It's true. It's better to do nothing on the exit interview front than to do it poorly. Example below with a hat tip to Deadspin:
"Tweets Sean Locklear, tackle extraordinaire: "Worst exit meeting ever! No coaches,no front office, just physicals and goodbye to teammates! We did just spend 5 mos together, WOW!"
That was a tweet from an NFL player who was going through the Washington Redskins exit process that's conducted at the end of a season. Of course, he later pulled the tweet down after it caused a small storm. But not before we got the window into his soul.
Clinically, the exit process was fine. Checking to see if anything was wrong or if anything needed to be followed up on - we get it and expect it.
But underneath, once you say you're going to do an exit interview, the expectations rise, usually with one question that has two parts:
"Where's the presence of someone who cares, but also someone who can make a change if things didn't go well for me while I was here?"
And that my friends, is a big, big burden. Most people won't tweet out their dissatisfaction, but you can bet they're asking the same question if you handle your exit interviews in a similar fashion.
You've got some exit interview forms and your coordinator is running people through your "Exit Interview" process face to face. Is that enough? Or does it actually take your company's "approval rating" down a couple of notches? Would it be better to follow up a few weeks after the ex-employee has left the company, when expectations are lowered, emotions have calmed, etc.?
Think about it. Your exiting employees and NFL players have more in common than you might think.