Rather than hand out tips on how to resign, imo, he'll be better off asking for tips on how to accept a resignation gracefully or at least on how not to respond to a resignation letter
Or, you can ignore all of these tips, give 2 weeks notice, send a nice note to the team, and trust that no matter what happens afterwards, you're not going to look bad.
The guy stayed 1 year, not Jason's 3-year minimum for a place you're learning at. The guy didn't do it face to face. And the guy didn't offer unlimited transition time.
He pretty much didn't do anything Jason wanted him to do.
Resigning by email is not a "chump way to quit". It's a very final and low-drama way to quit (if you are friendly and upbeat in your mail, which you always should be).
Every employer, myself very much included, would be very happy to get personal, private, advance notice that you're thinking of leaving. If you want to do us a favor, do that. Give us a private heads-up. But you don't owe it to us.
Perhaps, but it's also a cowardly and unprofessional way to quit. Every job I have ever left I have had the decency to sit down in person and explain to my boss that I was leaving and the reasons for my departure.
My feeling is that if this person was respectful enough of my capabilities to give me a job that allowed me to provide for myself and my family, the very least I could do as a common courtesy and sign of respect would be to sit down with them and explain why I have decided to leave.
Put another way: would you consider your boss firing you via email a "chump way to fire an employee"? It's simply a matter of giving your superior the same courtesy that you would expect if the roles were reversed.
Presumably an exit interview is standard practice? I've had them at almost every job I've left. I love e-mails, because they set the tone and expectation for what you're going to talk about.
I had a friend who thought he was getting a pay cut Friday (like everybody else, who got theirs Thursday, but he was working from home) and he was let go without notice.
Except there was no exit interview possible here, because as soon as he gave notice, Calacanis told him to pack his stuff up and get out. I don't feel comfortable calling someone a "coward" in a situation like this.
By your very logic, it should be fine to release or terminate people by e-mail. I would bet that if the tables were turned, and Calacanis had terminated Evan by e-mail, that Calacanis would be taking even more heat than he is now.
Call me old school, but the best to worst order of quitting (and on the flip side, firing) is this - face to face, telephone, e-mail only if it's impossible to arrange the first or second.
Though people do clearly get fired by email, I personally think employers have a greater obligation to be courteous about firing than employees do about quitting.
People have given me notice via email before, and I think no worse of them for it.
Because you have multiple employees, most of whom only have one job, and who, unlike the employer, depend on the relationship for their livelihood.
I'm not sure I'd use the word "professionalism" to describe this obligation. People have given me notice via email before, and I don't think they were unprofessional for it.
Professionalism isn't like pregnancy, it's not a binary state. I would categorize a person who resigns by email as an act that's below average on the scale of professionalism.
I mean seriously, how hard is it to present your resignation letter in person or by telephone?
In any case, let's agree to disagree, since everyone has different standards.
Resigning by e-mail is fantastic if your boss happens to be abusive, manipulative, or otherwise you feel like a face-to-face encounter is going to escalate in the wrong direction.
Resigning in person is even better if your boss happens to be abusive, manipulative, or otherwise you feel like a face-to-face encounter is going to escalate in the wrong direction.
I've done it, and boy does it feel great to put a jackass in his or her place.
If things are going well at the company, and you’re learning and developing, you should stay three years–at least. There is no reason to jump ship if you’re learning and enjoying your time at a company.
This arbitrary three-year mark seems a little one-sided. A lot can happen in three years. You can get married, have a kid. Your parents can get sick and ask you come home. You can stumble on a better opportunity. You can get bit by a travel bug. Your spouse may want to move for his/her career. None of these have anything to do with learning and enjoying your time at the company.
It's one-sided because it's nonsense. There's a million reasons why you might leave in 2 years, 1, or even less, even if things are going well for you at the company. You don't owe them your employment.
I think 2 years is pretty much okay. The first 6 months is learning the organization, the second 6 is putting that into action and trying to make it work. If it's working stay another year and see. If not, move along.
If you really want someone to work for you for 3 years, sign them to a 3 year contract.
Of course that would require some sacrifice on the part of the employer. They wouldn't have the lopsided advantage of being able to fire the employee at will, yet expect to shame them into staying for years.
There's been a lot of discussion of "entitlement" surrounding this incident, but the only entitlement I'm seeing seems to be coming from the employer side.
Absolutely correct. If the company wants a three year commitment from their employees, they should be willing to reciprocate. Sign the employee to a 3 year contract guaranteeing they can't be layed off or fired. Seems only fair.
"But wait" some will say. "What if the employee turns out to be a dud? The company needs to be able to cut their losses!!". True, but what if the employer turns out to be a dud? Shouldn't the employee also be able to cut their losses?
There are no rules for how to resign, or for how to accept a resignation, except that of treating the other person as you yourself would expect to be treated in like circumstances. Both parties here went out of their way to provoke and then needlessly made a public issue of it.
I haven't really been following this entire storyline, because quite frankly, it seems trivial and unimportant to me. So please forgive my ignorance when I ask, how did the employee's original e-mail come off as provocative?
Not the email itself - the posting on the web, with some gratuitous commentary, was unnecessarily provocative (I have not followed this closely either, for the same reasons you mention, and so I hope I have this fact right).
I suspect he wouldn't have published the exchanges if Calacanis hadn't blown up so severely.
For that matter, if Calacanis had been nice and professional about it no one would care about the employee posting it on the web (it would, after all, show him being nice and professional...).
So, either Calacanis seriously thinks he's in a position to give "resignation tips" now (lost touch with reality?) or this is just a calculated attempt to spin the news coverage.
How not to act as a CEO with a sour reputation of a company with a sour reputation
0. upon receiving an email from someone resigning, disrespectfully tell them to fuck off, insult their new employer, delete their account, then instead of apologizing, make up a list of 6 rules telling other people how they should resign to post to TechCrunch and try to regain reputation.
> If you would rather stay at your company, but need to make more money, be straight with your boss and let them know you would like them to match, or come closer to a competing offer.
I think this is bad advice. Even if they don't want to keep you, employers are likely to match just to keep you around until your current project is complete.
Your best bet in this situation is to simply ask for a raise without mentioning your other offer, and leave if the answer is no.
Both this list, particularly #1, and his email response to the guy who resigned reek of resentment to me. Jason Calacanis doesn't present himself as someone who is truly comfortable and happy, in my opinion, which seems ironic given the level of success he appears to have achieved.
The great people I have worked for, one of whom I still work for, would never react that way. I admire those people, but I could never admire someone who acts like Jason Calacanis and I go out of my way never to work for people like him.
At it's most cut and dried a job is an agreement between you and someone: you give them your work, they give you money. They don't own you and beyond your obligation to fullfil your side of the work/money bargain you don't owe them anything in my opinion.
That being said, however, I do think it's important to do work that fullfils and inspires you and benefits you in more ways than just getting money for work you do.
I'm no big fan of Calacanis, but broadcasting a private discussion with your soon to be former employer isn't necessarily going to work in your favor the next time you're looking for work. When I recruit people, I do the standard Google, Facebook, Linked In, and Twitter searches.
If a candidate had no problems revealing information about his/her previous employer, whether justified or not, I'd be wondering about what else that person would be willing to reveal. There's a permanence to publishing this kind of information on the Interwebs, and it's not always going to work in your favor unless you're at the rock-star level of talent.
Revealing the information that he's a jerk is not quite what is normally meant by "revealing information" and I'm sure many will say the employee did a public service.
As for what you find in those searches, if you're not a jerk what do you have to fear?
>6. Don’t post correspondence of any private discussions with your boss on the Web. That’s not good for anyone–even though it’s highly entertaining for many.
Some of Warren Buffett's wisdom might be relevant here:
I want employees to ask themselves whether they are willing to have any contemplated act appear the next day on the front page of their local paper, to be read by their spouses, children, and friends, with the reporting done by an informed and critical reporter.
57 comments
[ 4.1 ms ] story [ 129 ms ] threadThe guy stayed 1 year, not Jason's 3-year minimum for a place you're learning at. The guy didn't do it face to face. And the guy didn't offer unlimited transition time.
He pretty much didn't do anything Jason wanted him to do.
I love how he thinks the company is owed 3 years of your service. I mean really?
Every employer, myself very much included, would be very happy to get personal, private, advance notice that you're thinking of leaving. If you want to do us a favor, do that. Give us a private heads-up. But you don't owe it to us.
Perhaps, but it's also a cowardly and unprofessional way to quit. Every job I have ever left I have had the decency to sit down in person and explain to my boss that I was leaving and the reasons for my departure.
My feeling is that if this person was respectful enough of my capabilities to give me a job that allowed me to provide for myself and my family, the very least I could do as a common courtesy and sign of respect would be to sit down with them and explain why I have decided to leave.
Put another way: would you consider your boss firing you via email a "chump way to fire an employee"? It's simply a matter of giving your superior the same courtesy that you would expect if the roles were reversed.
I had a friend who thought he was getting a pay cut Friday (like everybody else, who got theirs Thursday, but he was working from home) and he was let go without notice.
Call me old school, but the best to worst order of quitting (and on the flip side, firing) is this - face to face, telephone, e-mail only if it's impossible to arrange the first or second.
People have given me notice via email before, and I think no worse of them for it.
Economically, they're paying employees fair value for some specified output. There should be an equal expectation of professionalism on both sides.
I'm not sure I'd use the word "professionalism" to describe this obligation. People have given me notice via email before, and I don't think they were unprofessional for it.
I mean seriously, how hard is it to present your resignation letter in person or by telephone?
In any case, let's agree to disagree, since everyone has different standards.
I've done it, and boy does it feel great to put a jackass in his or her place.
This arbitrary three-year mark seems a little one-sided. A lot can happen in three years. You can get married, have a kid. Your parents can get sick and ask you come home. You can stumble on a better opportunity. You can get bit by a travel bug. Your spouse may want to move for his/her career. None of these have anything to do with learning and enjoying your time at the company.
Of course that would require some sacrifice on the part of the employer. They wouldn't have the lopsided advantage of being able to fire the employee at will, yet expect to shame them into staying for years.
There's been a lot of discussion of "entitlement" surrounding this incident, but the only entitlement I'm seeing seems to be coming from the employer side.
"But wait" some will say. "What if the employee turns out to be a dud? The company needs to be able to cut their losses!!". True, but what if the employer turns out to be a dud? Shouldn't the employee also be able to cut their losses?
For that matter, if Calacanis had been nice and professional about it no one would care about the employee posting it on the web (it would, after all, show him being nice and professional...).
Strange guy.
0. upon receiving an email from someone resigning, disrespectfully tell them to fuck off, insult their new employer, delete their account, then instead of apologizing, make up a list of 6 rules telling other people how they should resign to post to TechCrunch and try to regain reputation.
I think this is bad advice. Even if they don't want to keep you, employers are likely to match just to keep you around until your current project is complete.
Your best bet in this situation is to simply ask for a raise without mentioning your other offer, and leave if the answer is no.
Your alternative of simply asking for a raise sounds like the best approach ... but of course these situations are seldom about money....
The great people I have worked for, one of whom I still work for, would never react that way. I admire those people, but I could never admire someone who acts like Jason Calacanis and I go out of my way never to work for people like him.
At it's most cut and dried a job is an agreement between you and someone: you give them your work, they give you money. They don't own you and beyond your obligation to fullfil your side of the work/money bargain you don't owe them anything in my opinion.
That being said, however, I do think it's important to do work that fullfils and inspires you and benefits you in more ways than just getting money for work you do.
Priceless.
If a candidate had no problems revealing information about his/her previous employer, whether justified or not, I'd be wondering about what else that person would be willing to reveal. There's a permanence to publishing this kind of information on the Interwebs, and it's not always going to work in your favor unless you're at the rock-star level of talent.
As for what you find in those searches, if you're not a jerk what do you have to fear?
I want employees to ask themselves whether they are willing to have any contemplated act appear the next day on the front page of their local paper, to be read by their spouses, children, and friends, with the reporting done by an informed and critical reporter.