March 19, 2012
Greg Smith and the Value of Exit Interviews
Workers leaving one job for another are often counseled not to burn any bridges as they head out the door. In particular, it’s suggested one should not use exit interviews to point out every fault found with a company during the time of employment.
Companies may say they are looking for honest opinions, but my experience and those of others tells me otherwise. Many times critiques, even mild ones, are chalked up to a disgruntled employee’s agenda. The thing is, even disgruntled employees sometimes have lessons they can teach if a company is willing to listen.
While not an exit interview, the op-ed/resignation letter in The New York Times written by Greg Smith, a now former executive director with Goldman Sachs, may be a case in point.
Most suggested this was not a positive way to sever relations with a former employer. After all, what would prospective employers think? Was anyone going to hire Mr. Smith knowing that one day he could go off on them in a major newspaper or elsewhere?
Many others tried to dismiss Mr. Smith as a disgruntled employee looking to put the company in the worst possible light. Of course, Mr. Smith’s allegations didn’t provide any information not found in a Senate report published last year, which concluded Goldman Sachs, in the years leading up to the banking crisis, had a practice of taking positions in direct opposition to what the firm was advising clients.
Others point out that Goldman Sachs has made money for a lot of its clients both before and after the crisis. It couldn’t have been all bad. Of course, that doesn’t mean it wasn’t partly so.
So perhaps in the final analysis Mr. Smith is saying that the corporate culture at the firm hasn’t changed all that much in recent years. At least, it hasn’t changed fast enough for him. Not too many of us thought banking firms would become paragons of conscious capitalism in a few short years. Of course, that doesn’t mean they aren’t attempting to move in that direction. Maybe there are lessons for Goldman Sachs once it gets beyond the PR war. And perhaps too for other businesses looking to benefit from what former employees, disgruntled or otherwise, can tell them.
- Why I Am Leaving Goldman Sachs – The New York Times
- Goldman Sachs Misled Congress After Duping Clients Over CDOs, Levin Says – Bloomberg News
- Goldman Sachs bridge-burner Greg Smith’s tactic ruin his future job prospects – New York Daily News
- Greg Smith’s Resignation: Are Wall Street Traders Psychopathic? – Time
- Greg Smith’s Gratuitously Opportunistic Departure from Goldman Sachs – Forbes
BrainTrust
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
Discussion Questions: Are retailers making the most of exit interviews? What are steps that companies could take to improve their methodology?
Poll
Well … the Goldman-Sacks op-ed piece is a horse of a different color. I found myself distinctly unimpressed. I mean, was this all such a big surprise to him?
But forgetting about that, if retailers listened more to store manager exit interviews, they’d likely have a wake-up call about what’s not working in their chains. But sometimes I’m not so sure they really want to know anyway.
This question makes me think of the program “Undercover Bosses.” Every time I watch the program I am surprised to find out how out of touch most senior managers are with the problems faced by the people that work for them and all of the dumb rules their organizations have in place.
In organizations I work with, we don’t put a lot of weight into most exit interviews, but do put a lot of weight into STAY INTERVIEWS. How much talking is management doing with the people who work for them to find out where the problems are before they leave rather than hope they will tell them after they leave?
Many employees don’t give what retailers expect.
Many retailers can’t give what employees expect.
Between the “don’t” and the “can’t” lies the answer to improvement in retailer methodology, but it’s difficult to expect that twain will meet. There isn’t a solid hook to hang your hat on in exit interviews.
Greg Smith didn’t only burn his bridge to his former employer, Goldman Sachs, but to any future employers as well. It has earned him his 15 minutes of fame, but will likely lead to 15 years of regret.
Exit interviews can be beneficial for employers but they have to be willing to listen to what is being said. Too often they conduct them because someone somewhere said they should but they are not really interested in what is being said. The assumption is that the person leaving is disgruntled and therefore their opinions are biased when in reality, it is often the interviewer who is.
Probably not since, to borrow a phrase from the President, it rarely is a “teachable moment” for either the employee who, as George said, doesn’t want to burn a bridge and the employer who probably doesn’t want to hear the truth.
One step to making it more meaningful might be to do a 360 exit interview or an anonymous peer review done by somebody, or better still some people, who know the exiting employee well.
No matter how you approach it though, it’s hard to get at the truth.
Retailers probably will just learn what they already know, that someone is leaving for more money or their boss is a jerk. I would suggest to employees not to give exit interviews to their former employers.
To be honest, exit interviews are part of that long list of things that retailers (and other companies) should do, but don’t due to lack of resources, time, and training. In my experience retailers are not alone in not taking advantage of exit interviews. In every case when I have left a company I have suggested an exit interview to occur two to four weeks after departure and in most cases that offer has gone unused.
However, a simple exit interview can be an enlightening experience, when executed well by someone can accurately judge between “disgruntled” and legitimate feedback, and provide a unique insight into customers, partners, company, organization, and personnel matters. Just asking a couple of simple questions can provide very valuable insight:
1. what was the most frustrating part of working here?
2. what was the most rewarding part of working here?
3. what would you change about working here if you could?
IF management was communicating with the associates while they were employed, the exit interview could be helpful. Retail is high turnover and management doesn’t care what part time, minimum wage employees think. Knowing that, don’t burn bridges.
Exit interviews can be very instructive, but only if the employee is objective and respectful and the employer is earnestly interested in avoiding losing good employees, and not “defensive” about their current culture and processes. Unfortunately, I believe it to be rare when both of these conditions exist.
Moreover, many of the best employers have a formal review system that can glean much of this employee feedback before it gets to the “exit” stage. As with many workplace situations…
“An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”
From the conclusions of the book “First Break All the Rules,” the premise is that employees leave managers, not companies. I believe this to be a sound assumption to a large extent. Employers that are sincere about improving their organizations should focus any learning possible from exit interviews towards that premise.
It would also be likely effective to interview others in a team or organization when an employee leaves that area. It is true that many do not want to burn bridges or impact their current position. Nevertheless, there is insight to be found if there is a true and sincere interest.
Generally, when employees leave it’s not a surprise to those they work most closely with on a daily basis. The manager of a exiting employee ought be interviewed also.
Employee turnover reduction is likely the most neglected cost cutting measure by retailers. Unfortunately, many look to it as a cost balancing measure rather than understanding the astronomical cost burden placed upon them by their own mismanagement.
I agree with Mel about “Undercover Boss” and how amazed they are that they know so little about how their business runs and is perceived. If the execs would get out of their “ivory tower” mentality and actually go to their business, exit interview information might not be taken as an affront, but more as a courtesy by the departing employee on how to improve. Maybe the employee would not be leaving if management were more comfortable putting their “feet on the street.”
As to how the Goldman Sachs/Greg Smith saga applies to retailers, I’d say one obvious difference is that Goldman Sachs seems to be 99% about making money, whereas no one goes into retail as a career figuring they are going to get rich. When mid-level execs are making $500K, you can assume the only goal of the company is to make money, at all costs. Presumably, retailers have better cultures than this, and at least they know their employees aren’t in it to become wealthy.
Regarding exit interviews, I see no benefit to the exiting employee in providing candid answers. The company is always bigger and more powerful than the employee, and the employee has no way of telling whether what they say will be used to improve the company (probably not) or make the ex look bad (good chance). Better to say little to nothing except “Thanks for the opportunity” and move on.
The interview should be every business day, not when the employee leaves — this is so obvious it is scary. A sound manager listens to his valued employees and seeks insight that leads to improvement. The protective manager never asks, doesn’t value feedback whether from HR or employees directly. It is about retention — of valued employees — before they leave, not using the feedback to somehow fix what is broken or improve on culture. Skepticism says most of what is collected from exit interviews is not shared/used or applied toward improving the work environment/culture. It is a good way to allow an employee to “get it off their chest,” especially those who are reticent or afraid to share their opinions for fear of repercussions. Regular 360’s are the way to go; not just once a year, either. Then, having collected the insight, committing to a plan for improvement on what is applicable or that which can be leveraged for future initiatives.
I’m confused by this discussion: what’s the point of asking “Are retailers making the most of exit interviews?” if employees are going to continue to be urged — either formally or implicitly — to say as little as possible at these same interviews?
The time of departure is probably not the best occasion for “honest” communication. If there had been good communication during the term of employment the exit interview might not be happening. Surprises in exit interviews should rarely happen if senior managers are aware of what is going on in normal times.
Sometimes you have to do the right thing, even if it marks you as a dangerous person. I tend to think that all true leaders are “dangerous persons.” And people WILL follow a leader. I pray that Greg Smith will not become discouraged with his own leadership, and not judge it by the “crowd” following, whether large or small.
Any trends that emerge from exit interviews should be acted upon. More often than not, these trends may not be surprises to the employer, however, when you look at a group of interviews, the individual comments from employees get filtered out. I think that is the potential value of these interviews. Take the personal gripes out of the equation and listen to what the masses are saying.
No. Exit interviews are a valuable and critical part of the employer/employee relationship. They provide unfettered 360 degree feedback and a critical path to organizational behavior and change that no other vehicle offers. Offering these, following up on these interviews, and using their information is a critical part of organizational greatness for any manager who has an employee-focused organization.
Giving an exit interview only helps the former employer which is now your new competitor. Helping the employer is helping the competition. If they have messed up, let them figure it out. Focus more on making your new employer stronger.
More Discussions
How Timely Is the Planned Lowe’s Website Renovation Focusing on Personalization?
Is Lowe’s being timely with its website reno, and is it right to be placed as…Should Costco Be Opening Members-Only Gas Stations?
Is this the right move for the warehouse club?As Boomers ‘Age Out of Peak Purchasing,’ How Can National Brands Retain Interest With Gen Z?
According to a recent First Insight study titled “Is Gen Z Still Choosing Your Brand,” while…
Well … the Goldman-Sacks op-ed piece is a horse of a different color. I found myself distinctly unimpressed. I mean, was this all such a big surprise to him?
But forgetting about that, if retailers listened more to store manager exit interviews, they’d likely have a wake-up call about what’s not working in their chains. But sometimes I’m not so sure they really want to know anyway.
This question makes me think of the program “Undercover Bosses.” Every time I watch the program I am surprised to find out how out of touch most senior managers are with the problems faced by the people that work for them and all of the dumb rules their organizations have in place.
In organizations I work with, we don’t put a lot of weight into most exit interviews, but do put a lot of weight into STAY INTERVIEWS. How much talking is management doing with the people who work for them to find out where the problems are before they leave rather than hope they will tell them after they leave?
Many employees don’t give what retailers expect.
Many retailers can’t give what employees expect.
Between the “don’t” and the “can’t” lies the answer to improvement in retailer methodology, but it’s difficult to expect that twain will meet. There isn’t a solid hook to hang your hat on in exit interviews.
Greg Smith didn’t only burn his bridge to his former employer, Goldman Sachs, but to any future employers as well. It has earned him his 15 minutes of fame, but will likely lead to 15 years of regret.
Exit interviews can be beneficial for employers but they have to be willing to listen to what is being said. Too often they conduct them because someone somewhere said they should but they are not really interested in what is being said. The assumption is that the person leaving is disgruntled and therefore their opinions are biased when in reality, it is often the interviewer who is.
Probably not since, to borrow a phrase from the President, it rarely is a “teachable moment” for either the employee who, as George said, doesn’t want to burn a bridge and the employer who probably doesn’t want to hear the truth.
One step to making it more meaningful might be to do a 360 exit interview or an anonymous peer review done by somebody, or better still some people, who know the exiting employee well.
No matter how you approach it though, it’s hard to get at the truth.
Retailers probably will just learn what they already know, that someone is leaving for more money or their boss is a jerk. I would suggest to employees not to give exit interviews to their former employers.
To be honest, exit interviews are part of that long list of things that retailers (and other companies) should do, but don’t due to lack of resources, time, and training. In my experience retailers are not alone in not taking advantage of exit interviews. In every case when I have left a company I have suggested an exit interview to occur two to four weeks after departure and in most cases that offer has gone unused.
However, a simple exit interview can be an enlightening experience, when executed well by someone can accurately judge between “disgruntled” and legitimate feedback, and provide a unique insight into customers, partners, company, organization, and personnel matters. Just asking a couple of simple questions can provide very valuable insight:
1. what was the most frustrating part of working here?
2. what was the most rewarding part of working here?
3. what would you change about working here if you could?
IF management was communicating with the associates while they were employed, the exit interview could be helpful. Retail is high turnover and management doesn’t care what part time, minimum wage employees think. Knowing that, don’t burn bridges.
Exit interviews can be very instructive, but only if the employee is objective and respectful and the employer is earnestly interested in avoiding losing good employees, and not “defensive” about their current culture and processes. Unfortunately, I believe it to be rare when both of these conditions exist.
Moreover, many of the best employers have a formal review system that can glean much of this employee feedback before it gets to the “exit” stage. As with many workplace situations…
“An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”
From the conclusions of the book “First Break All the Rules,” the premise is that employees leave managers, not companies. I believe this to be a sound assumption to a large extent. Employers that are sincere about improving their organizations should focus any learning possible from exit interviews towards that premise.
It would also be likely effective to interview others in a team or organization when an employee leaves that area. It is true that many do not want to burn bridges or impact their current position. Nevertheless, there is insight to be found if there is a true and sincere interest.
Generally, when employees leave it’s not a surprise to those they work most closely with on a daily basis. The manager of a exiting employee ought be interviewed also.
Employee turnover reduction is likely the most neglected cost cutting measure by retailers. Unfortunately, many look to it as a cost balancing measure rather than understanding the astronomical cost burden placed upon them by their own mismanagement.
I agree with Mel about “Undercover Boss” and how amazed they are that they know so little about how their business runs and is perceived. If the execs would get out of their “ivory tower” mentality and actually go to their business, exit interview information might not be taken as an affront, but more as a courtesy by the departing employee on how to improve. Maybe the employee would not be leaving if management were more comfortable putting their “feet on the street.”
As to how the Goldman Sachs/Greg Smith saga applies to retailers, I’d say one obvious difference is that Goldman Sachs seems to be 99% about making money, whereas no one goes into retail as a career figuring they are going to get rich. When mid-level execs are making $500K, you can assume the only goal of the company is to make money, at all costs. Presumably, retailers have better cultures than this, and at least they know their employees aren’t in it to become wealthy.
Regarding exit interviews, I see no benefit to the exiting employee in providing candid answers. The company is always bigger and more powerful than the employee, and the employee has no way of telling whether what they say will be used to improve the company (probably not) or make the ex look bad (good chance). Better to say little to nothing except “Thanks for the opportunity” and move on.
The interview should be every business day, not when the employee leaves — this is so obvious it is scary. A sound manager listens to his valued employees and seeks insight that leads to improvement. The protective manager never asks, doesn’t value feedback whether from HR or employees directly. It is about retention — of valued employees — before they leave, not using the feedback to somehow fix what is broken or improve on culture. Skepticism says most of what is collected from exit interviews is not shared/used or applied toward improving the work environment/culture. It is a good way to allow an employee to “get it off their chest,” especially those who are reticent or afraid to share their opinions for fear of repercussions. Regular 360’s are the way to go; not just once a year, either. Then, having collected the insight, committing to a plan for improvement on what is applicable or that which can be leveraged for future initiatives.
I’m confused by this discussion: what’s the point of asking “Are retailers making the most of exit interviews?” if employees are going to continue to be urged — either formally or implicitly — to say as little as possible at these same interviews?
The time of departure is probably not the best occasion for “honest” communication. If there had been good communication during the term of employment the exit interview might not be happening. Surprises in exit interviews should rarely happen if senior managers are aware of what is going on in normal times.
Sometimes you have to do the right thing, even if it marks you as a dangerous person. I tend to think that all true leaders are “dangerous persons.” And people WILL follow a leader. I pray that Greg Smith will not become discouraged with his own leadership, and not judge it by the “crowd” following, whether large or small.
Any trends that emerge from exit interviews should be acted upon. More often than not, these trends may not be surprises to the employer, however, when you look at a group of interviews, the individual comments from employees get filtered out. I think that is the potential value of these interviews. Take the personal gripes out of the equation and listen to what the masses are saying.
No. Exit interviews are a valuable and critical part of the employer/employee relationship. They provide unfettered 360 degree feedback and a critical path to organizational behavior and change that no other vehicle offers. Offering these, following up on these interviews, and using their information is a critical part of organizational greatness for any manager who has an employee-focused organization.
Giving an exit interview only helps the former employer which is now your new competitor. Helping the employer is helping the competition. If they have messed up, let them figure it out. Focus more on making your new employer stronger.