Honestly I would never work at a place like this. Maybe it's lean and efficient for the company, but it definitely doesn't sound fun for the employee.
When you get let go, they ask in the exit interview if you were warned, if your manager gave you any feedback leading up to it, etc. And then they follow up if the person says, "it was a total shock". I've definitely seen managers make some bad firing decisions, but they were let go soon afterwards. Word gets around quickly to their manager that they let go someone who was a strong contributor.
Why would anyone give any kind of useful information in the exit interview? The only one who benefits is the company, they need to cover their back in case a suit over harassment comes up. If anyone wants revenge over poor management, keep silent, let the fellow continue to lose the company money and set them up for a lawsuit.
HR is not on your side. The company is not on your side. The union would be, but in software we can't have that.
Also, why would you want the company to fail? Just because they have one bad manager? My friends still work there, and if you have stock options, you even have a financial interest in the continued success of the company.
I see no downside in providing truthful feedback during an exit interview. Sure, it won't help you, but it helps everyone else that's still there.
Maybe you’re inclined to help them out just to be a good person, and that’s fine; but I don’t blame anyone who doesn’t want to do that.
When else would they ask? The exit interview is when you are being informed of the decision.
The process is you get a meeting invite for a 1 on 1 with your manager. They come in, tell you that you're getting let go and why, and then invite HR to come in. They then leave and HR goes over the paperwork and asks you about if you expected it. If you were a poor performer, then it's most likely not your first meeting with HR.
I'm not sure when else they would ask.
Perhaps have the manager give their decision making and their inputs in writing, have the employee review these and provide a response. After all, if the employee were good enough to have lasted six years under the scrutiny of other good peers, then a sudden firing needs investigation. That's how it is done at other places where people are valued.
This entire thread reminded me of the callous attitude toward firing shown in the movie "Margin Call". Is it all related to American culture that the rest of us don't understand?
> Is it all related to American culture that the rest of us don't understand?
In part, yes. Here in the US we don't really have worker protections. Many believe it is because of this that we have such a strong growth in business.
It objectively makes our economy more nimble and adaptable, but at the expense of employees.
A perfect example: I worked at a startup in 2000, and we had a bunch of people in the US as well as Europe. When business was down and we had to lay people off, we ended up laying off engineers in the US, because we couldn't get rid of any of the people in Europe quickly enough. We had to pay people for months before they were let go, and they didn't even show up to work. It was great for them, but it was bad for the company and also bad for our growth since we had to pay people to do literally nothing.
To be clear, I think workers need greater protections. But those protections should not be at the direct expense of the company. It should be indirectly through taxation.
But to get back to your question, yes, here in the US, workers are not treated as well as elsewhere. Entrepreneurs and businesses are seen as the drivers of the economy, not the workers.
At a previous employer, a manager would need to formally put you on a performance improvement plan to give you a chance to improve, to discuss about what's going on (maybe you need a leave of absence for family; or maybe training). HR should be surprised that the exit interview is the first time they're talking to the person.
If HR is just hearing about it for the first time in the meeting, that is when they would be following up, because it means the manager made a quick rash decision.
Keep in mind, the HR person will still have at least a few hours warning, since they are invited to the meeting ahead of time and will know what the meeting is about, because they have to prep the paperwork. So if they disagree, they are most likely to ask the manager to discuss it first.
That must be an absolutely horrible experience, if you genuinely didn’t expect it! Is there at least a reasonably generous severance package?
Edit to add: in fact, thinking about it, doing the entire process in a single meeting like that feels like a bit of a mean trick -- catching people off-balance so they’re probably more likely to answer the HR questions honestly, rather than having time to think about what they want to say and what they want to ask.
I wonder what questions that HR team asks and what use they make of the data.
For high level execs it got up into a whole year's salary sometimes.
Even for the lowest levels of engineers, the severance would be in the $40,000 range.
VPs could walk away with $1M+ in severance. CxOs even more.
The bond to co-workers at a former workplace is strange and tenuous - actually it goes the other way around, they reach out to you when they want to improve their situation. Let them ask you when they want out, then offer a hand.
Like I said, even when you get fired, you still have stock options. So you do in fact benefit by helping the company when you're leaving.
> The bond to co-workers at a former workplace is strange and tenuous - actually it goes the other way around, they reach out to you when they want to improve their situation. Let them ask you when they want out, then offer a hand.
Why not offer them help when they don't ask, in the form of giving feedback to HR? Why do they need to ask? Why can't I be altruistic and help just because?
I'll say this -- you're entitled to your opinion, but I really hope I never work with or for someone who shares your outlook. And I especially hope I never manage someone with your outlook.
Whatever happened to "we're all in this together"?
From the average perspective, I have found the parent's commenter's advice to be far more accurate. I don't think you have a good idea of how terrible and vindictive the average mid-level paper pusher in management or HR is outside Silicon Valley (I suspect there are quite a few in SV as well, but maybe you all are a little more skeptical about their utility). I don't want some maniac manager talking crap about me to everyone they know and consequently blowing up my meager job prospects just because I complained to HR about their shitty management style. Oh, and unlike your Netflix example, tens of people complained about terrible management style at a former employer, and not a single manager got fired or even cautioned as a result. So I'm going to smile, nod, and leave a company – nothing more.
So, in summary – hopefully this doesn't sound like flattery, but consider that you might be in the position of a Lakers player giving advice to a local pickup basketball group. The advice doesn't always translate well to a different context :)
I would hope I would act the same in that situation, trying to make things better for everyone, but honestly I don't know.
Hopefully the rise of remote work will fix some of this, giving you more prospects outside of your small town, and more flexibility.
> So, in summary – hopefully this doesn't sound like flattery, but consider that you might be in the position of a Lakers player giving advice to a local pickup basketball group.
Aw man, thanks for that ego boost today. I'll try not to let it go to my head. :)
But seriously, I always try to give advice that is generally relevant, because I am self-aware enough to know that just about every situation I've been in is not the norm. But thank you for calling me out, because sometimes I still make poor assumptions.
Thanks! I hope so too. :)
Because we are not in this together. I like working in collaborative environments but after switching jobs more times than I can count I've become more cynical.
- Co-workers are not your friends.
- HR is not your friend.
- Management is not your friend.
It's a business relationship and in the eyes of the corporate structure you are just a fungible resource being consumed to produce shareholder value. Some companies do a great job of creating a "culture" but even in these companies it's only a thin veneer over the machiavellian tactics that keep the corporate machine chugging along.
Luckily we all have decent jobs that we enjoy that presents interesting challenges, and earn a decent amount too.
My favorite personal experience on an exit interview: Question: What did you like best about working at $Company? Answer: The weather (it was in SoCal, so weather was typically great)
That was the best thing I could come up with, and was about as useful as I was going to be
I have also just run through the paces in ones where i know its not gonna change a thing.
I also work in a small enough community where its wise not to burn bridges because you very well may run across other again down the line.
If the company is trash and you lay it all out during the exit interview you're simply burning bridge (particularly if they do in fact act on your feedback and somebody gets smacked about it) and if you're ever in a situation where you get let go suddenly or whatever, the person who you blasted may veto your return.
You owe the company less than nothing. Play your cards close to the chest, say the reason for leaving is personal and not at all related to the company and move on with your life. Why would you want to help the company that just fired you?
I'm sorry for going a bit offtopic, but I have noticed this weird linguistic contortion "get let go" often. Why the euphemisms? You get fired. It doesn't hurt to speak plainly. This "let go" expression seems weirdly childish, like how people say that someone "passed on" to avoid confronting the hard reality of death.
And I'm not picking on you, I know that almost everyone talks like this now.
So it makes sense to use a generic term.
In most cases you use the generic term to avoid liability. Saying someone was fired could be libelous/slanderous.
Saying you were fired could be considered disparaging.
I'm sorry, but I highly doubt that this is the case.
Obviously in reality there were most likely some negotiations amongst the managers, as the new manager wouldn't want to get a reputation for stealing people.
But I saw people change teams pretty regularly. Not just because of bad managers, but because they just wanted a new challenge.
I guess "the firings will continue until morale improves?"
Usually you are called into a meeting. Told your services are no longer required. Then you are given career resource support / paperwork with an offer and helped off the property. At what point is there a chance for an exit interview? After they first fire you, you are in shock.
There are more civil ways where both sides give a couple months notice and giving notice doesn't mean you get escorted off the property. It means you'll still do your job for a couple months, maybe even train a replacement.
American companies do that thing where they fire you, you have to leave instantly and then they pay you salary for the time you would be still going to work in any normal company.
The rest of team spends time guessing the situation, trying to contact you to figure out what happened and generally is disturbed.
I remember working in a large company with easily a hundred people over the years. I'd say there were only 2 employees that were fireable materials.
The flip side is that it is also easy to fire, so you can quickly correct any mistakes you may have made in hiring.
This of course means more churn. But to someone working there, this felt like a good thing. It means you didn't have people just biding their time like you see in most big companies.
Never once did I think, "how does that person still have a job?" Unlike the other big companies I've worked for, where there is always at least one person who you know is just floating as long as they can and getting away with it.
How's the interview process though? Do managers get to hand pick candidates, without them being subjected to a grueling full day onsite with 6-8 employees?
I'd say that's the biggest issue to hire. Even if referred and highly recommended, it's trivial to be rejected due to any one interviewer having a bad day or an impossible bar.
The candidate is found, either by the hiring manager themself, through an internal referral, or via the internal sourcers/recruiters (shout out to them for being amazing at their job!)
The hiring manager sets up an interview panel, where they recruit relevant stakeholders (in the case of an engineer, this was usually peer engineers and sometimes other managers who that team worked with a lot).
The panel is usually around four hours, with four or five people, including the manager, someone from HR, and some future peers.
If that goes well, then a second panel is set up for round two, also about four hours, which usually involves a Director or VP or two, maybe another higher up peer or sibling team peer or manager, and a higher up manager from HR.
Throughout the day, the hiring manager solicits feedback from the interviewers, usually within 15 minutes of them finishing.
The final decision rests solely with the hiring manager, but usually most of the feedback needed to be positive to move forward. The manager could also stop the process at any time. So if all the feedback was "meh", they could save everyone some time and cut it short.
Out of town candidates would have the both panels set for one long day, or sometimes the afternoon and following morning, so for out of town candidates who got all the way through, it could be pretty grueling.
After all that, if the hiring manager decides to hire you, you could get an offer before you even leave, or within a day or two usually, unless there were multiple people for one position, and then you had to wait for them all (although if you were amazing you'd get an offer anyway and then if someone else was good they would get an offer too).
For me personally, the entire process from first contact to signing offer papers was less than a week, and that was pretty typical at the time.
But yes, you still had to pass a series of interviews. :)
My wife worked there for a year, and was used to seeing the emails to her dept. saying so-and-so was fired once or twice a week. Eventually she quit because of it, but she had an overall positive experience.