Exit Interviews

What could this idea change?

It gives the club a clearer view of people's experiences before decisions are made, including feedback that informal conversations can miss.

It may suit: Members who may welcome support or renewed contact, and the trusted club members following up.

A simple way to start

1. Complete the membership and administrative requirements independently, identify any conflict and send one respectful invitation explaining that participation, topic choice and future contact are voluntary. Who could lead it: Secretary or membership administration lead
2. Agree the channel, interviewer, topics, time, privacy level, note method, attribution choice and what should happen if a complaint, risk or request for support emerges. Who could lead it: Interviewer and departing member
3. Hold a short listening conversation using open questions, no challenge or rescue attempt, permission before follow-up questions and a reminder that the person can skip a topic or stop. Who could lead it: Neutral interviewer
4. Confirm the note or theme summary with the departing member, record any correction, attribution and future-contact choice and transfer protected matters only through the responsible route. Who could lead it: Interviewer and privacy contact
5. Combine de-identified themes only when the reporting context is safe, compare them with other evidence and assign improvement questions without turning one departure into a general conclusion. Who could lead it: Member experience analyst and independent checker

What should we look for?

• After 90 days, review Exit Interviews. Look for representative participation, published themes, named actions and a report back on what changed, what did not and why.
• Every invitation is voluntary, sent once, separated from membership administration and records an interview, written, telephone or no-contact choice.
• Every completed interview has a confirmed use, attribution, future-contact and retention decision and any protected matter has a safe referral record.
• Trend reports disclose evidence limits and contain no detail likely to identify a former member in the actual club context.
• Repeated pursuit, defensive interviewing, unauthorised use, unresolved referrals and contact after a no-contact choice remain at zero.

Before we say yes

• Does it fit a real local need?
• Can people take part safely and fairly?
• Are the facts, permissions and Rotary branding right?
• Who will lead it, and when will we review it?