ugh, that hoary old chestnut.

Let's force someone with (now) no stake in the business to have to sit through a grilling and lecturing session because Galloping Corporatitis!

Or an opportunity to drop people you hate in the sh1t!

I admit I don't really understand the approach. The person is either leaving because they've had enough, or because you're throwing them out.

Neither option is conducive to an honest and productive interview, as far as I can see.

or leaving because much as they love it and wish the company well , they've found something better . Although thats not been the case in my two main job moves

OTOH an "Exit Interview" can (should!) just be the inverse of the "Onboarding" (puke). Run down the check list: give us back the security pass; the laptop - *and* the backpack, thank you very much; IT has checked you haven't left anything locked[1]; got your papers from HR so you can't claim we owe you for holidays not taken? Good. Now - piss off[2].

Anything other than that is of dubious value to anyone.

[1] remember the days of - was it Source Safe? - when you could bugger up dev by leaving files locked out to your user?

[2] to quote Bernard

Have to admit I still have one regret about the exit interview from one of my longer jobs.

The main reason for quitting was the behaviour and attitude of one the senior staff, and although I was able to allude to that issue during the "chat" I couldn't quite bring myself to say out loud "The guy is a [area of genital anatomy of which the first letter is 'c', and the last 't'], and is the reason virtually everyone has ever left this company". Not having the gumption to come out with it openly to the big boss is one of my lifetime disappointments.

However, I think they knew anyway, and the guy was gone within 6 months.

If done correctly, an Exit Interview is the chance for the ex-employee to give candid reasons why they are leaving, which the management should listen to as it can expose problems that may be hidden by people who are still employed and feel their jobs may be at risk if they speak truthfully.

Nah, they didn't give a damn when you were there, and they won't now. Anything you say can only hurt you.

Just verify you gave them their stuff back and find out when you get your last check, then leave.

Exactly, most technical industries are relatively small and close knit. It is not uncommon for managers to be friendly with managers at other companies.

Tell some manager in an exit interview, that the reason your leaving is the management strategy or that you think they're all a$$holes, and it's likely to get around that you're a "troublemaker".

Best is to keep it civil, keep it minimal, and get out before your tempted to tell them what you really think...

(Admittedly, this advice is primarily for younger workers, the more senior engineers amongst us, can usually be skilled enough, that being branded a troublemaker doesnt affect hiring, because the skills are needed. But to get to that point, well you have to stay schtum for a bit)...

I’ve only had one company do an exit interview, others have just run through the checklists to ensure everything was handed back access revoked etc.

Well I say that but I had to remind one about returning my PC etc. when I arrived to drop it all off our security lady asked why I was asking for her to get my boss and not just using my pass to go in as normal, seems they’d forgotten to tell her I’d left as well!

The one company who did an exit interview was fun, seems they’d not warned the HR person why I’d left. Got quite a shock when was very clear on why I was leaving and the issues. That company was and still is a B Corp company, the way they treat staff they should not be!

I was supposed to have an Exit Interview but since I had made my opinion very clear to my Manager's Manager (my Manager was a great guy who had been allocated all the 'oddity' teams and openly admitted limited knowledge for most of their work areas) they bottled it and chose not to do have anything put on record. I have never yet heard of a company who take any notice of what people say in such an interview and it seems to be just a box-tick to show they really care even when they clearly don't.

Just to round things out they then closed out my access two days early so I couldn't even do a handover since I was a Home Worker and this blocked Teams (woohoo) and my link to the Corporate phone system. I am in contact with various people who are still there and they are just waiting for the fuse to burn down on the stuff I looked after

Well, at least they didn't let your access continue for a year after throwing you out, not like some companies . . .

My resignation letter at my previous employer made it clear why I was going to such an extent that not only was there no exit interview, all senior management were conspicuous by the absence on my last day in case I told some embarrassing truths in my goodbye speech.

The thing is I toned down my original letter quite a bit and I thought it was fairly safe after a couple of iterations, but any criticism of their decisions wasn't acceptable apparently!

is quite a popular way to wind down from the working week

What seems like a casual way to unwind after a long week - grabbing a few pints with colleagues - is actually part of a calculated system designed to keep workers from breaking free. Corporate culture pushes the idea that you "deserve" a drink to relax, but in reality, those pints are preventing you from working on your own side projects and realising your potential outside the company.

When you're inebriated, you're in no state to focus on developing skills, building a business, or reflecting on how you could turn the knowledge you've gained at work into something of your own. The alcohol keeps your mind dulled, your energy depleted, and ensures that any motivation to pursue personal goals fades away with every sip.

This isn't accidental. The corporate machine wants you to stay locked into your role, dependent on the job, and too mentally fogged to challenge the status quo. By subtly encouraging after-work drinks, they ensure that you're too tired and distracted to make moves on your own path. The social pressure to join in makes it seem harmless, but it’s part of a larger plan to keep workers from realising their full potential, ensuring that you stay part of the workforce rather than becoming a competitor or independent success.

I drink when I'm unemployed too.

Self-harm, pretty common for people traumatised in the former workplace.

Seeing as my job required a *lot* of driving I regarded alcohol as strictly off limits during the working week - in fact I drink more since I retired!

P.S. Not only do I drive a lot less now, but I take my time and avoid the motorways when ever possible - discovering some amazing places in the process.

This is the reason that I drink during the working week but abstain at the weekend.

The problem with these conspiracy theories is that they give waaaaay too much credit to people. People are generally really crap at putting a plan together and executing on it. None of what you are saying is actually a thing.

so basically you're saying drink in works time to ensure your awake and sober in your free time to "focus on developing skills, building a business" ?

He claimed his Windows NT servers had zero downtime, and each and every of his servers had run for more than a year continuously. Now I had a little experience in Windows NT administration, as I ran a Windows NT 4.0 machine at home (mainly to prevent the missus from performing "spring cleaning" activity, wiping out "unwanted files" such as config.sys). I dutifully downloaded and installed patches as they arrived (almost on a weekly basis), and in my experience, each and every patch required a reboot. I wondered if he had some trick I wasn't aware of to patch the systems without needing a reboot, or whether he had several redundant servers, allowing the services to remain available 24/7. I first asked if he applied every security patch, which he said he did. I then asked whether these didn't require a reboot, and he answered that of course he rebooted the systems after patching. So I suggested that his servers had not run continuously for a year. His answer was he didn't count the reboots for security patches as downtime, because he didn't physically power down the computers.

This was some strange usage of the phrase "zero downtime" I was not previously aware of.

Zero *unscheduled* downtime. Still a pretty impressive feat when running windows.

True, but I tended to take his claims with a pinch of salt afterwards

This would have been the correct approach for the OPs boss as well. He doesn't know or care about how security updates get applied, he wants all his serv ices up and available and secure all the time, and this is how he can express it. How the sysadmin achieves that is up to him - extra resiliency, failover, "at risk windows", whatever - the boss doesn't need to know the details, he just needs his services, and how much its going to cost.

The boss sounded alarming...