Hacker News Reader

Comment by bumby | Hacker News Reader

My issue with the author's claims is that everything is framed in a "what's in it for me" reference. Even when they decided to break their own rule and go to an exit interview, the decision was made because there was the "didn’t think I had any downside risk."

There are times when your personal choices may need to take a backseat to more important goals. If you are really committed to a mission, even one you've decided to leave, I would think you'd want to give feedback that can help improve the chances of that mission being successful, even if there's a personal downside risk.

Think about something like the Boeing 737-MAX. Imagine a software engineer who decides to leave because they think the safety culture is really terrible. Would you prefer that employee voice their opinion during exit, despite the chances that it may make a change, or just quietly slip out the back?

View on HN

If you have important concerns to bring up in the exit interview, then why didn't you bring it up previously?

When I left a previous job, I didn't say any of the reasons why I was leaving. All the problems in the company had been previously expressed by me or other people MULTIPLE TIMES. The problems were always ignored. I didn't want to bring them up again just to have someone argue that those problems "aren't that big of a deal" or "must not be the real reason you're leaving" so I kept my mouth shut.

>why didn't you bring it up previously?

That's a fair point. I guess I was working from the assumption that the type of person who is mission-oriented and wants the org to succeed even without them, would also be the type of person who has been trying to fix those issue during their tenure.

I would argue, though, that just bringing an issue up isn't the same as actively trying to solve it. Pointing out problems is easy, but fixing them is often hard. Finding effective ways to communicate issues and building the relationships necessary to have the social/business capital to help fix them is not something that just occurs by shining a light on a problem. I suspect the person who wants to have a constructive exit interview isn't just wanting to vent and point at problems.

Whistleblowers get destroyed in the culture we have right now, they loose everything. It don't think its reasonable to ask people to destroy their own lives so that we might one day find out about the horrors that companies do only to watch as nothing is done to resolve it with the perpetrators.

If the circumstances were different and the public didn't stand for such widespread mistreatment of those that stood against illegal activity then there is different advice, but far from having protections for whistleblowers as it stands we only have punishment.

I would say it depends on the context. Are you in a profession with an ethical obligation and an oath to the public like a doctor, engineer, or lawyer? Then I think you have an obligation to say something regardless of downside. Those aren't "jobs", they are "professions" because they profess an oath that should be more than mere words.

Case in point: Edward Snowden.

Even internal-only whistleblowing on non-safety things like IP issues or quality can be risky.

In theory you are helping by making them aware non-publicly. But if profits are good they may want to keep these things quiet and unresolved.

With unemployment at ~4% unethical people just want to continue guzzling unethical money until snot hits the fan -- when product or service collapses under the weight of the problem then get a new job at same pay. They don't want to fix anything even if long-term its a big problem. OTOH, when employment is 9% then it isn't a sure bet that equivalent job is available, and scammers need to adapt faster.

> If you are really committed to a mission, even one you've decided to leave, I would think you'd want to give feedback that can help improve the chances of that mission being successful, even if there's a personal downside risk.

Let's not have any illusions about the "mission" that 99% of us are on. That mission is to do mind numbing meaningless work on some ad-tech platform because they pay us 3x the median salary to do it. Don't ever think for a moment that your company cares about you or your affinity to their "mission" at all.

I agree that "mission" is more buzzword than substance in SV. But there are certainly many people outside that bubble who work in organizations with missions that are important to them. List any number of governmental, safety-critical, or health related fields for an idea. IMO, extreme pay is a way to compensate precisely because they know it's not a purpose they really identify with.

> Would you prefer that employee voice their opinion during exit

If it's something really important, e.g. safety culture, then the employee should have already raised this much, much earlier.

If the company didn't listen then, then evidently they see concerning behaviour as an acceptable cost of running their business in a certain way.

I think it's bad to say anything revelatory in an exit interview, as it shows you as someone who isn't prepared to speak up when you notice something wrong.

To the point of another post, I don't think they are mutually exclusive unless the exit interview is held by the same person who you would normally voice daily concerns to (e.g., direct supervisor). Many organizations have exit interviews scheduled with people many levels higher precisely because they recognize the middle-managers won't have the ability to sanitize the feedback first.

Meaning it's possible to have been voicing concerns the entire time but not have them reach the same level as you'd get at an exit interview. I look at exit interviews as an accountability measure for mid-level management.

All that is useful to the company, but not to the employee leaving. I would agree there are potential upsides to a company, but there are only potential downsides for the employee.

If a company wants to get feedback from the shop floor, they can run anonymous employee surveys.

Maybe it makes a difference how the company treats their employees?

Large organizations tend to become bureaucratic and very concerned with their downside, both as a group (human resources) and as individuals (managers). Often they don't treat employees as people, but rather as resources, as cogs in a machine.

Some companies are rather inhumane. I don't think there's anything wrong with analyzing the situation with this in mind.

Sure -- in healthcare people say things like "I think new job's approach to managing patient outcomes has the rigor that I prefer" or "I think my new gig professes to emphasize xyz more than this job, and I think that is a better fit for me."

I'd kind of hope they'd bring it up before the exit interview. If you're only raising important issues on your way out the door it's just virtue signalling to make yourself feel better. Work to fix it or keep your mouth shut & move on.

I agree, and another commenter said similar. I will say that an exit interview can often be a unique circumstance to raise issues to levels that you may not have the ability to otherwise. For example, most military units have exit interviews where enlisted get a one-on-one with the executive officer. Because of the tightly controlled hierarchy in military organizations, this may be their only chance at a one-on-one exchange with that level. To your point though, flat organizations should have plenty of opportunity before quitting to raise concerns to high levels.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com