In an NGO or social enterprise, people often join because they believe in the work. When they leave, the reasons can be harder to see. Pay may be modest, funding may be uncertain and the work can be emotionally heavy. Understanding why people go helps the organisation protect what is working.
The purpose of an exit conversation is to learn from the person's experience, respect their decision and see what could improve for those who stay.
CIPD's guidance on employee turnover highlights the value of understanding why staff leave and addressing areas such as fair treatment, flexibility and employee wellbeing. Source: CIPD
Look beyond the first answer
"Project ending." "Better opportunity." "Need to earn more." "Burnout." These may be accurate. They may not show the whole picture: how early the person knew the project would end, whether redeployment was discussed, or how the workload in the field had grown.
Start with a simple question: "What made you start thinking about leaving?" Then ask what made them decide. A project end may be the date. The reason the person began looking could be earlier, such as uncertainty about the next grant or an unclear role.
Do not assume every exit reflects a problem. The end of a funded role, further study, a move to another cause or sector, family needs and relocation are common and legitimate.
Explore the areas that shape work in the sector
Use these as prompts rather than assuming any one of them caused the resignation.
- Funding and role security: How early did the person know whether their role would continue? Were possible redeployment options explained?
- Workload and field conditions: Was the workload realistic across reporting, field visits and day-to-day tasks? Was travel, time away or working in difficult conditions manageable?
- Pay and benefits: Did the person understand how pay was set? Did they feel it was reasonable for the responsibilities, within what the organisation could afford?
- Mission and values: Did the day-to-day work match the purpose they joined for? Did anything shift that conflicted with their values?
- Support and wellbeing: Did the person have someone to talk to about difficult cases or emotional strain? Was time off to recover realistic?
- Safeguarding and safe working: Did the person feel safe, and confident that concerns would be taken seriously and handled properly?
- Growth and responsibility: Could the person learn, take on more or see a path, within the limits of grant-funded roles?
- Management and communication: Were decisions about programmes, funding and staffing explained? Did senior people listen?
Several factors often combine. Let the person explain how, in their own words.
Who should hold the conversation
Invite the person to a voluntary conversation during their notice period or before a grant-funded role ends. Explain that the purpose is to understand and improve, and that what they say will be handled with care.
In small organisations, the programme head or director may be the person closest to the concern. Where possible, offer someone independent: an HR representative, a trustee or board member who is not involved in the programme, or a person from another programme. If the concern is about a leader, say so and offer another person. Written feedback should always be an option.
In a team of ten or twenty, details can easily identify the author. Do not promise complete anonymity. Explain who will see the responses and how they will be used. Listen without defending, and never ask the person to justify leaving. If the person raises a safeguarding or serious conduct concern, follow the organisation's own procedure for it, separate from the exit conversation. For how to run the process around the conversation, see exit interviews that produce action.
Questions that lead to useful feedback in the sector
- 1
What first made you start thinking about leaving?
This finds the starting point, which may be earlier than the end date or the offer.
- 2
What were the main factors in your decision?
Let them rank or connect them in their own words.
- 3
What did you value most about the work and the people?
It shows what to protect for those who stay.
- 4
How did the role compare with what you expected when you joined?
Gaps point to role changes or hiring conversations that never happened.
- 5
How clear were you about how long your role would continue, and how early did you know?
Listen for late or unclear communication about funding.
- 6
How manageable was the workload, including reporting and field work?
Listen for the pull between delivery and paperwork.
- 7
How well supported did you feel, including after difficult days or cases?
Ask what support they would have found useful.
- 8
Did you have the learning and growth you wanted, within the constraints of funding?
Ask what they would have wanted, not only what was missing.
- 9
Were there concerns you raised earlier? How were they handled?
This shows whether concerns reach anyone who can act.
- 10
What should we change for the next person in this role?
A forward-looking close that stays practical.
Allow the person to skip any question, and use follow-ups only where they help.
Turn individual feedback into a pattern review
Record the main reason, any contributing factors and a short factual summary, separating what was said from your interpretation. Note the programme, funding source, location, role type and length of service.
Review exits over time by programme, grant, location and role. Look at which exits followed the end of a funded period, which came earlier than the funded end and which came from long-serving staff. A small number of exits should prompt more questions, not an immediate conclusion about a leader or a programme. The attrition number that hides the problem explains why one headline rate is not enough, especially where funding ends are built into the picture.
Compare exit feedback with workload, field and funding information. Keep identifiable responses to those who need them, and use summaries for trustees and wider reporting.
Give each improvement an owner
Feedback that is filed away helps nobody. For each issue chosen for action, agree on:
- The specific change needed.
- The person responsible.
- A completion date.
- How progress will be reviewed.
For example, late communication about funding could lead to a regular update to project staff, owned by the programme head with the finance lead. Heavy reporting load could prompt a review of templates and deadlines, owned by the monitoring lead. A support gap after difficult field work could lead to a regular debrief, owned by a named manager. Where appropriate, tell current staff what has changed without revealing any person's private feedback.
Start listening before people resign
Do not wait for the resignation. Hold regular, honest conversations about funding, workload and what staff need. Ask: "What would make you consider leaving, and what could we improve now?"
Good moments are at the start of a grant, around halfway, six months before a funded role is due to end, and after a hard field period. Be honest about what is unknown. Act on what you hear and say what was done, or people stop telling you.
Every departure deserves a respectful response. The same approach, for all roles, is set out in why employees leave and how to understand their reasons.
