.

What can be learned from someone being discharged? I’m interested in three things: 1) Did we do our best to treat this person fairly, professionally and humanely? 2) Were our company protocols followed? 3) Did anything happen (during their employment) that could potentially be a lawsuit?

The person resigning is leaving for one of two reasons: They either have a better opportunity or they’re so disgusted with the job/work environment they’ve decided it’s time to go. But that’s too general. What’s a “better” opportunity? Is it more money or opportunity? What about the work or the workplace caused them to leave – the Supervisor? The Owner?

Those are all important questions. Here’s what we’ve seen so far.

A strong response rate.

There was no benchmark for an acceptable response rate. Reports from companies who’ve tried to do this on their own report a “less than 5%” response. Our overall rate has been 40+%. This tells me that former Employees can and will talk about their experiences if given a viable opportunity.

88% of respondents resigned (versus being discharged) and, of that number, almost 90% of Company A’s left within one year. Company B’s less than one year number was 70%.

For each company, more than half of the respondents left before the end of 90 days(!).

It doesn’t take much to deduce that something is wrong with the hiring process and/or workplace environment. Additionally, the cost of constantly hiring and re-hiring is killing the bottom line.

Back in my Training & Development days, I completed an analysis of headcount fluctuations within my (then) company’s locations. To no one’s surprise, locations with little to no change in headcount were more profitable than those whose headcount was constantly changing. It’s tough to run to business when you’re always in hiring and training mode.

Recently, a C-store executive said his company believes it takes 18-24 months to get an acceptable ROI on a new Employee. That’s a challenge if they’re leaving before the end of one year.

The old adage is still true: “People don’t quit jobs – They quit managers”.

Of the resignations, 62% in Company A and 45% of Company B, selected “I was dissatisfied with job/company/management” as their reason for leaving. Specifically, they said “I didn’t like the way I was treated by my managers and co-workers (35% Company A and almost 18% for Company B).

The hiring demographic certainly affects this. Company A hires entry level and minimum wage workers. Company B’s jobs are “trades” – transferable positions or skills with higher wages. That said, the erosion to the bottom line caused by the turnover affects them equally.

“The Workforce” is an odd group.

I can’t pass on the opportunity to share the one most surprising data point.

Fired Employees are first asked three questions: 1) Were you treated fairly? 2) Were you aware the manager was unhappy with your performance? and 3) Were the reasons for your discharge fully explained?

Of course, 70%-75% answered with a resounding “NO”.

Then they’re asked, “if given the opportunity, would you re-apply with us?” Two-thirds say “Yes”.

Go figure.

Next time, I’ll post some actual comments from the results. For now, I hope you’re becoming more convinced that 1) there’s a better, smarter way to do exit interviews and 2) if you want to know why your Employees are leaving, all you need to do is ask them.

Because they will tell you - and how.

For more information about EZSurveyPro.com, please contact us at Client.Support@EZSurveyPro.com or call (512) 275-1130.

Full disclosure: I’ve never been asked to either conduct an exit interview or been on the receiving end of one. As a serial entrepreneur, Employee and business manager, one might presume I would have participated, in one form or another, in at least one exit interview over the last 40 years.

Never happened.

Add to this that “everyone” in HR will tell you, “Exit Interviews are a wonderful tool and a best practice for any company.” The contradiction is striking.

So, that’s where’s the disconnect?

Let’s get on the same page. Exit interviews, historically, have been a conversation – in theory, a dialogue – between a person leaving a job/company and that company. Face to face is the typical method but telephone calls and written forms are used as well.

It’s also fair to say that leading one is a “skill”. Just like conducting a job interview, the exit interview requires skill – more skill I submit - because of the wide range of emotions involved. A person who’s leaving or, perhaps, “being left” (fired), does not have the attitude of a job applicant. The applicant has one goal: Get the job. And they will do and/or say whatever it takes to accomplish that goal.

Not so for the person leaving a company. If they resigned, you’re communicating with their body because their mind “left the building” the moment notice was given. (Okay, not “everyone”. There are exceptions, but I’ve been hard pressed to find someone (anyone) who’ll disagree with that statement.) I think because, they’ve experienced this scenario enough to know, generally, what’s taking place.

If they were fired - terminated, discharged, let go, sacked (in England) – you decide which phrase is more politically correct – they quit listening the moment you said they no longer had a job. The idea one could glean meaningful information from a person in this state is, to say the least, optimistic.

So, if there’s limited value, why do them?

There are several reasons and here’s just one: Because there are times when a company can learn about behavior so blatantly wrong, it deserves your company’s attention - immediately.

Here’s one example (a true story):

A woman resigned from her job with a multi-unit convenience store company. In her exit interview, she said she’d taken the job because she “was promised full time employment” but her schedule hadn’t reflected that. When asked why, her supervisor told her, because she was married and “had help at home”, the full-time hours were going to people who were single. And then, as punishment for raising the subject, she was sent home for the day, denying her even more hours.

If that story doesn’t make you cringe, you’re in the vast minority of people who’ve heard it. If it didn’t scare the hell out of you, you’re not a business owner. To state the obvious: This is a lawsuit waiting to happen. The only missing ingredient is a plaintiff attorney.

Of course, the story is only one version of what happened. It may not be true, but it could be. In the mind of the person who provided the story, it is absolutely true. And in today’s world, it doesn’t take much to turn a “maybe” into reality.

But the only reason the story was heard is because the former Employee had the opportunity to provide it. In theory, every former Employee should have that opportunity but how can that happen in today’s “do more with less” business model? But assuming it could, consider these three questions:

What are the chances this person would get a “face to face” exit interview with an unbiased company representative?

And, if the exit interview took place, what are the chances the person asked to conduct the exit interview would be someone other than the source of the problem?

Then, assuming either #1 or #2 took place, what are the chances the information would get to the company leadership so corrective action could be taken?

My guess is “slim to none” on all three.

There’s a better way to conduct exit interviews. The information is too vital, too critical, too valuable to your company to not have it. And all you have to do is ask.

For more information about EZSurveyPro.com, please contact us at Client.Support@EZSurveyPro.com or call (512) 275-1130.