In his New York Times best seller, Principles, Ray Dalio argues that setbacks, like losing a valued employee, provide an important learning opportunity for organizations — as long as leaders are willing to reflect on and identify the root cause of such losses. Too often, though, managers and HR professionals are so busy doing damage control that they fail to conduct a thorough autopsy to help them understand what happened and what corrective action is needed to prevent similar episodes from occurring in the future.

Of course, many organizations have an exit interview process that should, ostensibly, provide insights to help improve employee retention. However, even when conducted well, these interviews have serious shortcomings. Most notably, in cases of ghosting and other acts of impulsive quitting, workers may depart before their organization has the opportunity to conduct one. Even when exit interviews take place, research suggests that a large percentage of employees are not candid. Whereas some departing employees mask critical feedback in order to leave a positive impression, others feel that providing this information is a waste of time because they believe the company is unwilling to change. In addition, departing employees may feel that, because of how poorly their company treated them, management does not deserve to know their true reasons for leaving. In short, exit interviews are often ineffective.

So how can organizations respond to resignations in more constructive ways — ways that might transform the pain of employee turnover into progress? Based on our research studying the experiences of hundreds of resigning employees and the managers of recently resigned employees, we offer three recommendations:

Investigate how the employee resigned. People typically resign using one of seven styles, which range from positive and constructive to negative and harmful:

• Grateful goodbye: employees show appreciation and provide assistance as they depart
• In the loop: employees keep their supervisor apprised of their intention to leave
• By the book: employees give standard notice and an explanation for their departure
• Perfunctory: employees resign by the book but do not explain why they are leaving
• Avoidant: employees indirectly inform their manager or let word of their resignation filter back to them
• Bridge burning: employees engage in harmful dysfunctional behavior on their way out
• Impulsive quitting: employees walk out without giving any prior notice

These styles often reflect how departing employees feel they were treated by their organization and their manager prior to leaving. Therefore, if many employees within a firm resign by expressing gratitude and giving reasonable notice, this may signal that the organization is a healthy place to work. On the other hand, if bridges tend to get burned during employee resignations, leaders should take this as a signal that they should investigate the cause of these destructive departures.