A recent article in HR Digest titled “Time to Wave Goodbye: Effective Exit Interview Strategies to Master in 2025” offers what seems like practical advice for improving the exit interview process—schedule thoughtfully, create a comfortable environment, encourage honesty, and listen with empathy.

It is well-intentioned. But like much of the conventional HR advice circulating today, it misses the real point.

At best, these internal “best practices” make HR professionals feel that they are doing something meaningful to understand turnover. In reality, they rarely produce data that can be trusted, analyzed, or acted upon. Internal exit interviews are not an effective listening tool. They are a vanity exercise, and the organizations that rely on them are missing their most predictive opportunity to prevent future turnover.

The Problem with Internal Exit Interviews

The HR Digest article emphasizes the importance of creating a safe and comfortable space for the conversation and ensuring “confidentiality.” That sounds good, but it overlooks one simple truth: HR cannot promise confidentiality when HR is conducting the interview.

Even in large organizations, employees know their feedback can be connected to their name or their manager. In smaller organizations, anonymity is almost impossible. Departing employees naturally soften their feedback to protect professional relationships, preserve references, or simply avoid discomfort in their final days.

The result is predictable. The same safe, surface-level responses appear repeatedly— “better opportunity,” “pay,” “work-life balance.” These are easy to document but nearly impossible to act upon.

Work Institute’s research, drawn from hundreds of thousands of exit interviews across industries, consistently shows that employees are remarkably honest when they trust that their feedback will be used impartially and handled professionally. Our approach does not depend on anonymity; it depends on independence. When an objective third party conducts the interview, the percentage of employees who share actionable reasons for leaving—such as issues with management, job fit, or development opportunities—increases dramatically.

That is the difference between hearing what is comfortable and learning what is true.

The Real Irony: HR Knows This—and Keeps Doing It Anyway

Here’s the irony that no one in HR wants to talk about.
Our own review of industry data suggests that roughly 70–80 percent of all exit interviews are still conducted internally by HR staff.

And yet, nearly every HR professional we speak with already knows the truth: employees are not fully honest when interviewed by the same department that manages their records, benefits, and references. HR knows why the data is incomplete. HR knows why employees give “safe” answers. And still, most organizations keep doing it the same way.

That is what makes internal exit interviews a vanity exercise. They exist to create the impression of listening rather than to generate the kind of insight that can drive change.

Why HR Digest’s Recommendations Do Not Go Far Enough

Let’s give credit where it is due.
The article gets one thing right: exit interviews should be personal, empathetic, and handled with respect. A good departure conversation can absolutely help preserve relationships and protect the organization’s brand.

But those are human decency outcomes, not business intelligence outcomes.

Empathy is not data. And a pleasant conversation does not equal a useful feedback system.

The article also suggests conducting interviews close to the employee’s last day, encouraging honesty, and analyzing results to identify cultural improvements. On paper, that sounds effective. But in practice, few organizations ever complete the last step.
The feedback is subjective, inconsistently documented, and disconnected from workforce analytics. HR often lacks the volume and structure to turn it into insight, let alone measurable action.

When no change follows, employees notice. And when future surveys or stay interviews come around, trust in those processes drops as well.

This is the vicious cycle of check-the-box listening that erodes credibility and wastes resources.

Exit Interviews Should Predict, Not Pacify

At Work Institute, we do not view exit interviews as the final chapter of employment. We view them as the first chapter of organizational learning.
When designed correctly and administered independently, exit interviews are one of the most powerful and predictive sources of workforce intelligence available to leaders.

Our data shows that analyzing exit interviews through key drivers—Organization, Manager, Job, and Team—reveals patterns that directly forecast where turnover risk will appear next. Those patterns are actionable. They can be quantified in financial terms. And when addressed early, they change outcomes.

We have seen clients reduce avoidable turnover by double digits simply by identifying and addressing the controllable causes uncovered in independent exit data.

That is what makes the process strategic, not ceremonial.

What Organizations Should Do Instead

If your organization is still running internal exit interviews, it is time to ask: What have we actually learned?
If your reports still show “better opportunity” as your top reason for leaving, you are not collecting insight—you are collecting excuses.

Here is what leading organizations are doing differently:

1. Use a trusted third party that ensures impartiality and data integrity.
2. Standardize the interview structure around known predictors of turnover rather than generic questions.
3. Aggregate and analyze results across roles, managers, and divisions to identify patterns that predict future risk.
4. Integrate exit data with stay and early experience interviews to form a continuous retention feedback loop.

This is how exit interviews become a strategic asset, not an end-of-employment formality.

The Bottom Line

Internal exit interviews may feel empathetic. They may provide closure. They may even earn HR some points for effort. But they do little to help leaders understand or reduce turnover.

If the goal is to gather stories, internal interviews are fine.
If the goal is to gather truth—to protect your workforce, reduce preventable turnover, and make informed retention decisions—then independence is essential.

It is time to stop checking the box and start learning what really matters.

Work Institute has conducted more than a million interviews with employees across North America, helping organizations identify and act on the real reasons people leave. To learn more about how our independent approach turns exit data into retention action, visit workinstitute.com.