I would very much like a longer transition period. I really was gutted having to give two weeks notice at my last employer. I wanted a longer transition. But due to certain circumstances, I was worried I might just get 'let go' early if I told them in advance of having a confirmed position at my new employer, and they didn't really want to give me any more than two weeks before I started there.
First and foremost I'm concerned with my job security: That I'm not "leaving" my old job until a new job offer has been formally accepted. If both sides of that equation can provide me some sort of guarantee on a larger transition, I'd really love to do so.
As it was, I spent my final two weeks deactivating my own accounts, ensuring everyone else could easily step in and run the things I ran, etc. I left an open offer for them to get in touch if they had any questions about stuff I did or needed my help for a while.
* Transition is expensive for employer (handover, finding replacements) but cheap for the employee (moving costs).
* The labor market is tight.
It's better for employers if
* transition is expensive for the employee (e.g. high moving costs) but cheap for the employer (finding and training up a replacement is easy).
* The job market is tight.
Employees would do best to use their leverage as much as possible. It's not like employers won't do exactly the same.
This guy's blog sounds like a pretty standard employer whinge about sometimes not having leverage combined with a promise of non-monetary reward if the employee doesn't use their leverage.
If you paid way above market, then consider it an insurance policy against employees dping this.
The employer can offer an "Early Resignation Notice Bonus". Say give an extra $X per week of notice.
Put your money where your mouth is. I hate it when employers create a contract and then have employee sign... and then they are surprised that the employee follows their contract. Duh!
>If you are close to landing a new job, let your manager know and ask them how much time they will need.
This is awful awful awful advice. It’s not your problem how much time they need. It’s not your responsibility to let your employer know they should start searching for your replacement, especially when nothing is certain for you.
Indeed. This mentality is poisonous. Relationships are based on mutuality. If one partner is always making concessions and always going the extra mile while the other typically only puts in the minimum effort and is only weakly attached to the relationship outside of personal benefit that's a dysfunctional relationship bordering on abusive. And yet that is the common case for many employee/employer relationships today. Employees are always being asked to work extra hours for no pay for the good of the company, they're always being asked to work for less money if finances are tight, they're always being asked to do whatever it takes to ease the transition for moving to a different job. While time and time again the reciprocation of those efforts never, ever materializes. Pay isn't spontaneously increased when finances get better. Executives don't take a pay cut or work extra hours so workers don't have to. And it's extraordinarily rare for an employer to facilitate an employee transitioning out of the company to a better job elsewhere.
Do you have significant equity in the company? Is there a long list of examples of the company helping you out independent of your value to the company as a worker? If not then don't treat the company like some family member asking for a favor, treat them professionally and set appropriate work/life boundaries.
Agreed. Unless your employment contract requires them to keep you on for the transition period, the most likely outcome is that they'll let you go immediately and you'll spend a few stressful weeks locking up the new job.
The only time a departing employee should give their old employer time to transition is if the employer is willing to pay for their salary and benefits during the full transition period.
Most places in the US exist in an At-Will or Right to Work state, people can walk out and be fired without notice. Companies fought hard for this and they got it. The 2 weeks is just a courtesy, I've seen people walk in Monday and hand in a piece of paper that was back dated 2 weeks and walkout the door.
I've seen people leave without even a notice. Gone one day and no indication afterwards. The employer is just worried that nothing bad happened to that person.
I've never had less than a 1 month notice period in the UK. And if you walked out in less than that, you'd be in violation of your contract and potentially could be taken to court.
However, the flipside is that usually your employer has the same notice period. A sudden termination for anything less than gross negligence is very rare and usually followed by an employment tribunal.
I'm confused why people care about this. What's the difference between getting fired and you just resigning? HR departments don't disclose why you left the company, so the only negative is psychological and social.
Logically, at least when you're fired you get a nice severance
You can have similar contracts in the US, but employers hate that here so we don't. Thus neither side owes the other side anything and we are at a point where giving notice at all in many cases is the worst thing an employee can do. This is the situation employers have fought for. When I put it that way, the article becomes even more disgusting, trying to place a duty on outgoing employees that is not reciprocated by employers at all. No, if the two or four week notice period is not legally agreed to in the contract, employers have no reasonable expectation that anyone should give it. And if it wasn't to avoid burning bridges, I'd never give it. Hell, half the time the bridges are so weak, it's worth burning them behind you. But that's employment culture in the US these days.
3 months is the standard in Norway, going both ways.
I have always found the way layoffs being done in the US very strange and unnecessarily dramatic for both parties. If you are leaving, you should be leaving in a professional manner. Do your best at work until the last day of your employment.
Same if you are letting someone go, treat them with dignity and respect until their last days at the company. Telling someone to pack their bags the same day they are getting the notice sounds very cruel.
I don't see how this "burn all bridges" strategy can benefit anyone.
capitalism is a rough game. sometimes people fight dirty.
the caution i would add is, you could try to play nice & the employer gets pissed anyway and say “you know what, you can leave today!”. one must prepare contingency plans on both sides.
if you want someone who will never quit, hire an independent consultant.
A decent consultant would never leave from one day to the other. If the employer/customer is doing their part, a consultant is reliable. The money's better, the reputation is what earns them more gigs. Also, there's not anything inherently bad with letting them go with zero notice, since that's what you pay for.
> if you want someone who will never quit, hire an independent consultant.
I can think of many reasons why an independent consultant would quit: abusive or annoying relationship with customer (e.g., customer wants lots of free revisions), bills don't get paid promptly, can negotiate a better rate elsewhere, bored with the current gig, etc.
I don't know about the last sentence. As an independent consultant I've been in places for years, but that's because the place was relatively transparent with me and so I chose to be transparent with them.
You should go honest and transparent first, but if people play games then you have to protect yourself. However, my theory is that consultants are less prone to the crazy political storms that engulf full-time employees and give them insomnia.
I was in the situation earlier this year where my new job contract wasn't yet signed and I was trying to figure out how long of a lead time to give my old employer. (Note: both old and new jobs are non-programming positions.)
Turns out that I didn't need to bother. When my boss found out that I was about to land a new position, he immediately called me, on my vacation, to lay me off. So much for a transition period. On the bright side, by getting laid off rather than resigning, I was owed a good chunk of severance.
My takeaway: only provide the minimum notice required by your employment contract, if any. Because your employer sure as hell won't return the favor if they decide to let you go. So if your employment contract doesn't require notice, don't give any.
*Minimal notice was actually an issue at my old firm before I left. I kept wondering why people would announce their resignations the day they were leaving, out of the blue, without providing any opportunity to transition clients and work. I found out the why the hard way.
> My takeaway: only provide the minimum notice required by your employment contract, if any.
Employment at most states in US is 'at-will' per State Labor Laws. So even if an employment contracts states to the contrary, it won't hold up in Court.
California is also 'at-will' state. I think the reason most departing employees give "2 weeks notice" is because they don't want to burn bridges, because chances are that you will come across someone you worked with in the past, in a future company / at a future employer.
So even if an employment contracts states to the contrary, it won't hold up in Court.
That's not true at all...An employment contract can waive the at-will provisions of law; indeed, this is one of the fundamental hallmarks of most major league athlete contracts. These contracts have been upheld even in the reddest of states... Such contracts are also frequently common for high-level executive positions, especially in Hollywood.
You may be thinking of the opposite scenario: waiving the transition period. Some jurisdictions which do not have at-will employment do not allow employees to waive the transition period; others do if the employees are compensated (see, e.g., France).
California is also 'at-will' state. I think the reason most departing employees give "2 weeks notice" is because they don't want to burn bridges, because chances are that you will come across someone you worked with in the past, in a future company / at a future employer.
Yes, that's why employees used to give 2 weeks notice. Employers also used to give pensions, regular raises, pay for overtime, and not lay off people while they are on vacation. Times, and practices change.
As much as it sucks for the employer, it shouldn’t come as any surprise to them. Culturally businesses have no problems giving employees zero day notices when they’re laid off or fired. Loyalty works both ways.
Some businesses (yes a small software company I have friends at) will walk you out the door the moment you give notice because they’re in the banking industry and they’re concerned about people stealing confidential data. As a result their only mobile software developer decided to give zero days notice. This left them in a lurch, and I got a nice 4 month sidework contract out of it...
I wish it was this easy. Corporate employers have seemed more likely to just terminate you if you raise concerns, rather than work it out. HR is there to protect the company, not the employee. Admitting, my world of law and politics is different. Give any indication that you are unhappy, and the company is highly likely to terminate you (with severance) and then have security escort you out the door. There is far too much fear in this anti-employee world for employees to be honest and compassionate with their jobs.
Yeah right, did I get warped back in time? This is the opposite of modern.
2 weeks notice is an anachronism in the age of "human capital" and at-will employment. This is the world HBS biz school dbags made and its the world they'll have to live in.
I worked at a company for almost 2 years. One day my manager calls me into his office. He asks me: "Do you like working here?" I pause for a moment, then respond "No. Not really." He then says "Alright then. You are fired."
In my particular situation, I pretty much knew what was actually going on and why. I could have handed him a letter of my two week resignation instead of going through the ridiculous charade of "do you like working here?" There is good reason why people hand in resignations before asking for the details. The chance that you will get suddenly terminated for no apparent reason is very real.
Was I fired for a valid reason from the company? Nope. My performance reviews etc were very high. The manager just didn't like me and the feeling was mutual.
As another example, if one is not enough:
Another place I worked at, also for almost 2 years. I work there through a consulting group. One day my consulting group handler comes to the office and says we need to talk and asks me to come to lunch. No notice before he showed up. After leaving the secure facility, he asks me for my access card and informs me I have been fired.
I ask why. He says that no reason was given. I keep pestering the guy, who I know fairly well, to try to get some sort of explanation. Eventually he says that the only explanation he was given is that the company said I am too smart. He said it doesn't make any sense and he doesn't get it either. To this day I don't know why I was let go from that position.
If I'm at a job and things look like they are going sour; it is time for hardball. I assume that I could be fired at any moment at all times, and I make sure I am prepared for it.
You think "Two weeks is bullshit"? Two weeks is generous.
It should probably be 'one month' and it should go both ways.
Also - if you've ever been a manager, you'd realize that what is 'bs' is that you think you can just 'do your job' in the terms that you think it exists.
I literally have this problem right now with an Eng. who's decent, he technically moves the schedule forward roughly on time - but he's impossible to deal with, cynical at every turn, always negative, does not offer up flexible options when he should - and I hate having to speak to him, it ruins my day.
So does he 'do his job' - he could argue that he does. I have only a few complaints about his ability - but working on a team goes quite a bit beyond that.
I'm about to let him go and I will accept someone who is not quite as good in his wake if they are a better communicator -this person will be more valuable to the company - and my peace of mind is worth something.
For professionals - if you 'don't like working somewhere' you should probably leave. Life is too short. It's probably worth taking a little bit of a pay cut to work where you get along.
I've found that many of the best engineers are quite terrible at interacting with other human beings. What matters to me is only if they deliver. If the bottom line is met and the work is getting done and done well, then it doesn't matter to me if the engineers are complete assholes.
Feel free to drop me a pm of the engineer you are canning; I'd be happy to connect with him on LinkedIn.
Your note of "If you don't like working somewhere you should leave" doesn't really work. You have to stay at companies for a specific amount of time or you will end up with too many different positions on your resume and be unemployable. It is better to stay suffering even at a place you hate to build your resume. Leaving when things aren't going well, or allowing them to get to the point where you need to leave is bad advice.
I am living proof of this. I have worked at 8 different positions in the past 17 years. By all reasonable notions I should be employed at a Principal Engineer level. That said, I am unemployable. I am on unemployment and apply to the most reasonably suited positions I can ever week, for 5 months now. I have only been contacted back maybe 10 times in that entire period and made it to 1 in person interview.
If you want to have a job, don't leave, even if it sucks, even if all you coworkers tell you "you can easily get another job". When you have an offer in hand; then feel free to quit. Otherwise stay put and try not to cause trouble.
He'll probably be happy you're letting him go, it's not unlikely he's just disinterested but is cozy enough to avoid seeking someplace better. Maybe he likes some of the other engineers, just not management or the work in particular. I just hope you're this direct when he asks why, and that it's more than just you who is frustrated. I think 2 weeks is fine unless there's a lot of knowledge transfer to be done, but that implies another problem...
One should do one's job in the way one's manager thinks it exists, no less, but the manager needs to make their expectations clear. I had a team member similar to the guy you describe though as an engineer I enjoyed working with him even though management thought he was a negative influence due to his cynicism, negativity, "lack of fire in the belly", etc. He was told as much and asked to change but he ended up leaving the company. From the engineering side management of that team was just bad, a few months later those of us remaining switched to different teams.
Edit: also some people won't like their job no matter what it is if they aren't the ones defining it. They should start a startup, but before that it's not a bad idea to eat and build up a nest egg. Personal job satisfaction is overrated anyway.
>I literally have this problem right now with an Eng. who's decent, he technically moves the schedule forward roughly on time - but he's impossible to deal with, cynical at every turn, always negative, does not offer up flexible options when he should - and I hate having to speak to him, it ruins my day.
>So does he 'do his job' - he could argue that he does. I have only a few complaints about his ability - but working on a team goes quite a bit beyond that.
It's not about arguing whether he does his job, it seems like you've already stated that he does.
You've got everything you need to give him the details about what's rubbing you the wrong way. Take that shit to HR, and let them know you don't want to fire him if you can avoid it.
"It's not about arguing whether he does his job, it seems like you've already stated that he does."
Not really - what he 'does' is 'writes code that solves problems we are facing' - ostensibly - because there are so many ways it would be done differently if he was a professional communicator.
What I'm saying is it may appear that he is 'doing his job' - but I'm making the argument he's not.
But this is not a construction site. We can't say - 'pour the cement there and then go refill'.
He's inflexible and making others on the team bend around his designs. He does not reach out to others when there are issues, we have to initiate communication, keep an eye on the situation. He does not work with others to solve problems as a team. When asked for direct feedback, it's generally negative, cynical - not quite personal but almost. He does the minimum required and can't be counted on in a pinch like basically everyone else on the team. He takes the longest to respond to any issue.
Writing software on a team, is like solving a complex problem as a group. If you are not part of the group - then the problem is not being solved maximally.
I will definitely have a chat with him about all of this, but I know what the answer is going to be - and this is a behaviour and attitude problem, it's nary impossible to change.
I've let go of people like this before and the only regret I've ever had was not doing it sooner.
I don't expect people to be chipper sycophants, in fact, I hate that. Dispassion is fine, even a little bit of curmudgeon is fine with me. It takes all kinds.
If someone really does not want to do something, and they have an 'inner negativity' about it - it will take a high degree of professionalism for them to carry on properly. If they can't manage this level of professional behaviour on the communications side to make up for their negativity, well, it's out.
This explanation clarifies a lot about what the problem is with the particular engineer. Thank you for explaining in more detail.
I do agree that it is important engineers work with others and see beyond their own small sphere. It is not a skill many engineers are good at, but it is still something they should be trying to do and do better over time.
Flexibility is important for those writing code. If they just pump out components that require extra rework to make other things compatible with them then there is a problem.
Work is only done and done well when it can be used as it should be. Completed work should not create more work.
Also agreed that having a professional attitude is important. You don't have to love stuff you actually hate; you just have to be able to talk about it and interact on a professional level. If you actually hate it you can carefully state that you don't like it; but it shouldn't affect your ability to interact.
The problem when quitting is that you have to optimize for the worst case outcome. Not every employer is understanding and considerate. The default behavior in a lot of larger companies is to terminate someone as soon as possible if they've given notice of leaving their job (specially when moving to a competitor).
Great article. I fully agree with the author that the way one handles resignations and terminations says a lot about the character of the individual or company.
When I left my last corporate job to start my company I gave them six weeks notice and used this opportunity to train another team member so there would be continuity.
On the flip side we had to fire a non-performing employee earlier this year and we gave him eight weeks of full pay and decided officially to lay him off so that he could collect unemployment if need be.
> If you communicate and be open, magical things will happen.
Sorry, but not always. I've had multiple jobs where employers tried to screw me out of a piddly amount of money when leaving. It's your job to figure out whether you work for nice people who respect you or not. I do agree companies should be like this, where all people want what's best for one another. But let's not pretend everyone is at one of those companies.
The reply is simple: if shit goes south, or even if the company just doesn't feel like employing you anymore, you won't even get the two weeks. They will not hesitate, and there is no real loyalty.
"At-will employment" means something. Sorry. Of course employers only want to complain about this when it doesn't work in their favor.
In India I have heard some companies have 3 Months notice period which is too long. The employee and employer just have too spend this time with all the negatives etc. I think 2 week is very generous and decent to transition anything.
Ok the flip side, I've worked in jobs that fired people on the spot when giving their two weeks and this is hardly unusual. The advice in the article might make sense if the policies of the company are written down and the employee has reasonable cause to believe the company will follow them. Otherwise, the employee would be a total fool for following the advice here. It's not about starting the new job as early as possible. It's about not losing on two weeks of pay. Period. And more than two weeks? Yeah my current company wants four yet they won't pay a single cent in severance. They'll be lucky to get two. Sometimes there's also the revenge factor, though hopefully not in this particular case, one never knows. I do know that there's no loyalty from employers though and following the advice here is likely to lead to some unexpected and negative results for the employee in many cases.
50 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 109 ms ] threadFirst and foremost I'm concerned with my job security: That I'm not "leaving" my old job until a new job offer has been formally accepted. If both sides of that equation can provide me some sort of guarantee on a larger transition, I'd really love to do so.
As it was, I spent my final two weeks deactivating my own accounts, ensuring everyone else could easily step in and run the things I ran, etc. I left an open offer for them to get in touch if they had any questions about stuff I did or needed my help for a while.
* Transition is expensive for employer (handover, finding replacements) but cheap for the employee (moving costs).
* The labor market is tight.
It's better for employers if
* transition is expensive for the employee (e.g. high moving costs) but cheap for the employer (finding and training up a replacement is easy).
* The job market is tight.
Employees would do best to use their leverage as much as possible. It's not like employers won't do exactly the same.
This guy's blog sounds like a pretty standard employer whinge about sometimes not having leverage combined with a promise of non-monetary reward if the employee doesn't use their leverage.
It's a free market.
And you just got outbid.
If you paid way above market, then consider it an insurance policy against employees dping this.
The employer can offer an "Early Resignation Notice Bonus". Say give an extra $X per week of notice.
Put your money where your mouth is. I hate it when employers create a contract and then have employee sign... and then they are surprised that the employee follows their contract. Duh!
This is awful awful awful advice. It’s not your problem how much time they need. It’s not your responsibility to let your employer know they should start searching for your replacement, especially when nothing is certain for you.
Do you have significant equity in the company? Is there a long list of examples of the company helping you out independent of your value to the company as a worker? If not then don't treat the company like some family member asking for a favor, treat them professionally and set appropriate work/life boundaries.
The only time a departing employee should give their old employer time to transition is if the employer is willing to pay for their salary and benefits during the full transition period.
Article assumes the only reason anyone resigns is to pre-empt being fired. What about better offers, or unrelated reasons like a partner relocation?
In the UK and Europe a 3-month notice period for key or senior engineers is not unusual.
However, the flipside is that usually your employer has the same notice period. A sudden termination for anything less than gross negligence is very rare and usually followed by an employment tribunal.
Logically, at least when you're fired you get a nice severance
Well there is a difference between getting fired and being made redundant
The flip side of that is employers are mandated by law to pay severance and various leave accrued if they fire you.
I have always found the way layoffs being done in the US very strange and unnecessarily dramatic for both parties. If you are leaving, you should be leaving in a professional manner. Do your best at work until the last day of your employment.
Same if you are letting someone go, treat them with dignity and respect until their last days at the company. Telling someone to pack their bags the same day they are getting the notice sounds very cruel.
I don't see how this "burn all bridges" strategy can benefit anyone.
the caution i would add is, you could try to play nice & the employer gets pissed anyway and say “you know what, you can leave today!”. one must prepare contingency plans on both sides.
if you want someone who will never quit, hire an independent consultant.
Of course it’s bad for a consultant to get the reputation of being unreliable so there’s some moderation on the practice.
I can think of many reasons why an independent consultant would quit: abusive or annoying relationship with customer (e.g., customer wants lots of free revisions), bills don't get paid promptly, can negotiate a better rate elsewhere, bored with the current gig, etc.
You should go honest and transparent first, but if people play games then you have to protect yourself. However, my theory is that consultants are less prone to the crazy political storms that engulf full-time employees and give them insomnia.
Turns out that I didn't need to bother. When my boss found out that I was about to land a new position, he immediately called me, on my vacation, to lay me off. So much for a transition period. On the bright side, by getting laid off rather than resigning, I was owed a good chunk of severance.
My takeaway: only provide the minimum notice required by your employment contract, if any. Because your employer sure as hell won't return the favor if they decide to let you go. So if your employment contract doesn't require notice, don't give any.
*Minimal notice was actually an issue at my old firm before I left. I kept wondering why people would announce their resignations the day they were leaving, out of the blue, without providing any opportunity to transition clients and work. I found out the why the hard way.
Employment at most states in US is 'at-will' per State Labor Laws. So even if an employment contracts states to the contrary, it won't hold up in Court.
California is also 'at-will' state. I think the reason most departing employees give "2 weeks notice" is because they don't want to burn bridges, because chances are that you will come across someone you worked with in the past, in a future company / at a future employer.
That's not true at all...An employment contract can waive the at-will provisions of law; indeed, this is one of the fundamental hallmarks of most major league athlete contracts. These contracts have been upheld even in the reddest of states... Such contracts are also frequently common for high-level executive positions, especially in Hollywood.
You may be thinking of the opposite scenario: waiving the transition period. Some jurisdictions which do not have at-will employment do not allow employees to waive the transition period; others do if the employees are compensated (see, e.g., France).
California is also 'at-will' state. I think the reason most departing employees give "2 weeks notice" is because they don't want to burn bridges, because chances are that you will come across someone you worked with in the past, in a future company / at a future employer.
Yes, that's why employees used to give 2 weeks notice. Employers also used to give pensions, regular raises, pay for overtime, and not lay off people while they are on vacation. Times, and practices change.
Some businesses (yes a small software company I have friends at) will walk you out the door the moment you give notice because they’re in the banking industry and they’re concerned about people stealing confidential data. As a result their only mobile software developer decided to give zero days notice. This left them in a lurch, and I got a nice 4 month sidework contract out of it...
Ding ding ding.
2 weeks notice is an anachronism in the age of "human capital" and at-will employment. This is the world HBS biz school dbags made and its the world they'll have to live in.
I worked at a company for almost 2 years. One day my manager calls me into his office. He asks me: "Do you like working here?" I pause for a moment, then respond "No. Not really." He then says "Alright then. You are fired."
In my particular situation, I pretty much knew what was actually going on and why. I could have handed him a letter of my two week resignation instead of going through the ridiculous charade of "do you like working here?" There is good reason why people hand in resignations before asking for the details. The chance that you will get suddenly terminated for no apparent reason is very real.
Was I fired for a valid reason from the company? Nope. My performance reviews etc were very high. The manager just didn't like me and the feeling was mutual.
As another example, if one is not enough:
Another place I worked at, also for almost 2 years. I work there through a consulting group. One day my consulting group handler comes to the office and says we need to talk and asks me to come to lunch. No notice before he showed up. After leaving the secure facility, he asks me for my access card and informs me I have been fired.
I ask why. He says that no reason was given. I keep pestering the guy, who I know fairly well, to try to get some sort of explanation. Eventually he says that the only explanation he was given is that the company said I am too smart. He said it doesn't make any sense and he doesn't get it either. To this day I don't know why I was let go from that position.
If I'm at a job and things look like they are going sour; it is time for hardball. I assume that I could be fired at any moment at all times, and I make sure I am prepared for it.
You think "Two weeks is bullshit"? Two weeks is generous.
Also - if you've ever been a manager, you'd realize that what is 'bs' is that you think you can just 'do your job' in the terms that you think it exists.
I literally have this problem right now with an Eng. who's decent, he technically moves the schedule forward roughly on time - but he's impossible to deal with, cynical at every turn, always negative, does not offer up flexible options when he should - and I hate having to speak to him, it ruins my day.
So does he 'do his job' - he could argue that he does. I have only a few complaints about his ability - but working on a team goes quite a bit beyond that.
I'm about to let him go and I will accept someone who is not quite as good in his wake if they are a better communicator -this person will be more valuable to the company - and my peace of mind is worth something.
For professionals - if you 'don't like working somewhere' you should probably leave. Life is too short. It's probably worth taking a little bit of a pay cut to work where you get along.
Feel free to drop me a pm of the engineer you are canning; I'd be happy to connect with him on LinkedIn.
Your note of "If you don't like working somewhere you should leave" doesn't really work. You have to stay at companies for a specific amount of time or you will end up with too many different positions on your resume and be unemployable. It is better to stay suffering even at a place you hate to build your resume. Leaving when things aren't going well, or allowing them to get to the point where you need to leave is bad advice.
I am living proof of this. I have worked at 8 different positions in the past 17 years. By all reasonable notions I should be employed at a Principal Engineer level. That said, I am unemployable. I am on unemployment and apply to the most reasonably suited positions I can ever week, for 5 months now. I have only been contacted back maybe 10 times in that entire period and made it to 1 in person interview.
If you want to have a job, don't leave, even if it sucks, even if all you coworkers tell you "you can easily get another job". When you have an offer in hand; then feel free to quit. Otherwise stay put and try not to cause trouble.
or figure out how to work for yourself.
> I am living proof of this. I have worked at 8 different positions in the past 17 years.
If you have 17 years of work history, consider applying to a place and only telling them about the last 5 years... see where that gets you.
One should do one's job in the way one's manager thinks it exists, no less, but the manager needs to make their expectations clear. I had a team member similar to the guy you describe though as an engineer I enjoyed working with him even though management thought he was a negative influence due to his cynicism, negativity, "lack of fire in the belly", etc. He was told as much and asked to change but he ended up leaving the company. From the engineering side management of that team was just bad, a few months later those of us remaining switched to different teams.
Edit: also some people won't like their job no matter what it is if they aren't the ones defining it. They should start a startup, but before that it's not a bad idea to eat and build up a nest egg. Personal job satisfaction is overrated anyway.
It's not about arguing whether he does his job, it seems like you've already stated that he does.
You've got everything you need to give him the details about what's rubbing you the wrong way. Take that shit to HR, and let them know you don't want to fire him if you can avoid it.
Not really - what he 'does' is 'writes code that solves problems we are facing' - ostensibly - because there are so many ways it would be done differently if he was a professional communicator.
What I'm saying is it may appear that he is 'doing his job' - but I'm making the argument he's not.
But this is not a construction site. We can't say - 'pour the cement there and then go refill'.
He's inflexible and making others on the team bend around his designs. He does not reach out to others when there are issues, we have to initiate communication, keep an eye on the situation. He does not work with others to solve problems as a team. When asked for direct feedback, it's generally negative, cynical - not quite personal but almost. He does the minimum required and can't be counted on in a pinch like basically everyone else on the team. He takes the longest to respond to any issue.
Writing software on a team, is like solving a complex problem as a group. If you are not part of the group - then the problem is not being solved maximally.
I will definitely have a chat with him about all of this, but I know what the answer is going to be - and this is a behaviour and attitude problem, it's nary impossible to change.
I've let go of people like this before and the only regret I've ever had was not doing it sooner.
I don't expect people to be chipper sycophants, in fact, I hate that. Dispassion is fine, even a little bit of curmudgeon is fine with me. It takes all kinds.
If someone really does not want to do something, and they have an 'inner negativity' about it - it will take a high degree of professionalism for them to carry on properly. If they can't manage this level of professional behaviour on the communications side to make up for their negativity, well, it's out.
I do agree that it is important engineers work with others and see beyond their own small sphere. It is not a skill many engineers are good at, but it is still something they should be trying to do and do better over time.
Flexibility is important for those writing code. If they just pump out components that require extra rework to make other things compatible with them then there is a problem.
Work is only done and done well when it can be used as it should be. Completed work should not create more work.
Also agreed that having a professional attitude is important. You don't have to love stuff you actually hate; you just have to be able to talk about it and interact on a professional level. If you actually hate it you can carefully state that you don't like it; but it shouldn't affect your ability to interact.
When I left my last corporate job to start my company I gave them six weeks notice and used this opportunity to train another team member so there would be continuity.
On the flip side we had to fire a non-performing employee earlier this year and we gave him eight weeks of full pay and decided officially to lay him off so that he could collect unemployment if need be.
Sorry, but not always. I've had multiple jobs where employers tried to screw me out of a piddly amount of money when leaving. It's your job to figure out whether you work for nice people who respect you or not. I do agree companies should be like this, where all people want what's best for one another. But let's not pretend everyone is at one of those companies.
"At-will employment" means something. Sorry. Of course employers only want to complain about this when it doesn't work in their favor.
I (not in the US) have three months notice, which is plenty of time for me to find a new job, or for my employer to find a replacement.