Why are the employees leaving?

Editor’s note: Naomi Brody is vice president of Langer Associates Inc., a New York market research firm.

When a large multi-office corporation encountered sizable numbers of good employees in two entry-level positions voluntarily leaving, the human resources staff concluded there were serious and widespread problems. Exit interviews with departing employees produced little that was helpful in identifying the problem. Employees typically stated they were leaving for better opportunities, more money or more time with their families.

Since about 25 percent of the former employees were non-white, and more than 50 percent were female, the HR department suspected that racial and/or sexual discrimination was the problem. If so, they wanted to address any inequities vigorously. But first they had to know if their suspicions were justified. Convinced that they had failed to gain ex-employees’ confidence by the very nature of their being inside the company, the company went outside and turned the problem over to our company, Langer Associates Inc., a New York market research firm.

Initially, the company wanted us to conduct focus group interviews. But, due to the sensitivity of the subject matter, we felt strongly that ex-employees would feel more comfortable and would therefore speak more freely in individual interviews. We also felt that focus groups had the possibility of degenerating into employee gripe sessions and wouldn’t generate valuable information. In addition, as ex-employees were widely dispersed and face-to-face interviews would have been prohibitively expensive, we recommended that the interviews be conducted by telephone. In all, 300 people in 33 states were interviewed for the study.

Having developed a screening questionnaire and interviewing topic guide in consultation with the client company, we conducted the initial interviews to fine-tune the discussion guide and gain an understanding of the scope of the problem; later other experienced focus group moderators conducted the interviews.

Working from a list provided by the human resources department of all employees in the two job classifications who had quit during the past two years, our recruiting service contacted as many as possible and scheduled appointments for telephone interviews. Each respondent was paid an incentive fee for participating in the study. Because many ex-employees were working at new jobs or were occupied with young families during the day, we often conducted interviews on evenings and weekends.

Improve conditions

Even though it would have no bearing on their job situations, most ex-employees we talked with were pleased that the company wanted to find out what was wrong and what it needed to do to improve conditions. They were also reassured and more cooperative when we told them of our independent status.

Anonymity was a serious concern. We assured the ex-employees that we would not identify them by name, except at their own request, and that in our report to the company their comments would be combined with those of all other interviewees so that they would not be identifiable. Those who had worked in the company’s smaller branch offices were especially worried that negative statements they might make would be traced back to them and they would be subjected to confrontations with former managers and co-workers. One anxious young woman asked, "Will anyone come after me?"

From their responses, it was clear that we were viewed as an objective third party and that our status as an outside firm was important in getting them to open up and be honest; they would not have been as candid with company personnel, they reported.

The interviews lasted 45 minutes. Our interviewers took pains to communicate warmth and establish rapport. They began the interview by asking non-threatening questions such as, "What did you like about the job?" Not expecting to be asked about positive experiences, respondents soon relaxed and shared their experiences, both negative and positive.

Using an amalgam of qualitative interviewing with quantitative tables, which we call "Q*Q" (Qualitative and Quantitative), interviewers slowly led the discussion to the more negative aspects of the job. Most questions were open-ended to encourage independent thought and to allow interviewers to follow up on responses with probes such as, "Can you tell me more about that?" or "What else can you remember about that?"

Additionally, interviewees were asked to rate, on a scale of 1-10, such closed-ended statements as, "You received recognition for good work." A low rating indicated a negative experience and resulted in further questioning. Closed-ended attributes are rarely used in qualitative research, where samples are usually small and the resulting percentages would be meaningless. However, when the sample size is large enough, as in this case of 300 respondents, attribute ratings provide meaningful data which strengthen the qualitative research findings.

High cooperation

In total, the study netted an extremely high cooperation rate of 33 percent. For many interviewees, it was a catharsis. One said, "I’ve been waiting for your guys!" Several mentioned that they respected the company for having undertaken the research. Although everyone had originally been offered anonymity, a sizable percentage later decided to allow the use of their name and/or to identify their branch office because they wanted to be as helpful as possible to current employees.

Race and gender issues were not as extensive as the company had feared. Although there were some discrimination complaints, they were not the major reasons for the exodus. Instead, problems the company had been unaware of, having to do primarily with training, managerial treatment and job expectation issues, were the most commonly cited causes of job dissatisfaction. For example, ex-employees said:

  • Computer training was isolating and difficult to grasp.

  • They felt overwhelmed by heavier work loads and a much faster pace than they had been led to expect in the job interview.

  • Some liked their managers; others felt they had been unfairly treated.

As a result of the study, the company is examining ways to improve the training of managers, as well as entry-level employees.

Getting the most from exit interviews

A major obstacle for interviewers is that exiting employees see no benefit in being candid when they’ve already left, or are in the process of leaving. The interviewer’s challenge is to find ways to motivate them.

  • Money is a motivator. Pay interviewees an incentive fee.

  • Show consideration and respect: Arrange interview times at their convenience and be prepared to work evenings and weekends.

  • Be warm and courteous: Most people find it difficult to refuse a reasonable request from a polite person. For example, apologize for interrupting if calling someone at home. After introducing yourself, always ask, "Is this a good time to talk? If not, when may I call you back?"

  • Appeal to altruism: Most people would like to help others even if they don’t personally know them. Talk to them about making a difference.

  • Closure: If someone was treated badly, you’re giving them an opportunity to right the wrong and lay the experience to rest.

  • Stress confidentiality and anonymity: Assure interviewees their identities will not get back to the company. You’ll get more detailed honest information.

  • Don’t interrupt: Show you respect their opinions by listening carefully.

  • Don’t ask leading questions. Ask "How?" Say, "Tell me more."

  • Follow up on leads: When the interviewee says something you don’t understand, draw them out. It may lead to pure gold.

  • Telephone interviewing: If your population is geographically scattered, the telephone is probably the most feasible way to reach them. Also, many people feel more comfortable and are more forthcoming talking about sensitive issues with someone they can’t see.

  • Consider using an outside firm: If you are doing all the right things and after a reasonable trial you are not succeeding in getting meaningful information from departing employees, the problem may be that they won’t talk to anyone from inside the company. We were told by interviewees that they felt they could be more candid with us, as an outside firm, because they believed that we would not identify them to their former employers.