I have thankfully worked in mostly rational companies and been able to be honest with managers about what is or isn't working. At my last job though I spent more than a year saying repeatedly that I wasn't happy with my project work and that I wanted more pay. Annual review rolls around and they didn't fix it. I had a new job offer in a month and when I put in my notice my manager was shocked. He's a good guy but he was also my boss which means he's only going to pay me enough to stay. Just accept that fact and move on.
Match your notice period to the handover period - I'm sorry but everything about this section is wrong. Nothing you are working on is so important that you can't put it in a good state for someone else to pick up in your absence in two weeks. You stayed for 10 months? I can't tell if you or your employer was the one being strung along.
"Your new role, if you have one arranged, should respect your decision to be professional about your handover period. They’ll wait, don’t worry."
No - The hiring market for developers is red hot right now, no doubt about it, but potential employers are not going to sit around with a position open for months. Potential employers are not going to be impressed at your loyalty to a previous employer. They will think you are wasting their time and will probably be working to put someone else in that position while you dawdle.
The two weeks notice period is the conventional standard and everyone knows what it means. Stick to that and you'll be fine.
Could not agree more. The company is not, can not, and will not ever be loyal to you. Ever. They will fire you, lay you off, relieve you of duty instantly for any reason or no reason at all. They've lobbied for laws to do exactly that (in the US anyway).
And they will keep information asymmetrical in their favor. No. Matter. What. In the long run they will be dishonest with you, they will lie to your face, and they will keep you in the dark. You won't know plans until they want you to know plans. They have to. It's the only way it works.
You, as the employee, need to play the same game in the same way. Defensively. Know that you can keep information from them. Know you should only give information that is beneficial to you. Never self- sabotage. Never be weak. Business is a ruthless competitive game, and that includes employee to manager. You have no obligation to be honest in an exit interview. If it sucked horribly, leave with a smile and say it was great. Make it so they'll give you a great recommendation for your next gig. Lie to them like they lie to you. Bluff. Play chess, play poker.
You don't have to care one whit about leaving your teammates with more work. Does the company give one shit about laying you off a week before Christmas with zero notice? No. They don't give a care at all about the disarray this causes for your life. Ultimately you are a cog, and disposable. You are not "the most valuable resource". You must be as ruthless with them as they are with you. It's the only way it works.
Sure, this sounds super cyncial, you can absolutely do this and not be a dick. You don't have to be a dick at all, just think strategically, and know that you are the only one looking out for you, and you don't owe anyone anything.
There are people that will dismiss this as overly cynical because of the presentation.
But it is true.
In a big company, the VP of whatever department may feel bad about a layoff before Christmas, but they don't know you personally, and whatever numbers or major investors are motivating this don't lie.
In a small company, the same is true. They might wait until things are hopeless instead of trending to hopeless, but either way, they'll lay you off when it makes sense for them.
You might like your boss, but informing them well in advance of a departure is generally not a good move. Nice as they may be, they can't unknow that knowledge, and it will affect all their decisions going forward. And you, who are so sure you are leaving, may find that your outside offer is rescinded the week before Christmas (see above).
2 weeks is a reasonable courtesy and an acceptable risk. If your company needs you beyond that, contract billing should start at 5x your salaried rate, 20 hour minimum.
This is not being a dick. Before I left a certain job, I had my supervisor (also owner of the company) tell me exactly this. She once quit a job and did exactly this. And was proud of it. Even if I'm happy I no longer work for her, she was completely right about this move.
That's what I did and a previous employer occasionally has me do some maintenance work and are glad to pay that rate, especially if I get on it quickly.
I am a manager in a large tech company and we care about our employees. We will not fire/lay them off/relieve them of their duty for any reason or not reason. We treat them as we expect to be treated. We will support them if they have some unusual circumstances. We do this because it is the right thing to do, and because it makes business sense. These are not mutually exclusive.
Is that the same as saying there's no situation where people will be laid off or let go? No. But it would happen for a good reason.
In a previous large company a decision was made collectively to take a wage cut and not lay people off. Employees got stock options to make up for the cut. In the end that all worked out.
Being ruthless to your employees doesn't make business sense. Who wants to work at a place like that? Does everyone do that? Absolutely not.
It's true a company isn't a person, but a company is made of people, and decisions are made by people, and you want to work somewhere that has good people that give a damn. At least I do.
All that said ;) if you are leaving, I agree there's no reason to stretch it out. That doesn't help anyone. In any properly managed project any employee leaving isn't the end of the world. There should always be more than one person that know what's going on. Having someone sit around, like a Schrodinger's Cat, that is both there and not there, doesn't really help anyone. It just feels weird. The rules of the game are set (in your contract), you need to give a notice, you give this notice, you're done. We'll take you out for lunch. No hard feelings. People move on for all sorts of reasons.
I hear you, and what I wrote was cynical, because it's safer that way. I totally respect that you treat people like they want to be treated, and that you want to treat people with dignity. That's what we all hope for. You sound like a good boss. That's fantastic.
But, as a small counterpoint, you say:
>Is that the same as saying there's no situation where people will be laid off or let go? No. But it would happen for a good reason.
This is what I mean. The company has to do what is right for the company. And ultimately, it's employee be damned no matter how good, or loved or respected they are. You'll still be let go, and your life may go into disarray as a result. THe manager may lose sleep, but that won't stop it from happening. It also doesn't mean the company will hire you back, support you, or even give you a package on the way out other than a box to hold your personal belongings. It's gotta be that way.
All I'm saying, is that the employee has to know this, get it, and be willing to play the same game by the same rules. We're often taught to think that we owe the company or our former coworkers something, when we don't. If that means being less than truthful in an exit interview for example, or not sharing info with my manager so that I can make a move, then so be it. Employees have to do what's in their own best interest first.
I think many workers don't think this way and stay in dead-end, abusive, no-win situations out of a sense of loyalty that ultimately, won't and cannot be returned.
People two levels above me never asked my permission to lay me off. That's for sure.
I hear you, but I have been a consultant for very large companies (even mutual insurance cos, with basically zero profit motive), and at the end of they day they will make decisions for the company and not for the person. As in, we got the CEO to fire some of his direct reports that had been working at the company 20+ years. And then it rolled downhill. Don't get romantic with your employer unless you own the company (or at least 51% of the voting shares.)
Precisely. I have no doubt that there are company that have management that genuinely care.
But they are part of a bigger organization and when it comes time to firing/laying off employees, it’s just impossible not to screw employees over (or at least have them feel like they were screwed over).
You know lay offs are a couple months off but it’s hush hush. Employees will find out in a couple weeks. Your direct report John tells you how excited he is to finally find the right house and he’s about to release the last contingency and can’t back out after. What do you say? What can you say? And even if you could say “id wait another week” John probably doesn’t think he’ll be laid off.
Firing people always makes them feel screwed over. Personal situations can rarely be accommodated with big reorgs. It’s smarter to protect yourself.
What's the benefit to the company of not letting people know in advance if they know? What you are describing sound like a badly run company.
My company has not laid off a single person in two decades AFAIK. (not to say we won't fire a person if that's just not working out, but broad layoffs). two decades is more than some people stay married ;). so it's definitely a relationship. Could it happen? who knows. Sometimes the business doesn't work out.
Next time you interview somewhere ask them when is the last time they laid off a significant number of people... (or just Google it, it typically makes the news).
> I am a manager in a large tech company and we care about our employees.
This is the problem with management roles. Managers opportunity to find new job is so low they are forced to think they are part of the company. The company does not think the same. The same is not true for IC devs, this may not be for long, but currently this the case. I hope people be honest at least over internet.
There's plenty of demand for managers and I can still do "real" ;) work as well.
When I say we I don't just mean "me". I mean all levels up to the CEO. And we demonstrate that all the time, it's not just something we say.
Again, this is still a business, it's not a non-profit, but there is alignment between treating people well and having a good business and finding more great people. Randomly firing people or abusing people, is just stupid. Please don't work at places that do that, not only because you'll get fired, but because that business is hurting its long term success.
Not really. It's a market. This is true if employees don't care. But if you avoid these places like the plague then it won't make business sense. Unless you're ok with never getting anyone to work for you.
Now if the company's business is failing it obviously can't keep holding on to its employees. Again there is a market question here. Just don't go work for a company that goes through cycles of bad business, layoffs, maybe it's ok, bad business, layoffs.
So it's really up to you if you want to play that game.
The company I work for, throughout its existence, has never been able to hire as many people as it wants to. Its business is doing great. It has had amazing growth with more growth in front of it. It's maybe not as glamorous as some.
I am sure there are plenty of places where there is a good business and you will be treated well. Let's not make it the norm to not treat us well, it's up to all of us. If none of us give this any consideration, ofcourse the market will evolve to fit what we do (I'm sure there'll still be people/companies that do the right thing anyways, but less).
> You have no obligation to be honest in an exit interview
Also, you have no obligation to give former employers free insights and advice that they'd otherwise have to pay consultants thousands of dollars to figure out for them. That's what your feedback in an exit interview can be: free insights they'd otherwise have to pay for. There's no reason to give it to them for free.
I agree 100%. Even if you have a great boss who looks after you, they can be replaced or their boss can overrule them.
Like that quote from Peaky Blinders “Big fucks small. Always, actually.”
It’s a business arrangement, not a family or a friendship. Hold them to the contract. If they ask for more, tell them you’ll need compensation for it.
If they ask you to stick around, have an excuse ready. Don’t lie, because you don’t need to. “I can’t stay another 2 weeks I have a preexisting obligation.” “No, i can’t say what is it’s personal.”
I’ve been through 6 reorgs and been laid off several times. You take it personally at first, but then gain some clarity. The “family” stuff, the promises are all worth nothing. But once you know that it’s ok. You go in with eyes wide open.
Totally agreed. I once gave an ultra long notice because I was going to grad school in six months. I was part of the mass layoffs the next week. Best lesson I ever learned.
To preface my comment, I totally agree with your take away. Prioritize your own success above any other company, organization, or individuals success.
However, I can't help but feel you're painting with an overly broad brush. There absolutely are CEO's out there who would lie awake at night after laying people off a week before Christmas. Does that mean they wouldn't do it? No. They, like all of us, will ultimately make the decisions they need to make to succeed.
It may be comforting for you to imagine that everyone in a position of power over you is some evil super-villain devoid of empathy or emotion, but that isn't always the case. Things aren't that black and white.
Again I agree with your general sentiment. Be greedy and ruthless in your career. Don't make decisions that benefit your employer to your own detriment. Look out for yourself. 100%. I'm just not a fan of absolute statements like yours and wanted to add that businesses are ran by people too, and while some may be complete sociopaths, not all of them are.
Potential employers are sitting on empty positions, all the time. The market is not "red hot" unless you have the resume. This is continually demonstrated time and again as CS students struggle to enter the job market. We whom are paid for our work live in a bubble of success that by it's nature does not get to see the failure.
If companies were actually struggling they would fund education and find people to hire. Overwhelmingly tech refuses to fund education and is heavily competed over for job positions and internships. Just like every company says they make the best products, they say they're always hiring.
To be honest I think we agree about more than you make it seem!
What you did at your last job sounds exactly right to me – you were giving good feedback about what you needed, and when it wasn't heeded you left. Your manager didn't (or wasn't able to) hold up their side of that conversation and you moved to the "you should have left anyway" box. Doesn't sound fun, but we're in agreement on the steps there.
The 10 months thing seems to have tripped a few people up… I might try to rephrase that? Note that the section is titled "Avoid giving too much notice" and lists the reasons that 10 months was way too long. The advice is to match the notice period to the handover period, along with giving your manager ongoing feedback (as you did) if you're heading in this direction. Interestingly, one other commenter did a 12 (!) month notice period and it seemed to work in that situation.
Maybe that is where we've crossed wires on your last point too? I'm specifically not advocating for super-long notice periods, but as a hiring manager I would always respect a candidate who wanted to do e.g. 6 weeks instead of 2 if there was a good reason. For more senior roles, two weeks is not standard, nor is it internationally.
This seems a US-centric view. One or more months is the normal contractual notice period at least in the UK and Europe. The hiring market adapts. If you have reasonable relations with your teammates it might make sense to be less of a dick during a longer notice period. Obviously it's not mandatory but everyone will probably have a nicer time.
In some parts of Europe (Czechia specifically but I heard it worked similarly in other countries), the standard is two full calendar months, so usually about ten weeks. Some candidates request three months and the employer usually can wait.
Because the previous employer will also have to wait for a new hire, he will not want to let you out much sooner. It works the other way round as well. The employer can't fire you with a shorter notice period, unless there was some criminal behavior.
In Britain the notice period is usually one month, but in some cases (eg academia) it can be as long as three months. (I am currently in month 2 of my notice period…)
They actually stated 10 months was way too long and cited many reasons. So that's not advice, that's reporting what didn't work well. I think we're all on the same page here 10 months is way too long including TFA.
Yeah, you need to do what's best for your own career. Don't feel bad walking away for a better opportunity. Unless it's a very small company. I promise your multi billion dollar corporation is going to be just fine without you. Believing otherwise is ego.
I disagree with my manager (and other managers in the org) all the time. It's fine, we talk about the tradeoffs involved and figure out the best path forward.
Every time I hear people worried about disagreeing with management, it's because management are assholes. The managers I work with are good people. They're not perfect, but I do (mostly) trust their competency.
I'm also senior enough people can't push me around.
> How often do you find that when you disagree with management, the answer is almost always "management vs engineer, management wins"?
Management only "wins" sometimes, though I don't really view it through a win/loss lens. Usually there's quite a bit of give and take, as we try to figure out what's best.
I can remember engineers being hard-overruled exactly once. A large customer felt we were giving them poor service. Management upended our roadmap to prioritize things to keep the customer happy. Engineers were unhappy about the sudden change of plans, but we did end up keeping the customer. As much as I personally disliked the whole episode, management was probably right to overrule us.
> When are you ever to get management to do anything you need (or want) from them, or is it always on their own terms?
It's a two-way street, but you're correct they ask more of us than we do of them.
There's a typo in the article's headline. It should read:
"How Your Boss Would Like You to Quit"
I've always found the sociology of work fascinating, and how it can vary so much from industry to industry. When I read statements like:
> Your team trusted you and depended on you. It’s unethical to screw them over because they’re not paying you any more.
I wonder what their world view is, and why they think you're screwing them over and not the manager/company screwing them over. I see this often in society where there is a large imbalance of power: The weak turn on the weak rather than turn on those in power.
> Again, it’s unethical!
Leaving the team at short notice is unethical? You may want to look into how such a notion came into place, and who it benefits more.
Similarly, I often call out people at work who start throwing the words "professionalism" or "unprofessional" around. What do they think it means and why do they think that? It is fascinating.
There is some good stuff in the article. While I do believe one should treat the management and company well if they treat you well, I also tell people that they should never forget that if they can drop you at no notice, you don't owe them any more than that. Staying 2 weeks or longer is a courtesy, and not a sign of professionalism.
Just today got an email from a coworker who moved to another company some years ago. Her manager who she got along with very well recently jumped ship to another company, and her life is miserable under the new manager. Even if you have a great manager, always remember that they can (and probably will) leave. Plan your career accordingly.
Sort of. I think everyone should read "How to win friends and influence people" by Dale Carnegie. I think in any interaction, if you want to maximize your success, you have to approach it from the frame of reference of the person you are talking to. Put yourself in their shoes, and think about what they care about, what they value, and then whatever you want to do, express it to them with reference to their perspective.
This is especially true for hard conversations (like firing someone, or leaving a company, etc etc). Note that understanding and getting into their shoes does not mean bending over backwards to do it their way; you can still do things your way (or find a compromise between the two), but you have to convey that you understand their perspective and (ideally) how what you are doing can be beneficial / neutral for them from that perspective.
Another good source is Coyote Talk vs Giraffe talk (it sounds silly, but I promise it isn't). That one is more focused on personal relationships, but I think much of it can be applied to work interactions too.
Most fighting and animosity in the world is caused by people talking past each other, not engaging in actual constructive dialogue.
The thing about "How to win friends..." that isn't explicitly stated is that you are doing the things recommended in the book because you WANT something from them. You want their friendship, so you put yourself in their shoes to help achieve that.
In the case of quitting your job, I'm not sure it applies since what you really want to do is to leave. If you have a good relationship with your team and company, by all means be generous with your time. Otherwise, I don't think you'll get much value out of being overly considerate of your old company.
> In the case of quitting your job, I'm not sure it applies since what you really want to do is to leave. If you have a good relationship with your team and company, by all means be generous with your time. Otherwise, I don't think you'll get much value out of being overly considerate of your old company.
The # of times I've encountered people from my past is staggering.
No reason to needlessly anger people, especially if leaving a good impression just takes a wee bit more effort.
I'm not disagreeing with what you say, but I am having trouble connecting your comment to mine - did you mean to reply to someone else?
> Put yourself in their shoes, and think about what they care about, what they value, and then whatever you want to do, express it to them with reference to their perspective.
Agreed, but applies equally to managers as it does to employees.
> Most fighting and animosity in the world is caused by people talking past each other, not engaging in actual constructive dialogue.
The challenge in doing this is that there is often a great deal of information asymmetry between employees and management. It's quite common for managers not to be completely transparent (and at times, they're not allowed to when it comes to things like compensation). This automatically (and in my opinion, fairly) results in employees withholding information (personal motives, etc) as well. When there is either a power or information asymmetry, you'll find that usually the one who has the more power/information has to put in more effort to win the trust of the other.
> It should read: "How Your Boss Would Like You to Quit"
Touché, yes there's some truth to this. Many of the points in the post were reflections on people leaving my team as I have an order of magnitude more examples of that than me leaving a team. If you're implying there's some kind of zero-sum thing going on here though, I disagree: it can be good for both you and your boss.
> I wonder what their world view is…
I don't quite follow this paragraph, could you rephrase?
> Leaving the team at short notice is unethical?
Ah, no – this is in the "Don’t sabotage, it’s a dick move" section: it's sabotage which is unethical.
> Ah, no – this is in the "Don’t sabotage, it’s a dick move" section: it's sabotage which is unethical.
I guess the source of the confusion is that you didn't specify what the sabotage actually is. I mean, deleting all your code before leaving is sabotage. Leaving without notice isn't. What did you have in mind when you wrote that?
> I don't quite follow this paragraph, could you rephrase?
I was highlighting a bunch of beliefs some people have:
- The notion that you should have loyalty to the team beyond your last paycheck.
- The notion that it is you being disloyal to the team, as opposed to management being disloyal to the team.
- The general framing that by lumping people into a team, that there is a single shared goal. A lot of people come to work to get paid, and they do it by providing value. Two people in the same team are allowed to have very different goals. One may care much more deeply about the mission than the other, etc.
- That much of the article places the burden on the employee leaving compared to on the management.
> I guess the source of the confusion is that you didn't specify what the sabotage actually is
Ah ha, I see – yes I had in mind actively doing stuff to undermine the team after the person has left (on the benign end, deliberately doing a crappy job of documentation; on the malignant end, stuff like data destruction). I will make this clearer in the post, thanks!
> - The notion that you should have loyalty to the team beyond your last paycheck.
It made me sad to read this. You don't have to be loyal to your team, of course, but your framing makes me think that you've never been in a position where you've wanted to be loyal to your team, long-term.
Wanting to be loyal to a team is a fools errand. It's the embodiment of having been successfully indoctrinated into the 'work as life & family' culture. I went through 20 years of that because it's my nature. Without a doubt it has been to the detriment of my career and personal life. Stayed on too long at dead-end jobs where I was the parent in the room; Stayed on too long at jobs that underpaid and leveraged my loyalty to add responsibility without recompense; Worked far too many hours a week for no actual reward other than praise.
Managers preach this because they want to make their problems yours as an employee. I know this because I've done it too and will probably do it again at some point.
Loyalty is not a one way street, but being an employee always is, there are no exceptions. Employment is having Damocles sword hanging over you and it's foolish to think otherwise.
I've been in a team that I wanted to be loyal to. I'm actually still friends with some of my former teammates from there. It was a great job right up until the point where they laid off as many people as legally possible and lied about the reasons.
It might be different for an employee-owned cooperative, but if you're working for a corporation, loyalty is a bad tradeoff even if you like your team. The risk/reward of things like being honest with your manager about what isn't working just isn't there (and you'd be surprised - or maybe you wouldn't - how quickly a seemingly friendly manager can decide to act like a total dickhead, and there's nothing you can do about it if they do).
> You don't have to be loyal to your team, of course, but your framing makes me think that you've never been in a position where you've wanted to be loyal to your team, long-term.
I'm sure such places exist, but most jobs are not like that, sadly.
In any case, there's a difference between want and should. I'm not criticizing people who want to be loyal to the team. Just those that think there is an obligation to.
> I guess the source of the confusion is that you didn't specify what the sabotage actually is. I mean, deleting all your code before leaving is sabotage. Leaving without notice isn't. What did you have in mind when you wrote that?
There are three main sections in the article:
- Your reasons for leaving shouldn’t be a surprise to your boss
- Match your notice period to the handover period
- Set the team up to flourish without you
The "don't sabotage" subsection is under the "Set the team up to flourish without you" section, not the "Match your notice period to the handover period" section.
Seems fairly common sense that the author did not intend to conflate lack of notice with sabotage, considering that the subject of sabotage is completely independent and separate from the section relating to notice.
Speaking the painful truths to your coworkers and higher ups can be very productive 'sabotage': you don't have to worry about job security anymore so you can say things that need to be said but others are afraid to.
Not having a backup or turnover process in place is a rookie move made by companies that haven't reached a maturity.
Thinking the employee is sabotaging by leaving the company is a sign you don't understand what the role of an employee is. You are not 5 friends hacking together a game and if someone quits because they get a girlfriend you call them a dick.
You are a resource that has been purchased and assigned to work on a specific task. The company hopes to leverage something you do into a profit or as support for a business unit.
This is excellent advice for those working in a rational environment. For those working in an ego-driven environment, not so much. Plan your exit strategy as you would from an abusive spouse. Don't assume good faith on anyone else's part.
In a rational environment if you're leaving "for cause", it shouldn't come as a shock to your employer when you quit, in the same way a bad performance review or firing shouldn't come as a shock to the employee. There should be feedback in both directions, if they're not meeting your career goals or you're not meeting their performance goals.
But as a rule I wouldn't tell my boss I'm actively interviewing until I have an offer in hand. Just like, and for a lot of the same reasons, the company as a rule isn't going to inform under-performing employees that they're actively looking to hire someone to replace them before firing them.
Indeed, I was thinking where are these rational managers where you can discuss things openly. It seems the world of management is full of petty narcissistic control freaks.
It seems the world of management is full of petty narcissistic control freaks.
It can sure seem that way -- and no doubt is that way, in certain situations.
More often I find they're simply ... scared. Of how they'll be evaluated, or what will happen if they make a mistake (or heavens, let someone below them make a mistake). Or of simply being "found out" (that they're not nearly as experienced or as sage in their advice as others have made them out to be).
These managers definitely do exist - I have had them, I have seen them, and I have tried to be one.
Perhaps I should have included "rational conversation is possible" as a decision point in the flowchart, with a negative answer leading to "you should leave anyway"!
I'm far from perfect as a manager, but I've always worked to help employees working for me evaluate their career options inside and outside our company. I've had open conversations with my bosses about what my goals, skills, limits, etc. were. Many times, I've "saved" employees (from quitting) by helping them see a better path here than they expected was possible. Other times, I've said "holy crap, that sounds amazing and, even though I really value having you work here, I have to advise you that I'd make the jump if I was in your shoes." I've told my boss when (and why) I was interviewing for other roles. I've also told them when I've been totally satisfied and not intending to look for a while.
I could work for a boss that I couldn't trust with that data, but I much prefer working for one that I can and I try to be the one that my directs can trust with it.
I worked in many places including ego-driven, political and/or irrational.
Leaving gracefully has never backfired on me. Actually, the opposite happened. Leaving gracefully has left me with some good friends and has led me to opportunities from people I worked with in the past and have became successful in the meantime.
Additionally, at almost every company I happen to work with somebody that I have known before. Answer yourself, do you really want your ungraceful exit to become a problem at your new company now or in the future? What does it cost you to leave gracefully?
I still strongly suggest you get everything in order (employment offer accepted) before sharing you are on a job search. Companies will start planning without you and you may not land the perfect job for months.
Would a company share they are posting a job to replace you and then ask you to train that person before they actually do?
Graceful is 2/3 weeks notice of handing off projects.
Well, you should have offer before you put your notice. I usually wait until I have the new contract signed. But the notice should not be a surprise to anybody.
I tell my boss that I am actively searching, don't yet have an offer or a concrete date. I also tell him not to worry and reassure I will try to give him as much notice as possible and will cooperate to close whatever projects we can close and do necessary transfers gracefully.
This lets him plan some things like grooming my replacement or put more emphasis on closing projects rather than starting new ones. Which is additional benefit for me because there aren't many things worse for me than working on a project that I know I will never be able to finish.
Also here in Poland notice period is 1 month minimum. Since it is calendar month it can even be almost two months. But I also work as tech lead which means there is way more projects I am involved in and way more technical stuff to pass.
I try as much as I can not to be a bus factor 1 employee but somehow there is always a bunch of things that people realise would like to get done before I leave because they know otherwise they will have to wait forever for them.
You mention Poland and the different notice period. I think this has a significance. If the minimum notice - if you can time it that way - is a full month and on average it's closer to 1.5-2 months, that is quite different from the United States, where there's only a 2 week notice period in your contract and (AFAIK) none by law.
Those are two very different environments. With a usual 2 week notice period and the possibility to basically say "I'm not coming in tomorrow" and nobody can do anything about it things are quite different.
I have never told anyone that I was leaving until I had the other contract signed and they suspected nothing. I still never left on bad terms and gave the required notice. I found that more than a month of notice is actually much easier in this regard but if the employer puts a 2 week notice period in the contract - such that they only have to give 2 weeks - then I am under no obligation to do differently. If they want more notice, put it in the contract and stick to it themselves as well. That's how it was at my jobs in Europe. I had more than a month both ways and of course I gave that notice gladly as I would have received the same the other way around.
> I tell my boss that I am actively searching, don't yet have an offer or a concrete date.
And what if you fail to procure an offer and your manager doesn't want to have to worry about you jumping ship so they find a replacement for you anyway?
I don’t think it’s good advice even for someone working in a rational environment.
The part about giving ten months notice is terrible. He even says that it was bad for both sides! He was mentally checked out for months and not coming up with long term solutions because he knew he was out of there. Not my supposition - he literally says that.
My past three jobs have all lasted at least a decade. I just don’t agree with much if any of the advice here other than the blatantly obvious things like “don’t sabotage them” lol.
The section you're referring to is titled "Avoid giving too much notice
" and basically gives five reasons for why 10 months was a harmfully-long notice period.
I think you may have missed the part in my original comment where I said He even says that it was bad for both sides!.
Respectfully, my point was that the way the author (you?) left that company reads like it was a train wreck. To a level that I wouldn't look to the author for any advice on how to leave a company.
And what was the advice? Don't sabotage the company and don't give 10 months notice? If ten thousand people quit a job, how many would even imagine doing either of those things?
But yes, there were certainly some things I would have done differently.
For me, I tend to learn more from my or someone else's mistakes than from when something went swimmingly – the post is an attempt to capture some of those.
Your last paragraph strawmans me… but yes, two of my points are related to what you mention. Don't sabotage your team and don't give too much notice – I've seen several people do one or the other of these.
Eh... kind of? Like, I don't disagree that there are reasonable points here, but:
> Quitting should never be a surprise for your boss
> What’s the worst that can happen?
Not a total surprise, but in many environments even hinting that you're looking to leave will... greatly increase the urgency of your search. They might not terminate you outright (or they may), but it's gonna make the rest of your time there a lot less fun. The worst that can happen is that you admit you're thinking about leaving and get escorted out by security. Obviously it depends exactly what we mean by not being a surprise; problems should generally be communicated... perhaps it would be better to say "Your boss should be able to say why you left"?
> Match your notice period to the handover period
I personally think the handover part is a symptom; at least for the kind of work I do, if there was truly that much to hand over something already failed. Process goes in wiki, tasks go in Jira, code goes in version control... sure, there will always be a few things that only you really understood and some in-flight work that's not fully written down in a ticket, but IMO if it takes you even 2 full weeks to exit gracefully then either you messed up or the company messed up (ex. there was no other person to hand off to and they couldn't hire that fast).
> in many environments even hinting that you're looking to leave will... greatly increase the urgency of your search
Just to provide a single anecdote of this, my friend worked as a recruiter at a well known company. If higher ups got proof that you had applied to another job, you would be terminated day of and whisked out of the office by security.
The stories from him and his coworkers of the subterfuge involved in job applications were impressive.
I just tightened up the intro explaining whom this post is meant for, and assumed that high-demand industries would be pretty immune to this kind of insanity
This was a recruiting firm that would call itself a tech company. I doubt they treated engineers the exact way, but I heard similar stuff from data folks that worked there.
I once gave clear indications that I was considering joining a startup in hopes that the company could start looking for my replacement. I wasn't treated any differently and carried on as usual until I gave my notice.
Much later, after the startup failed I learned that those months of knowing that I'd likely be leaving and there was little they could do about it was a very terrible time for the higher up dev vp/cto/whatever. My team lead was all fine with it. So the lesson I learned is that it's not the thought that counts.
[It was ironic/unfortunate when I came back for a short term contract and got hired-away before completion on accident by a thinly-veiled coding contest.]
Why was it a terrible time for them? The only thing that comes to mind is that there's an "open slot on the team," but it can't be filled because they're still there.
I think it's because I was a go-to person for solving deep problems and would be hard to fill. Also having others know and you being ultimately responsible while mostly powerless wouldn't be fun. I don't know the details, but some short time after I left the product team I was on stopped being offered. I think I would have fought to keep it around longer. Either that or I'm the rat that left the sinking ship.
Hmm, I hear you on the first point… Perhaps I'm blinkered to roles in tech (to which this post was aimed, but not explicitly enough)?
In my experience at such companies, people certainly aren't walked if they express dissatisfaction in their role – but you're right that this doesn't necessarily transfer onto roles which are less competitive. I will think about how to tighten that piece up: thanks for the feedback.
On the second point, I can only congratulate you if you manage to keep everything so organised and compartmentalised! It's something I've aspired to but always fallen short of.
> On the second point, I can only congratulate you if you manage to keep everything so organised and compartmentalised! It's something I've aspired to but always fallen short of.
If your boss/company values it, you'll do it. If they don't, I don't feel obligated to wrap this up before I leave. Typically, they tend to reward folks who prefer not to write good documentation and rather code features. It shouldn't be up to these folks to fix the problem their manager/company culture has by suddenly writing docs when they have to leave.
I think training someone on work you've done in the last few weeks makes sense. But beyond that - no. If my manager wants me to work solo on a project for months and doesn't want me to train someone until I announce I'm leaving, then it's the manager's headache - not mine.
Right, unless the job/manager are totally insane they should never be surprised that you are to some degree dissatisfied. But in many jobs, it is to the employee's benefit to operate in such a way that the manager is surprised that they're actually leaving.
That's very... transactional. I prefer organizations with cultures which are more relational.
I spent a lot of time at work. I'd like work to be a community, for my work to be meaningful and interesting, and on the whole, that's more important than making a half a megabuck a year optimizing ad clicks.
I have a job like that, and it doesn't pay as much as FAANG, but you know something: it pays enough, and I'm happy.
I find the whole modern/California transactional culture is toxic to my psychological well-being, from divorce/relationship-hopping culture to job hopping culture to everything else. The whole world doesn't work like that, fortunately. Please don't try to force it to.
(And conversely, I'm fine with the transactional culture existing, so long as I'm not in it)
I think it's really cool that this particular employee had a great quitting experience.
However, this is the worst advice I have ever read. Good experiences should not be translated into advice. Your employer is not your friend. You may be lucky enough to have friends who share the same employer, but at the end of the day you are employed by a business, treat it accordingly.
Here's how I handle quitting in a remote world (as a cold hearted jerk/machine, aka a business). I give my two weeks notice, and start my new job the same day I give notice. I effectively have no real work to do the last two weeks at my current job, and have a nice relaxed onboarding at my new job. At the end of the two weeks I collect two paychecks. Rinse and repeat every 1-2 years to collect a 30-40% raise.
That's an insanely pollyanna take on quitting. What's the worst that could happen? You could get fired for looking for another job. This happens. Most people I know have worked for someone toxic, or worked for a toxic organization.
If you work for nice people and things just don't align, yeah, sure, this approach may be fine, but it's by no means universal.
I think the assumption is getting fired instantly from a toxic organization is probably a good thing. The problem is that a high likelihood of a better outcome (as opposed to ending up living in your car), still isn't a guarantee.
The most risk-averse strategy should still use some of the advice posted here, but concerns like minimizing other people's problems and your own guilt are not worth the dangers.
The article's comment to that "But if you have a crap manager it’s better to find that out clearly, and early" is, frankly, ridiculous - discussing your potential quitting is not the way how one would "find out early" that they have a crap manager - presumably they would already know very well at that point, and this would likely be a big part of why they're quitting.
> the assumption is getting fired instantly from a toxic organization is probably a good thing
That's correct – although I definitely take on board some of the other commenters' feedback about things like visas tied to roles. I'm going to add some clarification to make it clear this really relates to employees in good standing in tech companies (obviously a tiny minority of the populace and one of the few groups who have the guarantee you mention).
I have never had this happen to me but I'm always prepared to walk out the door the same day I hand in my 2 week's.
Any personal effects that I'm not using regularly have already snuck home with me during the previous week or two. Documentation I've been meaning to write has at least been attempted to be cleaned up.
Yeh that was my thought, I only got as far as that flow chart. It's missing a path from "your manager hears you out" to "you get fired because they've decided it's better for them if you go now".
And while that may be better in the long term, it's not so good if you want to keep earning while you find your next move.
Ten months notice - Wow, that is WAY too much. If anything that's a strong indication that you or your company failed completely at your duties _prior_ to your resignation. A "professional" would never let themselves or their company be in such a position of utter dependence in the first place. Two weeks notice should always be sufficient for both parties.
FWIW I gave 5 weeks notice at a job a decade ago and immediately regretted it - the last few weeks were beyond awkward as I'd already wrapped up all my projects, spoken to all my colleagues and clients, etc. I was waiting for the job to end but kept getting roped into last minute projects that I could not in good faith contribute to because I was, admittedly, just sitting around waiting for it to be over. Everyone lost.
2 weeks max is optimal and expected for everyone. If you're feeling pressured to give more time to the company after resigning, say no and stick firm to 2 weeks. If they've got actionable work and you're able (i.e. not exclusively employed immediately thereafter), give them the option to hire you as a contractor. If the work is actually valuable, they should have no problem cutting you a check to complete it as a consultant. If not, well they're lying to you and stringing you along to extract any value they can - and you should leave in two weeks if not sooner.
I gave that much of a heads-up of my leaving (not a formal resignation, as it happens) for a few reasons including:
1. It's a C-level replacement, which takes _months_
2. I cared deeply (and still do) about my team and the company mission, and wanted them to succeed: "the more notice the better" seemed right to me (it wasn't)
3. My career plans were to move into a new field which would require various courses, lots of reading, conferences, etc. – although I knew I was leaving, I hadn't even started speaking to potential next employers or investors when I told my CEO I was leaving
Putting all of that together is how I ended up with the 10 month blunder, but the post is less against 10 month notice periods, and more for matching the notice period to your handover, whatever that would be.
I feel your pain on working out those 5 weeks you mention! Awkward for everyone involved.
The game in California is "at will employment". I don't know about other industries, but most tech firms will lay you off with 0 days of notice if they no longer need your services, for example, to save money.
On the other hand, loyalty to people may or may not be worthwhile - this very much depends on the people and your experience may be drastically different from everyone else'.
Agreed. Even if you have a contract with x weeks notice period, breaching the contract is a legal move(penalty may vary).
I had a non-standard 1 month notice period in my contract(normal is 2 weeks). I let them know I'm leaving in two weeks. They mentioned the notice period but I held my ground. They folded and 2 weeks was plenty to handover my work.
> Quitting should never be a surprise for your boss
I get the spirit of this. But someone whos in tech on a visa, this is absolutely the worse advice. The fear or retaliation is real, especially in bigger firms where your manager has a lot of say. The moment higher ups have the slightest inkling that you're looking for other jobs, you'll soon get pushed out.
It’s changed and by the fact they call it INS (and not UCSIS, changed in 2003) makes me think it happened a while back.
I know way back, TN visa holders got no grace period once dismissed from a job. Unofficially it was “24 hours”, and Canadians could always turn around and come back as a tourist to clean up, but that’s a huge kick in the teeth to someone you just fired.
Reasonable (though fairly hackneyed) advice. Until I get to this:
> I let my boss know I was leaving in February, so my commitment to see things through to the end of the year was effectively a 10-month notice period.
This, ironically, was the first sentence in a section entitled "Avoid giving too much notice"
If you can't handoff your work in less than 2 weeks, either you as an employee have failed to properly document and communicate status of what you are doing, or the company culture has failed because it created an environment where someone could not pick up what you were doing and continue it. Why? Replace "quitting" with "suddenly died." Companies that can't recover from stuff like this are poorly run and with bad frontline managers.
Short of being a founder and CEO of a startup who has to leave, and needs to gently hand it over so the company doesn't die, there is no valid reason for 10 months of notice. Hell, that is probably not a good reason.
OP here, yeah I mention the 10 months thing as an example of what not to do – the actual handover of tasks I did in maybe 1–2 months, and that was at a leisurely pace TBH. The first ~9 months we were in a slightly weird limbo unfortunately – that's what I was flagging up as an anti-pattern there.
The author freely admits a 10 month handover was counter productive. But equally 2 weeks is not appropriate for many roles, especially in smaller companies, or where you may be the only employee with a specialist skill.
It sounds like it may be more of a north american phenomenon to walk out of jobs at your own discretion(?). In my experience, people in the UK are observant of contractual notice periods and 3 months is not unusual for someone in a senior position.
It's become a bit of a nonsensical arms race to tie people down to longer and longer notice periods to make it easier to bring someone in who hopefully has a shorter notice period for a convenient handover.
I am the sole programmer and support for a very large companies production system. The company has flagged the problem and has tried to re-write the system for several years but have never managed to retain a coherent programming team long enough to see the project through nor found a suitable replacement in the market.
Luckily for them I am a contractor not an employee but there are definitely grey areas.
People here have been burnt by bad managers and it's honestly sad. If you have a personal relationship with your manager beyond emails and "how was your weekend", there's a good chance they will appreciate your longer notice (not 10 months!) and you'll keep them on your side for the rest of your career. I gave a 2-months notice once, and my manager's manager even helped me find my next role at a different company (which I ended up taking instead of an offer from Facebook).
I can't remember which company it was, but some startup CEO posted on Hacker News a few months ago that they have a proper procedure for "long notices" where they help employees, even if they decide to stay at the end of it. That should be the goal in my opinion.
P.S.: Yes, it can be more tricky in large corporations where the manager isn't independent and their manager is vindictive.
Exactly, this sounds like such a grown-up way to wind down a working relationship! I'm sure you'll stay in touch with that person and perhaps even refer people in their direction in the future.
I've stayed in touch with people even with "short" notices (1 month in my case) even if my leaving was a surprise. It just means the managers were professionals and didn't make me miserable as I was leaving. In one case, my CTO was an absolute gem through my entire stint there. It falls as much on them for me to want to stay in touch
Having spent more time working in toxic environments than non-toxic ones I really appreciate this perspective on managing the difficult decision to exit.
As many commenters have pointed out: When there are no professional relationships you want to preserve for the years (decades!) to come the matter is easily handled with a two week notice and a swift departure before the morning light.
However, when you have been fortunate enough to have worked with great colleagues it is a lot harder to exit the building without damaging your relationship with them.
I've worked with great people a lot. When I make a move they understand that it's best for me. I understand it's best for them. One of the reasons they're great is that they document their work and share knowledge, so if someone leaves the rest of the team can pick up where they left off.
Yes, the company then has the hassle of hiring, but companies need to factor that in and get to it.
It seems almost childish that anyone would take such a move personally.
When you let your manager know you're unhappy then they can also quickly move to hire a replacement and fire you. You don't own a company anything beyond the last paycheck you received. Two weeks notice is the norm and, hey, it's just business. Don't take it personally if an employee leaves.
Your first sentence is true. Perhaps it's overly reductive of me, but if that's what your boss would do you're in that red "you should leave anyway" box, in my opinion.
A few other commenters have pointed out good reasons (e.g. visas) where you need to keep your cards closer to your chest, but the vast majority of people reading Hacker News can find a role where it's not so transactional. Where you're valued as a person and teammate, and where you can have a grown-up conversation about your career plans.
Those open conversations are harder to have if you truly believe your second sentence, however!
I always give 2 weeks notice before quitting and make the transition as easy as possible, doing handoff meetings and educating whoever's taking over.
In exchange, I usually get shafted by the employer. In one case they tried to claw back a signing bonus (despite the employment agreement etc not giving them the right to do it - nice) and in another case the abusive studio head walked over and told me to take my shit and leave immediately despite the fact that I was a producer in charge of an entire team and hadn't done any handoff (shocking no one, the latter studio ended up shipping their product 4+ years behind schedule)
So I guess my takeaway is that it's still valuable to be nice if you care about the impact on your teammates, but I don't think your boss deserves it. Especially now when many companies have a policy of not providing references beyond 'yes i can confirm that so-and-so worked here' - the concept of 'burning your bridges' by not being sufficiently deferential to your awful boss doesn't exist.
Heeding this advice would be much more generous than employers typically are, especially in an at-will employment environment. In my experience, employers give zero notice and provide zero assistance helping an employee find a replacement.
I think it depends on the situation. I definitely agree that performance-based firings would tend to be extremely brutal compared to the approach I advocate for here (largely due to the various risks posed by aggrieved employees).
Perhaps I should add that this advice best (only?) applies if you're leaving a company in a sort of "natural parting of ways" kind of situation? Thanks for the feedback.
No only performance-based firings, but throw-someone-else-under-the-bus firings and bad-management firings. Also cost-cutting layoffs or outsourcing-layoffs.
Regardless of the cause, an employer almost-always will require a separation agreement be signed as a requisite action for any amount of severance pay. This is entirely to the benefit of the employer.
In my experience an article about how to quit like a boss would involve making a ton of bad decisions, then jumping ship, using your "leadership experience" at the smoking crater you left behind as a way to get a higher paying position somewhere else. There may be a better way, but that's the only way I've ever seen a boss actually quit.
I don't get this advice. At least in tech it is understood that everyone has their eye open for the next big opportunity. If one comes along, I'm not going to hesitate to take it. It doesn't have to mean that there's a problem in my current role that I need to address with my manager. Sometimes you simply know that it is time to leave and try something new. If my current company is "surprised" by my decision and unprepared for my absence then that's on them.
Totally agree. I've found that the process of interviewing tends to shift my mindset, and I'm not really interested in staying, even if they match my pay.
I just left a role. I wasn't really unhappy, I just hit a tenure that was long enough that it was time to go. 4-5 years if you're senior++ level is about right. I read the employee handbook, which asked for 2 weeks, and that's what I gave. I worked hard to transition and document everything I could. Never said anything bad about the company (I really didn't have anything to say), and I complemented and thanked my bosses.
Keep it classy, respectful, and professional - that's how a true boss quits.
> it is understood that everyone has their eye open for the next big opportunity
This hasn't been my approach, nor has it been for many people I've worked with – or perhaps we're tripping over language?
Let's say that someone is super motivated by a high salary. They would be helping their manager (and, in most situations, themselves) if they were open about that. Up to and including conversations like "I hear that Company X is paying 20% more for a comparable role – here's some data to show I'm underpaid".
It's those kinds of conversations which would mean that your manager won't be surprised if in 6 months you leave for a better-paying role. Or, perhaps you get a nice pay rise. Or, if you can't have such conversations, see the red "you should leave anyway" box in the post!
But if you know that the current company cannot pay like the other company you are interviewing for, or that in this new company the future salary outlook is much better, why bother asking if they can pay you more?
In the work life, one needs to be strategic; it appears to me that most people on here who are commenting somewhat negatively about people giving 2-week notice and nothing else have never been laid off or fired or somewhat "mistreated" by a company.
The way to be an excellent employee is to always deliver work to the best of one's capabilities and give 2-week notice before leaving.
In one company I worked for, somebody gave a 2-week notice and was let go immediately. It is not unheard of, and most legacy companies could not care less about a possible PR problem.
Those legacy companies live in a galaxy that is far away from the one inhabited by start-ups and similar good PR-dependent companies, they are populated mostly by old dinosaurs that recruit heavily among the not-too-brilliant technical people.
> But if you know that the current company cannot pay like the other company you are interviewing for, or that in this new company the future salary outlook is much better, why bother asking if they can pay you more?
That's situation-dependent: there's often stuff a company can do if you're highly cash-motivated (promotions, other title changes, bonuses, …) to retain you.
On the other hand, often there's not! Especially in older / larger orgs or ones with unconventionally rigid payscales. Even in that situation, I'd generally stand by the recommendation: there's a chance they will find a way to accommodate your needs, and if not you have cemented a strong relationship with your manager and above that will benefit you way into the future.
A few other commenters have mentioned the benefits they have realised by leaving gracefully. IMO this expected upside outweighs the short-term risk, at least in the sorts of roles the post is (now) aimed at.
I especially agree on the approach regarding pay. Contrast that with "I have an offer from Company X that is 20% more, can you match it?" In the former case, you can be seen as expressing a sort of loyalty, in the latter case you live with a little extra workplace hostility even if your current employer agreed to match the offer. In that sense, when it's time to go it's best to go.
I think the very first sentiment is the most universal one:
Your quitting should not be a surprise to your manager.
Just like year-end review (for those companies that have it) should not be a surprise to the employee - feedback should be continuous. Similarly, if your (rational, to another posters point) manager's reaction is one of complete shock and surprise, it may be a sign you two weren't communicating sufficiently and planned/discussed your goals/expectations/challenges/direction/etc.
The assumption here is that the employee leaving the company was due to some problems that could not be solved after careful discussion with the manager, skip-level etc. But leaving a company can also happen because another company offers you 50% more money or a different role, or you just feel like changing.
For any employee, including managers, directors and up—there is only one thing to remember: when the company intends to let you go, they don't ask for your opinion. Two-week notice is professional and more than enough.
> when the company intends to let you go, they don't ask for your opinion. Two-week notice is professional and more than enough
American culture is so bizarre.
Here in the UK notice (in both directions) is usually contractually 1 month after 6 months, sometimes up to 3 months. If they really want to get rid of you they can pay you to job seek full-time for a few months, which is great. In practice, you get several months of relaxed handover.
After 2 years you get statutory protection and can't be fired, only made redundant, which comes with 1 week notice per year worked.
In the UK 3 months is unusual, I've only ever heard about it for management positions. In tech roles 1 month is standard AFAICT.
Personally I'd never work on a three month term, I consider it abusive, it completely kills your ability to find a new role before handing in your notice. You'd have to be really confident of your skills and of the market before you made that leap.
And you can be fired for all sorts of reasons after 2 years, including poor performance, but there has to be a reason and you have to be given notice and a chance or three to fix the problem.
I've never had an employer unwilling to wait 3 months for me to start.
> And you can be fired for all sorts of reasons after 2 years, including poor performance, but there has to be a reason and you have to be given notice and a chance or three to fix the problem.
If you're working a tech role you have the money to get legal advice and help avoid illegal firing. They can't just make up poor performance.
> I've never had an employer unwilling to wait 3 months for me to start.
I've had employers unwilling to wait two weeks, and that was when I was the only person on the market with the specific skills they needed (in the UK). Hell, in later years when I've been contracting the entire job can be done and over in in three months.
Fundamentally if I need someone to fill a role, and if you can't do it for three months but someone else can do it in one, or even better immediately, I'm taking them.
Are the roles you've been in all in very large corporates?
> They can't just make up poor performance.
Of course, but they can fire you for reasons like poor performance if they are well grounded in that evaluation. Clearly it shouldn't be a surprise as your management should have been talking to you and helping you get up to scratch, but it does exist as a way to get rid of someone who is genuinely underperforming. Your post above made it sound like redundancy was the only way.
Yes! Good point: the manager needs to create the forum for those conversations to happen but the report still needs to take it on themselves to have that sometimes-awkward conversation.
I'm glad that things worked out for the author but this is just generally not great advice for most people.
As nice as your manager is, even if they have your best interests in mind, they ultimately answer to someone else. And that means that even if they don't want to, they can f*k you over with minimal notice anyways. There's a power imbalance there.
Certainly don't be a dick about leaving and burn a ton of bridges... but the standard 2 weeks with professional and minimal responses is the way to go.
This title needs an edit, like many of those noted, "How to Quit Like a Boss when you work for Rational People". Many places have toxic irrational people who would fire you in an instant and then have security escort you out of the office like a criminal.
The simple frame of mind you should have when letting people go or leaving yourself is that it's a small world and you might end up working together, interacting, meeting at a conference, etc. in a different context at some point in the future. So, don't burn any bridges.
An employment relation is a business relation ship with some contractual obligations and rights. It's all spelled out in the employment contract. Anything on top of that is the personal integrity of the employee and the reputation of the company. It's a mutual interest to do the right thing on both sides and behave in a way that is consistent with maintaining a good reputation.
For employees: your actions at company A might cause you problems at company B. People talk. I've seen people torpedo their careers by basically getting a well deserved reputation for not being entirely reliable/trustworthy. Anger issues in particular can be a problem. If you have them, learn to deal with them. I've actually advised friends to not hire certain people based on my negative experience with them. I've also done the opposite and helped people out by introducing them to their future employer. My own career changes each involved people in my network recommending me or introducing me. So, don't burn any bridges even if your employer treats you badly. Keep it friendly and professional.
For employers: people talk about their employers both inside and outside the company. If your reputation suffers because of how you treat your own employees, it becomes a problem for recruiting. The more disgruntled ex-employees you have, the harder it becomes to recover from that. You can offer more money to compensate but your actions will cost you. Worse, your own employees might start voting with their feet if they see you treat people badly. It's usually your best people that leave first when that happens. Because they have options and good reputations. If the A's leave, you end up with a lot of B's hiring C's.
It's funny how the diagram directly contradicts the entire article.
"Your manager hears you out"
NO -> "You should leave anyway"
That's exactly the reason why you don't share your exit plan prematurely. Your exit plan is still in progress, it may need more time, it may fail altogether. You're risking all of that by telling about your exit too early.
Don't say anything until you have a signed contract at the next employer. Do leave cleanly and gracefully.
Do lie about reasons. Just say the place was great, and you were just looking for a change. This keeps your network spotless and you might get a reference letter. Should times go dark, you may have a place to run back to.
You should keep your cards close. Never tell your employer what you are planning on doing in the coming weeks, months. They never tell you as an employee after all.
This is bad advice and seems like the author doesn't have a lot of experience/ is naive. Quit with 2 weeks notice if you find something better and leave.
It’s the company and supervisor’s job to manage the success of that team, if someone leaving with standard notice of 2-3 weeks creates such a problem, that’s on management. a good supervisor should be proactively ensuring that key individuals are “fulfilled” in the role and/or be backfilling the role.
The employee has no duty to their co-workers/team above good manners/civility and faithfully working towards a handoff.
I worked somewhere where I quit and they asked me if I wanted zero notice period, I said yes to get the fuck out and his eyes lit up at the prospect of saving a weeks salary. He told me he’d be a good reference. He gave me a really bad one. Take what you will from that but yeah quitting a job is as game theoretical as any other aspect of employment.
Great post, it is the kind of things you wish you read 10 years ago. Most negative comments I read here are basically reformulating Talion law. That's not how you make things better around you. You should behave as an employee like the employee you wish was working for you.
Two weeks is not enough to hand off your work and allow a company/team to prepare.
If your managers are asshole, then maybe you cannot change your environment by voicing concerns, and risk being fired. But if you made up your mind and know you're leaving, by giving 2 months notice you can make sure not to leave your team in a bad state
If arguments based on core-values do not sway you, doing the right thing is also the way to get good recommendations and opportunities in the future.
> You should behave as an employee like the employee you wish was working for you.
Why should I serve my employers interests over my own?
I will behave as an employee in the way that is most beneficial to me personally. How much I care about my employers success is 100% dependent on how much I personally benefit from their success. If my employer wants a better transition than 2 weeks, they need to start thinking about how to incentivize that behavior.
It may sound like semantics, but I've found it useful to think of "quitting" as actually "firing your boss". That is often the real reason people quit.
I wasn't there but I was told a person communicated his message by taking a literal shit in the CEO (ex military, to give you some perspective) office.
Based on my experience not giving too much notice is good advice.
In one job, I gave a months notice to leave for a startup. Just before I left, some extra urgent work came in and I was retained for a couple of months as a contractor to avoid leaving a key client and my former employer in a lurch. It actually benefitted the startup that I was able to incrementally transition.
Good work to those who wrote it.
If you have a better contract in hand then yes you should probably quit.
With that being said however if you leave on bad terms and your next job asks to contact the manager from your previous job the would probably say that you left on bad terms and might ruin your reputation.
> Your reasons for leaving shouldn’t be a suprise (sic) to your boss
Two jobs ago, I resigned three months after having won one of the three top technical slots in the company. My SVP (a talented and smart climber) told me that she intended to plagiarize my resignation letter without even a perfunctory attempt at retention (not the first sneer to pass over my face as I confront the false cognate blessé -- begging pardon from our francophones).
CapitalistCartr has commented that the advice is good given the environment be rational. I endorse this, as far as it goes, but the rationality here, really, is only of the etiquette of gentlemanly advancement. Advancement -- to what, exactly? Meaning? Remuneration? Prestige? As if the absence of a particular individual really creates any adversity for the so-called subordinates.
Every organism is predicated upon a survival strategy, be it tooth or claw or (in our case) cooperation. When you are about to leave, lend aid to those who aided you.
I have thankfully worked in mostly rational companies and been able to be honest with managers about what is or isn't working. At my last job though I spent more than a year saying repeatedly that I wasn't happy with my project work and that I wanted more pay. Annual review rolls around and they didn't fix it. I had a new job offer in a month and when I put in my notice my manager was shocked. He's a good guy but he was also my boss which means he's only going to pay me enough to stay. Just accept that fact and move on.
Match your notice period to the handover period - I'm sorry but everything about this section is wrong. Nothing you are working on is so important that you can't put it in a good state for someone else to pick up in your absence in two weeks. You stayed for 10 months? I can't tell if you or your employer was the one being strung along.
"Your new role, if you have one arranged, should respect your decision to be professional about your handover period. They’ll wait, don’t worry."
No - The hiring market for developers is red hot right now, no doubt about it, but potential employers are not going to sit around with a position open for months. Potential employers are not going to be impressed at your loyalty to a previous employer. They will think you are wasting their time and will probably be working to put someone else in that position while you dawdle.
The two weeks notice period is the conventional standard and everyone knows what it means. Stick to that and you'll be fine.