Exit Interviews in Australia: Why They Matter, How to Run Them and Who Should Conduct Them
Updated: 3 days ago
When someone resigns, most organisations move quickly to the practical tasks. The handover, the recruitment, the farewell. What often gets lost is the conversation that could tell you the most: an honest account of what it was really like to work in your team.
I am conducting an exit interview for a client this week, and it has reminded me how much depends on the way these conversations are set up. Done well, an exit interview helps a person leave with dignity and gives the organisation information it can use. Done poorly, it becomes a form that is filed and forgotten, or a polite conversation where nothing real is said.
This article is written for HR managers and senior executives in Australian organisations who want to conduct exit interviews well, or who are weighing up whether to engage an independent provider. It covers why exit interviews matter, how to run one, who should conduct it, what to expect if you bring in an external facilitator, and how we can help.
Why do exit interviews matter?
People who are leaving often see things that people who are staying cannot safely say. They can tell you where the advertised role and the everyday job drifted apart, where workload or resourcing became unmanageable, how supported they felt when work got difficult, and how comfortable they were raising concerns or disagreeing.
A good exit interview has three purposes:
Understand the person's experience and how they came to the decision to leave.
Preserve what works, including the colleagues, leadership and practices people valued.
Identify improvements for the next person in the role and for the team that remains.
It also helps to be clear about what an exit interview is not. It is not a formal complaint, an investigation, a handover meeting or a negotiation about staying. Keeping those processes separate is part of what makes the conversation safe.
How do you conduct a useful exit interview?
Honest feedback is not something you can simply ask for. It depends on the conditions you create before the first question. This is where structure matters.
1. Establish the purpose
Explain why you are asking and what the organisation hopes to learn. Make participation voluntary, let the person skip questions, and offer a written response if they prefer. Keep the formal feedback conversation distinct from handover administration.
2. Get the timing and setting right
As a planning guide, allow around 30 to 45 minutes, after the resignation has been accepted and with time to spare before the final day. Avoid the moment of the resignation announcement and avoid the last day itself. Send the topics in advance, offer a private setting, and ask about accessibility or communication needs. Read the position description beforehand so you can explore the gap between the role as advertised and the work as it was actually done.
3. Explain confidentiality before inviting disclosure
Clarity is kind. Before anyone shares anything, explain who will see the notes, whether feedback will be attributed or combined into themes, how records will be stored, and which concerns may need to be passed on. An interview is never anonymous to the interviewer, and removing a name does not always prevent identification in a small team. Avoid absolute promises. Describe the actual limits, based on your organisation's own policies and obligations.
4. Ask consistent, open questions
A consistent core set of questions lets you compare themes across departures. Open questions let you understand the context. These are the ones I find most useful:
The decision: Can you talk me through how you came to the decision to leave? When did you first start considering it?
Contributing factors: What made leaving attractive, and what made staying less attractive? Was there a turning point?
What worked: What did you value most? What helped you do your best work?
Everyday work: How did the job compare with your expectations? How manageable were the workload and resources?
Support and voice: When work became difficult, what support was available? How comfortable did you feel raising concerns or disagreeing?
Earlier opportunities: Was there anything realistic we could have done earlier that might have changed your decision?
Priorities: What should we change for the next person in this role? What should we preserve?
Anything missing: What haven't I asked that you think we need to understand?
5. Listen for examples and impact
Use gentle follow-up questions. Could you give me an example? What effect did that have? If you raised it, what happened next? What would have helped? Ask what made speaking up easier or harder, rather than why the person did not complain sooner.
Allow pauses, check your understanding and resist the urge to defend decisions. Acknowledging someone's experience is not the same as making a finding about another person's conduct. Empathy is not agreement.
6. Respond carefully to serious concerns
If serious safety or conduct concerns emerge, pause and explain the relevant reporting pathway. Clarify enough to identify the next step, without turning the conversation into an unannounced investigation. Do not promise that nothing will happen without the person's permission. The escalation process should be agreed before the interview, not improvised during it.
7. Close with clarity and respect
Summarise the key points, ask whether you have understood correctly, confirm any follow-up and thank the person for their contribution. People remember how they were treated on the way out.
Want to step in earlier when tension starts to build?
My recorded course, Managing Workplace Conflict Early and Well, is a practical 60-minute session for leaders, managers and HR teams. It covers the early warning signs, how to tell conflict apart from misconduct, and how to choose the right response before things escalate. It is $180 (including GST), with a course guide and six months of access.
Who should conduct an exit interview?
This is the question that most affects the quality of what you hear. The interviewer needs to be trained, and needs to be someone the departing employee can speak openly with.
The direct manager is best placed to have a separate conversation about appreciation and transition. They are rarely the right person to collect formal feedback, particularly feedback about their own leadership.
HR or a people team member is often appropriate where trust in the organisation is reasonably intact and no one in the reporting line is implicated.
Someone outside the reporting line or an external interviewer is worth considering where trust is low, a manager is implicated, the role is senior, the team is small, or several people have left the same area.
When is an external facilitator the better choice?
In my experience, people speak differently to someone who sits outside the organisation. They are not managing a relationship with the interviewer, they are less concerned about a reference, and they are more willing to describe what happened rather than offer the safe version.
An external facilitator also brings interviewing skill: the ability to stay composed, follow the person's account, hold difficult emotion without becoming defensive, and recognise when something needs a different process. And the organisation receives themes from someone with no stake in the result.
Independence does not mean secrecy. An external interviewer still reports to the organisation, so the same care applies. The person should know who commissioned the process, who receives the findings and what the limits of confidentiality are before they begin.
Should you run exit interviews in-house or engage an independent provider?
Not every departure needs an external interviewer. For many routine departures, a trained HR colleague outside the reporting line is practical and proportionate. A useful question for HR managers and executives is: would this person tell us the truth if one of us asked? An independent provider is worth considering when:
the person leaving is a senior leader, or reports to the executive or the board
HR or a senior leader is part of the story the person may want to tell
there have been several departures from the same team or under the same manager
there has been a complaint, a restructure or visible conflict in the lead-up
the team is small enough that the person will not feel safe speaking internally
the executive or board wants an independent view of what is happening
How does an independent exit interview work with us?
Our focus is organisational improvement. An exit interview with us is not a process for testing allegations or resolving a grievance. It is a structured way to understand someone's experience of working in your organisation and to turn that into something you can use. This is how it usually works:
We find out what you need. We start with a conversation with HR or the executive sponsor about why you are seeking exit interviews now, what you most want to understand, and who will receive the findings.
We understand where the organisation is at. We ask about the context: recent changes, turnover in the team, what you already know from surveys or other feedback, and anything sensitive we should be aware of before speaking with people.
We agree the questions or themes. Together we settle a set of questions or themes, so the conversations are consistent, relevant to your organisation and comparable across departures.
We agree confidentiality expectations. Before any interview, we agree what will be reported, in what form, and what happens if a serious concern is raised. Each participant is told this at the start, so they can decide what to share.
We conduct the interviews. Voluntary, private conversations of around 30 to 45 minutes, in person or online, guided by the agreed themes and by what the person wants the organisation to understand.
We report back. You receive a report of themes, what is working, what could improve and practical recommendations, written within the confidentiality expectations agreed with you and with participants. We can also talk the findings through with you.
Because the focus is on learning and not on allegations, people are often more willing to speak openly, and leaders are more able to hear what is said. If someone does raise a serious concern, such as bullying, harassment or a safety issue, we do not investigate it within the exit interview. We explain the appropriate pathway to the person and follow the escalation process agreed with you beforehand.
Whoever you engage, it is worth asking a few questions first. What interviewing and dispute resolution experience do they have? How will they explain confidentiality to your employee? What will the report look like, and who will see it? How will they handle a disclosure of bullying, harassment or a safety concern? And do they have any conflict of interest with the people involved?
Exit interviews in Australia: what should employers keep in mind?
There is no general legal requirement for Australian employers to conduct exit interviews, and good practice is to keep them voluntary. What matters is how the conversation is set up and what you do with the information afterwards.
Work health and safety: if an exit interview raises bullying, sexual harassment or other psychosocial risks, the organisation may have obligations to respond under work health and safety laws. Agree the escalation pathway before the interview, so a serious concern is not simply filed.
Privacy and records: be clear about how notes are stored, who can access them and how long they are kept, including any recording or AI transcription. Check this against your privacy obligations and your own policies.
Public sector and regulated settings: government agencies and regulated organisations may have additional reporting, disclosure or code of conduct obligations that shape what can be promised about confidentiality.
Small and regional teams: in a small team, removing a name rarely removes the person. Report themes with care and be honest about the limits of anonymity.
Business Queensland's guidance for employers makes the same two points that sit at the heart of this article: act on the feedback, and protect confidentiality. This section is general information, not legal advice, and your obligations will depend on your organisation and jurisdiction.
What value can you realistically expect?
It is worth being honest about the evidence. Most guidance on exit interviews is practice guidance, and there is limited research showing that exit interviews alone reduce turnover. That is not a reason to abandon them. It is a reason to judge your process by whether it produces useful information and leads to improvements.
The value sits in three places:
For the person leaving: being heard, and leaving with dignity. A 2024 Gallup study of voluntary leavers in the United States found that positive departure experiences were associated with greater willingness to recommend or return to the employer. That finding relates to the overall exit experience, not exit interviews alone.
For the team that stays: issues with workload, role clarity, support or behaviour can be addressed before they cost you another person.
For the organisation: patterns across departures become visible, and serious concerns surface early enough to be handled through the right pathway.
How do you turn feedback into action?
The value is only realised if learning is made someone's responsibility. Record the person's account separately from your interpretation. Refer urgent matters promptly and review the rest for themes. Compare what you hear with engagement surveys and other staff feedback. Assign an owner and a review date to each improvement, and explain changes to staff without identifying who raised them.
Treat feedback as insight that requires judgement. One account can identify a serious concern without establishing every disputed fact. And bland answers or low participation do not necessarily mean everything is working well.
How can Shiv Martin Consulting help?
Independent exit interviews are a service we provide for clients who want to build better workplaces and stronger teams. We bring the same skills we use in mediation and facilitation: careful preparation, calm and structured conversations, and clear, fair reporting.
The purpose is organisational improvement, not fault-finding. We work from an agreed set of questions or themes and report back within the confidentiality expectations set at the start.
Depending on what you need, we can:
Conduct independent exit interviews with departing staff, in person in Brisbane and online for teams in Sydney, Melbourne, Canberra and across Australia and New Zealand.
Agree confidentiality, reporting and escalation arrangements with you before any interview takes place.
Provide a clear summary of themes and practical recommendations, with the person's account kept separate from our interpretation.
Review departures across a team or division to identify patterns.
Help you design or refresh your exit interview process, including question sets and information sheets for staff.
Train your leaders and people team to conduct these conversations well themselves.
For HR teams, this is where exit interviews earn their place. No single conversation will reduce turnover on its own. Used consistently, though, exit interviews show HR and leaders where to focus their effort on reducing turnover, and what a team needs in order to rebuild after someone leaves.
Where an exit interview points to something that needs a different response, such as team repair, coaching, mediation or a formal process, we can help you choose the right one. Not every matter needs the same process.
If someone is leaving your team and you would like to understand why, tell us what is happening and we will come back with a practical way forward.
This article draws on our information sheets, Conducting a great exit interview and What to expect from an exit interview, which bring together government and university guidance, business practice and research. Arrangements vary between organisations, so confirm your own policies and obligations before finalising your process.
.png)