Exit interviews that produce action, not a file
Most exit interviews are held, filed and never read again. How to run one that produces findings a business can act on, and what to do with what it tells you.
Read the articleGanesh HS ·
An employee's last working day was the 30th. Six weeks later she is still messaging HR about her settlement. Finance says they are waiting on clearance. IT cleared her on the 2nd. Her manager cleared her last week but is not sure whether the laptop came back. Nobody has told her any of this, so from where she sits the company is simply not paying her.
Nothing in that is a calculation problem. Every individual step was done by someone competent. What was missing was an order, an owner per step and a date — and without those, a settlement moves at the speed of whoever is least available.
Full-and-final settlement cannot be computed until two things are true: attendance for the final period is frozen, and clearance is complete. Businesses that try to run computation in parallel with clearance end up recomputing, and each recomputation resets the employee's expectation of when they will be paid.
So the sequence is not a preference. It is the only order in which the work can be done once.
In writing, on the day. The notice-period clock starts from acknowledgement, and a resignation sitting unacknowledged in an inbox for a week is the commonest cause of an argument about the last working day.
Agreed and confirmed in writing, along with whether notice is being served, shortfall is being adjusted or the balance is being paid. Settle this at the start, not at the end.
One message to every department that holds something: the manager, IT, finance, admin, stores, and whoever administers insurance. This single step removes most of the six-week delay, because departments cannot clear somebody they did not know was leaving.
The manager confirms the work has been transferred, not merely that the person has left. Where there is client or patient responsibility, this is the step that must not be rushed.
Against the issue record, item by item. Access revocation happens on the last working day regardless of clearance status — it is a security step, not a settlement step, and the two should never be made dependent on each other.
Each department signs against its own list. A clearance form signed as a formality is worse than none, because it transfers responsibility without the check ever happening.
Final-period attendance, leave balance, overtime and any regularisations are closed. Nothing after this point reopens the period.
Only now. Salary for the final period, leave encashment where it applies, any dues owed to the employee, and any recoveries your appointment letter provides for.
One signature against a specific version of the computation, not a general agreement that it looks right.
Payment, payslip, relieving letter and experience letter. Issuing the letters separately from the payment is what produces a second round of chasing.
If you trace a slow settlement back, it is almost never in the computation. It is in one of four places.
Give the leaving employee the timeline on the day their resignation is accepted. Most of the chasing is not impatience — it is the absence of any information at all.
STEP OWNER BY
-----------------------------------------------------------
Resignation acknowledged HR same day
Last working day confirmed HR + Manager D+2
Exit intimation to depts HR D+2
Handover complete Manager LWD - 3
Assets returned Employee LWD
Access revoked IT LWD
Departmental clearance Each dept LWD + 3
Attendance frozen HR next cut-off
Settlement computed Payroll cut-off + 3
Approved <named role> cut-off + 5
Paid, letters issued Finance + HR per policy
LWD = last working day. Dates are examples; set your own and
publish them. A timeline that is not issued is not a timeline.Note that the letters sit on the same line as payment. A relieving letter held back until some later administrative step is the single most damaging thing a business can do at exit, because the employee usually needs it for their next employer.
A clearance form works only if each department is signing against a specific list. "Cleared" against a blank line means nothing, and everyone knows it means nothing, which is why it gets signed without looking.
Most businesses introducing this have two or three settlements already overdue. Do not fold them into the new process. Take them individually, find the specific step each one is stuck at, name someone to unblock it this week, and close them. Then start the sequence from a stated date.
Attempting to run old cases through a new process is how the new process gets its reputation as something that does not work, in its first month.
A settlement handled cleanly is the last thing an employee experiences of your company, and it is the thing they describe most precisely to the next person who asks about working there. It is also the point at which an otherwise good employment relationship most often turns sour — not over the amount, but over the silence.
Getting the sequence right is not a large piece of work. It is a written order, an owner per step and a published timeline, which is the substance of what exit and offboarding process work puts in place. Where the same delays keep recurring around assets and access, the fix is usually further upstream, in how issue is recorded — which is why we tend to look at exit and offboarding and joining together rather than separately.
And if you want the clearance and the computation to stop living in separate places, that is what the exit and offboarding module in an HR system does: the clearance steps, the asset record and the settlement sit against the same employee, so nobody has to ask three departments what the current position is.
Set a number, publish it and hold to it — for most businesses that is within one or two payroll cycles after the last working day, depending on when the attendance cut-off falls. What matters more than the number is that the employee was told it at the start.
It is common practice and it is worth reconsidering, because the employee usually needs that letter for their next employer and withholding it converts an administrative delay into a grievance. Whether you may do so is a question for your appointment letter and your legal adviser.
Record what is outstanding, communicate it in writing while the person is still in notice rather than after they have left, and follow whatever your appointment letter provides for. Discovering it after the last working day is the avoidable part.
One named role, against a specific version, with a date by which they must. Approval spread across several people usually means the computation sits waiting while each assumes another has looked at it.
Before the last working day, and separately from clearance. Bundling it into the clearance round turns it into a form to be signed rather than a conversation, and you lose the only honest feedback the process was going to produce.
How the day-to-day HR processes are designed, documented and run.
Request an HR Process ConsultationMost exit interviews are held, filed and never read again. How to run one that produces findings a business can act on, and what to do with what it tells you.
Read the articleAn employee brings you a complaint about their supervisor. What happens next should not depend on who is in the room. A grievance procedure a small company can actually run.
Read the articleSix numbers, one page, same format each month. What they are, how to define them so they mean the same thing twice, and what each one tells you.
Read the articleGet expert recommendations on payroll coordination, compliance readiness, and modern HR automation. Request a free, no-obligation HR audit.
Prefer the full picture? Request a free 360-degree HR audit.