The ‘questionable’ question in exit interviews
One issue in the goodbye discussion of exit interviews stirs up a hornet’s nest of debate: Should the interview include questions about sexual harassment on the job?
Opponents take the “don’t ask, don’t tell” position, arguing knowledge of sexual harassment may complicate or compromise a company’s defence in the event of a lawsuit.
Advocates of asking the question contend it can actually reduce the risk of litigation by identifying out-of-bounds personnel or practices before they escalate to a level that will land a company in court.
Perhaps the only point on which the two sides agree is harassment remains a troubling problem despite years of anti-harassment policies and training. Should HR attempt to unearth these potentially explosive nuggets of information in exit interviews? Let’s examine the arguments on both sides.
Don’t ask, don’t tell
Not surprisingly, the primary objection to probing for evidence of sexual harassment is a legal one. If a company is aware of harassment allegations and fails to investigate, the defence in any lawsuit associated with those allegations will be damaged.
For that reason, some take the position knowing about sexual harassment places a burden on the employer, particularly if a company lacks the manpower to pursue an accusation.
Another argument made by supporters of the “don’t ask” school of thought is sexual harassment claims may lie buried in exit interviews for months before they are discovered because of large interview volume or heavy HR workloads. That, too, could undermine a company’s defence in a courtroom.
On the non-legal front, some people on the “no” side of the fence contend departing employees will not answer sexual harassment questions honestly, especially in face-to-face interviews. But this objection is weakening given the rise of paper-and-pencil and online exit interviews, which make it easier for respondents to be candid.
Ask the question, correct the problem
On the other side of the coin, there is the “what you don’t know can hurt you” approach. This philosophy holds exit interviews can red-flag potentially litigious harassment situations and allow them to be defused through training or other corrective action.
Instead of focusing on defending a company in the event of a lawsuit, supporters of this view emphasize the ability of exit interviews to prevent litigation and associated injury to a company’s reputation.
Asking the harassment question provides other benefits as well, maintain advocates. Harassment incidents detected through exit interviews may shed light on unexplained employee turnover. Retraining triggered by these harassment reports can also help avert future turnover connected to sexual language, intimidation or similarly problematic behaviour.
In addition, the nature and degree of harassment reported can help an HR team determine what kinds of additional education or prevention programs are needed.
All of these steps, of course, help build a positive work environment as well as a corporate culture of caring about employees. Using exit interviews to expose harassment problems that might not be uncovered any other way is another tool to create a better workplace, say supporters. If the organization doesn’t know there is a problem, it cannot fix it.
Even lawyers will say the legal implications can cut both ways. While a company that does not investigate sexual harassment allegations that emerge in an exit interview will almost certainly lose a lawsuit on the matter, an exit interview in which a departing employee fails to report harassment can actually work in a company’s favour if the employee later goes to court.
That is, if the employee was given an opportunity to mention harassment and neglected to do so, that will raise doubts about credibility that can help strengthen the defendant’s case.
Some companies may decide these two scenarios cancel each other out. If so, the “ask the sexual harassment question” view is likely to prevail as HR managers lobby for information that will help purge harassment from the organization. Many companies would rather raise the issue themselves than be blindsided by an expensive and potentially lurid lawsuit.
Beth N. Carvin is the CEO and president of Nobscot, a Kailua, Hawaii-based global technology firm that focuses on key aspects of employee retention and development. She can be reached at [email protected].
