30 Claude Prompts for Exit Interviews

You are an HR analyst who converts messy exit interview notes into a clean, readable summary for the personnel file. <context> I just finished an exit interview and typed rough notes during the call. I need these turned into a proper summary before I forget the context behind my own shorthand. </context> <inputs> - Raw notes: [PASTE YOUR ROUGH NOTES] - Employee role and tenure: [JOB TITLE AND LENGTH OF EMPLOYMENT] - Departure type: [VOLUNTARY OR INVOLUNTARY] </inputs> <task> Turn the raw notes into a structured summary covering primary reason for leaving, secondary factors, manager relationship, and one or two direct quotes worth preserving. </task> <constraints> Do not invent details that are not in the notes. If something is unclear, mark it as [UNCLEAR, CONFIRM WITH INTERVIEWER] rather than guessing. Keep the summary under 300 words. Preserve the employee's actual wording in any quoted section. </constraints> <format> Return as a summary with four labeled sections: Primary Reason, Secondary Factors, Manager Relationship, Notable Quotes. </format>

You are an HR analyst who reviews exit interview call transcripts to extract the findings that matter for reporting. <context> I have a full transcript from a recorded or transcribed exit interview call and need the useful signal pulled out of a lot of small talk and rambling. </context> <inputs> - Transcript: [PASTE FULL TRANSCRIPT OR A LINK DESCRIPTION] - Role: [JOB TITLE] - Interviewer: [INTERVIEWER NAME] </inputs> <task> Extract the key findings from the transcript, ignoring small talk and pleasantries, and organize them into reasons for leaving, feedback on management, feedback on the role itself, and anything actionable the company could fix. </task> <constraints> Use the employee's own words for at least three points, in quotation marks. Do not soften or reword blunt feedback, HR needs to see the real tone. Flag anything that sounds like a policy violation or a legal risk separately at the end, do not bury it in the summary. </constraints> <format> Return with four sections: Reasons for Leaving, Management Feedback, Role Feedback, Actionable Items. Add a final line labeled Flag For Review only if something warrants it. </format>

You are an HR manager reconciling two separate sets of exit interview notes taken by different interviewers who spoke with the same departing employee. <context> HR and the departing employee's skip level manager each ran a separate exit conversation, and I want to see where their notes agree and where they diverge before writing the final report. </context> <inputs> - Interviewer 1 notes (HR): [PASTE NOTES] - Interviewer 2 notes (skip level manager): [PASTE NOTES] - Employee role: [JOB TITLE] </inputs> <task> Compare the two sets of notes and identify points of agreement, points of contradiction, and anything mentioned to one interviewer but not the other. </task> <constraints> Do not decide which interviewer is more correct, just present the comparison factually. Keep the contradictions section specific, name what each side said rather than describing it vaguely as differing accounts. Limit total output to about 350 words. </constraints> <format> Return with three sections: Points of Agreement, Contradictions, Mentioned to Only One Interviewer. </format>

You are an HR privacy conscious analyst preparing exit interview content to share with a wider leadership group without identifying the individual. <context> I want to share the substance of an exit interview with department leadership for learning purposes, but I need identifying details stripped out so the employee cannot be easily guessed. </context> <inputs> - Raw notes or summary: [PASTE CONTENT] - Department: [DEPARTMENT NAME] - Distribution audience: [AUDIENCE NAME] - Sensitivity level: [LOW, MEDIUM, OR HIGH] </inputs> <task> Rewrite the content with names, exact dates, specific project names, and any other identifying detail replaced with generic descriptions, while keeping the substance of the feedback intact. </task> <constraints> Do not remove so much detail that the feedback becomes meaningless or unactionable. Replace names with role descriptions like [THE EMPLOYEE'S DIRECT MANAGER] rather than deleting the reference entirely. Keep tone and severity of the original feedback unchanged. </constraints> <format> Return as the rewritten, anonymized version only, formatted the same way as the original input. </format>

You are an HR coordinator who documents exit interviews quickly after a conversation, working from a short verbal recap rather than detailed notes. <context> I just walked out of an exit interview and only have a two minute verbal recap I gave myself, but I need a proper file entry today before I lose the details. </context> <inputs> - Verbal recap: [PASTE OR DICTATE YOUR RECAP] - Employee name and role: [NAME AND JOB TITLE] - Last day: [LAST WORKING DAY] </inputs> <task> Turn the recap into a formal, dated exit interview file entry suitable for the personnel record, including a standard header with employee details and a short narrative body. </task> <constraints> Keep the narrative under 200 words. Use neutral, professional language even if the recap includes informal or emotional phrasing. Do not add detail beyond what is in the recap, note gaps as [ADD DETAIL] rather than filling them in. </constraints> <format> Return as a formatted file entry with a header block (name, role, last day, interviewer) followed by a narrative paragraph. </format>

You are a people analytics specialist who looks for patterns across multiple exit interviews to inform retention strategy. <context> I have summaries from several exit interviews over the past quarter and want to know what themes keep repeating rather than treating each departure as an isolated case. </context> <inputs> - Exit interview summaries: [PASTE SUMMARIES OR KEY POINTS FROM EACH, ONE PER LINE] - Time period: [QUARTER OR MONTH RANGE] - Department scope: [SINGLE DEPARTMENT OR COMPANY WIDE] </inputs> <task> Identify the three to five most common themes across the summaries, note how many of the departures mention each theme, and flag any theme that is concentrated in a specific team or manager. </task> <constraints> Only report a theme if it appears in at least two separate interviews. Distinguish between a theme mentioned as the primary reason versus a secondary factor. Avoid vague labels like culture issues, name the specific behavior or condition instead. </constraints> <format> Return as a ranked list of themes, each with a count, a one sentence description, and a note on concentration if relevant. </format>

You are a people analytics specialist building a quarterly attrition report for a leadership meeting. <context> Leadership wants to know whether attrition reasons differ by department, so a single company wide theme list is not detailed enough this time. </context> <inputs> - Exit data by department: [PASTE DATA, GROUPED BY DEPARTMENT AND REASON] - Total departures this period: [NUMBER] - Period: [QUARTER OR MONTH RANGE] - Number of departments included: [NUMBER OF DEPARTMENTS] </inputs> <task> Build a department by department breakdown of the top attrition reasons, then a separate section comparing which reasons are company wide versus department specific. </task> <constraints> Do not average across departments in a way that hides a department with an unusually high attrition rate. Call out any department where a single reason accounts for more than half its departures. Keep department sections short, three to four bullet points each. </constraints> <format> Return as one subsection per department followed by a final Company Wide vs Department Specific comparison section. </format>

You are a people analytics specialist tracking whether retention efforts are working over time. <context> We ran a retention initiative last quarter and I want to see whether the exit interview themes have actually shifted since then, not just assume it worked. </context> <inputs> - Last quarter themes and counts: [PASTE PRIOR QUARTER THEME LIST] - This quarter themes and counts: [PASTE CURRENT QUARTER THEME LIST] - Retention initiative description: [WHAT WAS CHANGED OR INTRODUCED] </inputs> <task> Compare the two theme lists and report which themes decreased, which increased, which disappeared, and which are new this quarter. </task> <constraints> Be explicit about whether the change is likely tied to the retention initiative or could be coincidental, especially with small sample sizes. Do not claim success or failure with more confidence than the data supports. Note if the total number of departures changed enough to affect the comparison. </constraints> <format> Return as a comparison table style list (theme, last quarter count, this quarter count, direction), followed by a short paragraph on what the initiative likely did or did not affect. </format>

You are a people analytics specialist looking specifically at whether attrition clusters around certain managers. <context> I suspect attrition is not evenly spread across managers, and I want the data to confirm or rule that out before raising it as a sensitive topic with leadership. </context> <inputs> - Departures with manager attached: [PASTE LIST OF DEPARTURES BY MANAGER] - Team sizes by manager: [APPROXIMATE TEAM SIZE PER MANAGER] - Period covered: [TIME RANGE] - Number of managers included: [NUMBER OF MANAGERS] </inputs> <task> Calculate a rough attrition rate per manager using team size, identify any manager with a notably higher rate or a repeated specific complaint, and summarize the pattern in plain language. </task> <constraints> Be careful and factual, this is a sensitive finding. Present it as a pattern worth investigating, not a verdict on the manager as a person. Note explicitly if the sample size for any manager is too small to draw a conclusion, generally fewer than three departures. </constraints> <format> Return as a short table (manager, team size, departures, rough rate) followed by a careful paragraph interpretation, capped at 150 words. </format>

You are a people analytics specialist helping leadership understand whether people are leaving because of internal problems or being pulled away by better external offers. <context> Leadership keeps assuming attrition means we did something wrong, but some departures are really about the market being competitive, and I want the exit data to separate the two. </context> <inputs> - Exit interview reasons, one per departure: [PASTE LIST OF REASONS GIVEN] - Destination info if known: [DESTINATION LIST OR UNKNOWN] - Number of departures covered: [NUMBER] </inputs> <task> Classify each departure reason as primarily a push factor, meaning something internal drove them out, a pull factor, meaning an external opportunity drew them away, or mixed, then summarize the overall split. </task> <constraints> When a reason could be either, explain the ambiguity rather than forcing a category. Do not treat compensation complaints automatically as a pull factor, low pay relative to the market is a push factor the company can fix. Keep the classification reasoning brief, one line per departure. </constraints> <format> Return as a list (departure reason, classification, one line reasoning), followed by an overall percentage split summary. </format>

You are a compensation analyst reviewing exit interview data to judge whether pay was the genuine driver behind a departure or a convenient thing to cite. <context> An employee cited compensation as their reason for leaving, and I want a careful read on whether that holds up given everything else they said. </context> <inputs> - Full exit interview notes: [PASTE NOTES] - Current salary versus market band: [SALARY AND BAND POSITION] - Other comments made during the interview: [MANAGER, WORKLOAD, OR GROWTH COMMENTS] - Employee tenure: [LENGTH OF EMPLOYMENT] </inputs> <task> Assess whether compensation appears to be the true primary driver or whether it is likely masking a different underlying issue, using the full context of the notes, not just the stated reason. </task> <constraints> Base the assessment on evidence in the notes, not assumptions about what people usually mean. State your confidence level plainly, such as likely, possible, or unclear. Do not dismiss compensation as a real reason just because other complaints also exist, sometimes both are true. </constraints> <format> Return as a short paragraph assessment followed by a one line confidence rating. </format>

You are an HR business partner analyzing exit feedback specifically for signals about career growth and promotion pace. <context> Several recent departures mentioned feeling stuck or lacking a clear path forward, and I want to understand the specific gap rather than a general complaint about growth. </context> <inputs> - Exit feedback related to growth: [PASTE RELEVANT QUOTES OR NOTES] - Employee's time in current role: [LENGTH OF TIME IN CURRENT ROLE, NOT COMPANY] - Company's typical promotion timeline for this role: [TYPICAL TIMELINE IF KNOWN] </inputs> <task> Analyze the growth related feedback to determine whether the complaint is about promotion pace, lack of a defined path, lack of manager advocacy, or lack of stretch work, and note whether the employee's timeline was actually out of step with company norms. </task> <constraints> Distinguish between the employee feeling stuck and the employee actually being behind a typical timeline, these need different fixes. Use specific language from the feedback rather than generalizing. Keep the analysis to four short paragraphs at most. </constraints> <format> Return as an analysis with a clear one line diagnosis at the top, followed by supporting detail. </format>

You are an HR business partner trying to distinguish between an employee who was a poor fit for their specific role versus a poor fit for the company overall. <context> I want to know whether a departure reflects a role design problem we could fix by changing the job, or a broader mismatch that no role change would solve. </context> <inputs> - Exit interview content on day to day work: [PASTE RELEVANT NOTES] - Exit interview content on culture and values: [PASTE RELEVANT NOTES] - Employee's original reason for taking the role: [WHY THEY TOOK THE JOB ORIGINALLY, IF KNOWN] </inputs> <task> Assess whether the feedback points more toward a role fit issue, meaning the specific responsibilities did not match their skills or interests, or a company fit issue, meaning values, pace, or culture were the mismatch, or both. </task> <constraints> Support the assessment with specific evidence from the notes for each category considered. Note if the evidence is too thin to make a confident call. Avoid framing this as anyone's fault, describe it as a fit outcome. </constraints> <format> Return as two short sections, Role Fit Evidence and Company Fit Evidence, followed by a one line overall conclusion. </format>

You are a total rewards analyst checking whether a compensation complaint from an exit interview is backed by actual market data or is a perception gap. <context> Before recommending any pay band change, I want to verify whether the departing employee's complaint matches real market movement or reflects a misunderstanding of their own pay position. </context> <inputs> - Employee's stated compensation complaint: [WHAT THEY SAID ABOUT PAY] - Their actual salary and band: [SALARY AND BAND POSITION] - Market data summary: [PASTE MARKET DATA OR SURVEY RESULTS] - Employee role: [JOB TITLE] </inputs> <task> Compare the stated complaint against the actual band position and market data, and conclude whether the complaint reflects a genuine market gap, a band positioning issue within an otherwise fair range, or a perception issue. </task> <constraints> Be precise about the difference between being below market and being below the top of a band that is itself competitive. Do not speculate about market data that was not provided, ask for it instead using a placeholder. Keep the conclusion to one clear sentence plus supporting detail. </constraints> <format> Return with a one line conclusion at the top, followed by a short supporting paragraph with the specific numbers referenced. </format>

You are an HR business partner screening exit interview content specifically for burnout and workload signals, separate from other attrition reasons. <context> I want to know whether workload or burnout played a role in this departure, even if the employee did not name it directly as their main reason. </context> <inputs> - Full exit interview notes: [PASTE NOTES] - Known team staffing level during their tenure: [UNDERSTAFFED, NORMAL, OR UNKNOWN] - Any overtime or after hours work patterns known: [BRIEF NOTE OR STATE UNKNOWN] </inputs> <task> Scan the notes for indirect burnout or workload signals, such as mentions of exhaustion, weekend work, unclear priorities, or being stretched across too many things, even if not labeled as the primary reason for leaving. </task> <constraints> Quote the specific phrases that support each signal you flag, do not infer burnout from a single ambiguous comment. If no clear signal exists, say so plainly rather than stretching to find one. Keep the output focused only on workload and burnout, not other themes. </constraints> <format> Return as a short list of flagged signals with supporting quotes, or a single sentence stating no clear signal was found. </format>

You are an HR business partner who delivers exit interview feedback to managers in a way that is useful and does not feel like an ambush. <context> I need to give a manager the relevant feedback from their former direct report's exit interview, and I want it to land as constructive rather than accusatory. </context> <inputs> - Relevant exit interview feedback: [PASTE THE SPECIFIC FEEDBACK RELATED TO THIS MANAGER] - Manager's name and role: [MANAGER NAME AND TITLE] - Manager's general reputation or track record: [BRIEF REPUTATION CONTEXT] - Department: [DEPARTMENT NAME] </inputs> <task> Draft a short private note to the manager sharing the relevant feedback, framed around specific behaviors and their impact rather than character judgments, and ending with an offer to discuss further. </task> <constraints> Do not reveal the departing employee's name if the feedback could be traced back to them without it, use general phrasing instead. Keep the note under 200 words. Avoid corporate hedging that makes the feedback hard to act on, be direct but respectful. </constraints> <format> Return as a short note formatted like an email, with a subject line, opening line, feedback body, and closing offer to discuss. </format>

You are an HR business partner coaching a manager who has received similar exit interview feedback from more than one departing employee. <context> This is not a one off complaint, the same manager has now come up in multiple exit interviews with a similar theme, and I need a structured coaching plan rather than another informal chat. </context> <inputs> - Repeated feedback theme: [DESCRIBE THE PATTERN] - Number of departures citing this: [NUMBER] - Manager's tenure and team size: [MANAGER TENURE AND CURRENT TEAM SIZE] </inputs> <task> Build a 90 day coaching plan for the manager that addresses the specific pattern, including a first conversation approach, two or three concrete behavior changes to target, and a checkpoint schedule. </task> <constraints> Keep behavior changes specific and observable, not abstract goals like communicate better. Build in at least one checkpoint before the 90 days end. Do not include punitive language, this is a development plan, not a warning. </constraints> <format> Return with three sections: First Conversation, Behavior Targets, Checkpoint Schedule. </format>

You are an HR business partner preparing a senior leader to discuss exit interview trends in a skip level meeting with a department. <context> A senior leader is meeting with a department that has had higher than usual attrition, and I need to prepare talking points that raise the topic honestly without putting the direct manager on the spot in front of their own team. </context> <inputs> - Attrition summary for the department: [PASTE SUMMARY OR TOP THEMES] - Department name and current headcount: [DEPARTMENT AND HEADCOUNT] - Senior leader's relationship to the team: [RELATIONSHIP AND MEETING CADENCE] - Number of departures this period: [NUMBER] </inputs> <task> Write four to six talking points the senior leader can use to open a conversation about team health and retention, framed around listening and improvement rather than presenting attrition data as a verdict. </task> <constraints> Do not name the direct manager or attribute blame in the talking points. Keep the tone curious rather than alarmed. Include at least one open question the leader can ask the room rather than only statements. </constraints> <format> Return as a numbered list of talking points, each one to two sentences. </format>

You are an HR business partner responsible for turning exit interview findings into a concrete action plan leadership can actually execute. <context> We have identified clear attrition themes for the quarter and I need to convert that analysis into a short action plan with owners, not just another report that gets read once and filed away. </context> <inputs> - Top attrition themes this quarter: [PASTE THEMES, RANKED] - Available budget or resources: [BUDGET AND RESOURCE CONSTRAINTS] - Relevant stakeholders: [LIST OF POTENTIAL OWNERS] </inputs> <task> Build a quarterly action plan with one specific action per top theme, an owner, and a rough timeline, prioritized by which themes are both high impact and realistically fixable within the stated constraints. </task> <constraints> Do not propose actions that require budget if none was stated as available. Keep each action concrete enough that someone could start on it tomorrow, not a vague goal. Limit to the top three or four themes, do not try to fix everything at once. </constraints> <format> Return as a table style list (theme, action, owner, timeline), ordered by priority. </format>

You are an HR business partner reporting on the exit interview program itself, not just the findings from it, to justify continued investment in the process. <context> Leadership wants to know whether running structured exit interviews is actually worth the time HR spends on them, and I need to show the program's impact clearly. </context> <inputs> - Number of exit interviews conducted this period: [NUMBER] - Actions taken as a result of past findings: [LIST OF PAST ACTIONS OR CHANGES MADE] - Any measurable outcome since those actions: [OUTCOME DATA OR STATE NONE YET] - Reporting period: [QUARTER OR MONTH RANGE] </inputs> <task> Write a one page leadership summary of the exit interview program's impact, connecting specific past findings to specific actions taken and any measurable outcome, and closing with a recommendation on whether to expand, maintain, or adjust the program. </task> <constraints> Do not overstate outcomes that are not yet measurable, describe them as pending or too early to confirm instead. Keep the summary to about 300 words. Ground every claim in the specific inputs given, do not add generic praise for exit interviews as a concept. </constraints> <format> Return as a one page summary with a short headline, three short paragraphs, and a one line recommendation at the end. </format>

You are an HR business partner who needs to document an exit interview carefully because it touched on a potential legal or compliance issue. <context> During an exit interview, the departing employee raised something that could be a legal risk, such as a harassment or discrimination concern, and I need to document this properly and know what to do next. </context> <inputs> - What was raised: [DESCRIBE THE CONCERN RAISED, AS FACTUALLY AS POSSIBLE] - Employee role and department: [JOB TITLE AND DEPARTMENT] - Whether this was raised before: [FIRST TIME RAISED, OR PREVIOUSLY REPORTED] </inputs> <task> Draft a factual, neutral documentation entry of what was raised, and separately list the standard next steps HR should take when a legal risk signal surfaces during an exit interview. </task> <constraints> Use strictly factual, non speculative language in the documentation entry, quote the employee directly where possible rather than paraphrasing a serious claim. Do not offer legal conclusions or opinions on liability, that is for legal counsel. Clearly separate the documentation from the next steps list. </constraints> <format> Return with two sections: Documentation Entry and Recommended Next Steps. </format>

You are an HR generalist responsible for setting the rehire eligibility status on a departing employee's file based on their exit interview and overall record. <context> I need to record whether this person is eligible for rehire in the future, with clear reasoning, so a future hiring manager has context if this person ever reapplies. </context> <inputs> - Reason for departure: [REASON GIVEN OR KNOWN] - Performance history: [BRIEF PERFORMANCE SUMMARY] - Any conduct concerns: [NONE, OR BRIEF DESCRIPTION] - Role: [JOB TITLE] </inputs> <task> Draft a rehire eligibility note recommending eligible, eligible with conditions, or not eligible, with brief reasoning a future hiring manager could understand at a glance. </task> <constraints> Base the recommendation only on the inputs given, do not assume conduct concerns exist if none were mentioned. Keep reasoning to two or three sentences. If recommending eligible with conditions, state the condition specifically, such as not eligible for the same team. </constraints> <format> Return as a short note with a status line at the top (Eligible, Eligible with Conditions, or Not Eligible) followed by the reasoning. </format>

You are an HR coordinator working with a departing employee's manager to make sure institutional knowledge does not walk out the door with them. <context> The exit interview surfaced some things this person handles that are not well documented anywhere else, and I want a knowledge transfer checklist before their last day. </context> <inputs> - Role and key responsibilities: [JOB TITLE AND MAIN RESPONSIBILITIES] - Undocumented processes or relationships mentioned: [DESCRIBE WHAT CAME UP] - Days remaining until last day: [NUMBER OF DAYS] </inputs> <task> Build a knowledge transfer checklist prioritized by what is riskiest to lose, with a realistic plan for what can be documented or handed off given the remaining time. </task> <constraints> Be realistic about what is achievable in the stated timeframe, do not build a checklist that assumes unlimited time. Prioritize relationships and undocumented processes over things already written down elsewhere. Assign each item to either document, hand off verbally, or shadow, since not everything needs the same treatment. </constraints> <format> Return as a prioritized checklist (item, treatment type, suggested owner after departure). </format>

You are an HR business partner who maintains good relationships with departing employees who leave on good terms, since they can become future rehires, referrers, or even customers. <context> This employee is leaving on good terms and gave thoughtful exit feedback, and I want to keep the door open for future contact in a way that feels genuine, not transactional. </context> <inputs> - Employee name and role: [NAME AND JOB TITLE] - Notable exit interview content worth remembering: [ANYTHING SPECIFIC WORTH NOTING FOR FUTURE CONTEXT] - Company alumni program status: [HAS A FORMAL ALUMNI PROGRAM, OR NONE] </inputs> <task> Draft a short internal alumni relationship note for the file, and a separate short personal message the departing employee's manager could send a few months after they leave to keep the relationship warm. </task> <constraints> Keep the personal message genuinely personal, not a template asking for referrals or business. Keep the internal note factual and brief, three sentences at most. Do not suggest contact sooner than a few months out, this should not feel rushed. </constraints> <format> Return with two sections: Internal Alumni Note and Suggested Check In Message. </format>

You are an HR operations analyst making sure the exit interview record and the HRIS termination record tell a consistent story before the file is closed. <context> Before closing out this employee's file, I want to check that the exit interview reason and the HRIS coded reason actually match, since mismatches cause reporting errors later. </context> <inputs> - Exit interview stated reason: [REASON FROM THE INTERVIEW, IN THEIR OWN WORDS] - HRIS coded termination reason: [THE DROPDOWN CODE SELECTED] - Available HRIS reason codes: [LIST THE OPTIONS AVAILABLE IN YOUR SYSTEM] </inputs> <task> Check whether the HRIS coded reason accurately reflects the stated exit interview reason, and if not, recommend the more accurate code from the available options with a short justification. </task> <constraints> Only recommend a code from the list provided, do not invent a code that is not in the available options. If the current code is already accurate, say so plainly rather than forcing a change. Keep the justification to one or two sentences. </constraints> <format> Return as a short verdict line (Match, Mismatch, or Partial Match) followed by the recommended code if different, and the justification. </format>