I have to disagree. At least in some very specific circumstances.
First a bit of context. In Germany, some companies have something called a works council. A body of employees that represents the interests of the workforce vis-à-vis the employer.
The works council has certain rights and is well protected against reprisals. And it is bound to confidentiality.
For works councils, exit interviews are a valuable way to learn about problems that have previously flown under the radar. And in most cases, the works council is interested in improving things.
In many cases, it has the means to do so. It may take some time, as everything does, but in my experience exit interviews can help.
You don't "have to disagree". You're presenting a very different context than the one the author presents, a decidedly non-European working environment.
The one you relate has far more balanced relationships between employers and employees. In that one, there are stronger guarantees against reprisals, but I'd wager those guarantees are not foolproof either. It's very easy to poison someone's reputation in a community without them finding out for a very long time.
Everything can be disagreed with if you switch the context to an alternate universe. Your example was useful and probably astounding to a lot of North American workers, so I appreciate you sharing it.
First a bit of context. In Germany, some companies have something called a works council. A body of employees that represents the interests of the workforce vis-à-vis the employer.
The works council has certain rights and is well protected against reprisals. And it is bound to confidentiality.
For works councils, exit interviews are a valuable way to learn about problems that have previously flown under the radar. And in most cases, the works council is interested in improving things.
In many cases, it has the means to do so. It may take some time, as everything does, but in my experience exit interviews can help.