When someone leaves a school, college or institute, the organisation needs to understand what influenced the decision. A teacher may be leaving over workload or timetable. An administrator may feel less valued than faculty. A support staff member may be leaving over hours or pay. The reasons differ across the three groups, so the conversation should too.
The purpose is to learn from their experience, respect their decision and identify what could improve for the staff who remain and for the students they teach.
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
"Better opportunity." "Moving cities." "Family reasons." These may be accurate, but they may not explain the whole decision. A better opportunity could mean a lighter timetable, a more supportive head of department, a clearer path to senior roles or a place where non-teaching work is valued.
Start with a simple question: "What made you start considering a change?"
Then ask what made the person decide to leave. This helps separate the circumstances that started their search from the offer that eventually attracted them.
Avoid assuming that every exit reflects a problem. Relocation, further study and family circumstances are common. Look for the part within the institution's control, and for what the timing says: leaving mid-term is rarely casual.
Explore the areas that shaped their experience
Use the following areas as prompts rather than assuming any one of them caused the resignation.
- Workload and timetable: Were teaching load, marking, invigilation and duties manageable? Were timetable changes explained?
- Term-time pressure: Did examination, admission or event periods bring extra work without recognition or relief?
- Pay and benefits: Were pay, increments and any additional duties clear and fairly applied?
- Qualifications and development: Was further study, training or registration supported? Did the person see a route to senior roles?
- Head and department support: Were expectations clear? Did the head or coordinator give useful feedback and treat people respectfully?
- Administrative and support staff: Did non-teaching staff feel their work was valued? Were hours, relief arrangements and pay comparable in fairness to faculty?
- Recognition and relationships: Did the person feel their contribution was seen? Could they raise a concern comfortably?
- Personal circumstances: Did relocation, family or education plans influence the decision?
Several factors may contribute to one resignation. Allow people to explain these connections in their own words.
Create a respectful exit conversation
Invite the person to a voluntary conversation during their notice period, scheduled so it does not fall in examination weeks or the busiest admission days. Explain that the purpose is to understand their experience and improve the institution.
Where possible, choose someone sufficiently independent of the issues being discussed. If a concern involves the head of department or the principal, offer another appropriate person, such as HR or a senior colleague from another department. Give the person the option to provide written feedback if that feels more comfortable.
Explain who will see their responses and how the information will be used. Avoid promising complete anonymity in a small department or support team where details could identify the person.
Listen without interrupting or defending each decision. If clarification is needed, ask for a specific example respectfully. The person should not have to justify their decision to leave. For how to run the process around the conversation, see exit interviews that produce action. The general version of this guide covers the questions that apply in any business.
Ask questions that lead to useful feedback
- 1
What first made you consider leaving?
This finds the starting point, which is often different from the final reason.
- 2
What were the main factors in your final decision?
Let the person link the factors in their own words.
- 3
What did you value most about working here?
It shows what is worth protecting for the people who stay.
- 4
How did the role compare with what you expected when you joined?
Gaps point to hiring conversations or role changes that were never discussed.
- 5
Were your workload, timetable and extra duties manageable?
Listen for load that grew without discussion.
- 6
How did examination, admission or event periods affect your work?
Listen for pressure at peak times with no relief.
- 7
How would you describe the support from your head, coordinator or manager?
Offer another interviewer if the person is uneasy answering this to someone close to them.
- 8
Did you have the training, further study or growth you wanted?
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 reached anyone who could act.
- 10
What should we improve for the next person in this role?
A forward-looking close that leaves the conversation constructive.
Use follow-up questions where necessary, while allowing the person to skip questions they do not wish to answer.
Turn individual feedback into a pattern review
Record the main reason for leaving, any contributing factors and a brief factual summary. Separate what the person said from your interpretation. Note the timing against the academic calendar.
Review departures over time by department, role, staff group and length of service, keeping faculty, administration and support staff apart rather than blending them. Repeated concerns deserve attention, but a small number of exits should prompt further investigation rather than an immediate conclusion about a department or head. The attrition number that hides the problem explains why a single headline rate is not enough.
Compare exit feedback with workload information, timetable data and current staff conversations. Keep identifiable responses restricted to those who need access, and use summaries for wider reporting.
Give each improvement an owner
An exit conversation has limited value if the feedback is simply filed away. For each issue selected for action, agree on:
- The specific change needed.
- The person responsible.
- A completion date.
- How progress will be reviewed.
For example, timetable disputes could lead to a clearer allocation process, owned by the academic coordinator. Support staff concerns about hours could prompt a review of cover and relief arrangements. Development gaps could lead to a vacation-time training plan.
Where appropriate, tell current staff what has changed, without revealing a departing person's private feedback. Time announcements for the start of term, when people are listening.
Start listening before people resign
Include regular conversations about what helps people work well and what makes the job difficult. Ask: "What would make you consider leaving, and what could we improve now?"
A conversation in the vacation, when faculty have time, can surface concerns before the next term begins. Follow-through matters: asking for feedback creates an expectation that someone will act on it.
Every resignation deserves a respectful response. Understanding the reasons, checking the wider evidence and acting on issues within the institution's control gives that conversation a useful purpose.
