When valuable employees quit or resign | Hacker News Reader

When valuable employees quit or resign

danielodio.com

24 pointsdanielodio22 comments

This advice describes a terribly one-sided situation:

    Although two weeks notice is standard, give more notice
    if you're willing to. Give four or even six weeks. The
    only caveat here is that if the CEO reacts poorly when
    you give notice, you might find yourself escorted out
    of the building that very moment.

Please (especially recent grads, I'm talking to you here) don't let yourself buy in to the "the employee should be loyal to the company, but not expect loyalty in return" trope that is all too common. Your job (in most cases!) is not a matter of loyalty for either party. It's a business arrangement between two consenting parties that work be performed for pay. There is almost always a built-in part of that arrangement to facilitate a smooth ending.

By all means, act professionally and with integrity in your dealings with your employer. But remember your job is not a favor they are doing you.

You've GOT to be kidding me with this.

"No surprises: Even worse than leaving is giving little or no notice. Then the company has to scramble to fill the immediate void. Although two weeks notice is standard, give more notice if you're willing to. Give four or even six weeks. The only caveat here is that if the CEO reacts poorly when you give notice, you might find yourself escorted out of the building that very moment. So you have to be ready for that. But hey, if you wanted to go anyways, then that might be OK with you."

So you should do the "right thing" for the benefit of the CEO who probably holds 10-30+% of this company compared to your 0.0X%, but willing to accept that they may insta-can you because they "react poorly" to this news.

Many people in this position may truly want to give 2,3 or even more weeks notice out of guilt, but they ALSO might financially really need not to have that income gap. Logic (or call it good business) would dictate that in that financial position, you give a standard two weeks notice and hope that if you DO get escorted out, they at least pay you out for the two weeks.

The author's take on this is "you have to be ready for that"? I don't get it.

You really shouldn't be considering job-hopping if you can't absorb two weeks of lost income.

This article isn't talking about low-class, factory work where most employees are living paycheck-to-paycheck. This is the middle class, and you're expected to bring a little stability to the table. If you can't do that, it's your fault, not your employer's.

Let's see how this sounds from the other side: You shouldn't consider founding a company if you don't have the ability to survive for a few weeks or months while looking for a replacement employee. If an employee's sudden departure puts the company in a dire situation, it's the company's fault, not the employee's. A company is expected to have a little stability.

> You shouldn't consider founding a company if you don't have the ability to survive for a few weeks or months while looking for a replacement employee.

If the job is that essential, the founders should be able to do it themselves. If not, then yeah, it can wait.

Let me put it this way - It's not that you can't absorb the two weeks loss without going into bankruptcy. It's the fact that for a "regular" employee, losing 1/26th of your yearly income may be something you'd really prefer to avoid - and the loss may be disproportional to what the company stands to lose by canning you immediately despite you trying to "do the right thing" and give extra notice.

I think it's not crazy to say that many small companies may have even more motivation to make that move, as they don't want the morale drain on the other employees imposed by having someone around that has one foot out the door.

Because back of the napkin math is fun, let's say we're talking SF, a bright kid <2 years out of college that loves reading HN and decided she wanted to try the startup thing. They joined a startup as an early employee, but maybe past the first 3, and have a few basis points of equity, and took a salary of $100k/year instead of a fat offer twitter gave them for the opportunity to wear many hats and learn a lot.

Using this page

http://www.adp.com/tools-and-resources/calculators-and-tools...

and plugging in a gross yearly income of $100k for CA, that gives me a bi-weekly pay of $2,441.23.

That's easily a month's rent, which I'd posture is NOT trivial for a person in this situation. Absorbable? Totally, but NOT something it'd be a good idea to risk from a business perspective.

> Because back of the napkin math is fun, let's say we're talking SF, a bright kid <2 years out of college that loves reading HN and decided she wanted to try the startup thing.

Call up dad and ask for some cash to float you until your next payday. Your career will thank you when you don't externalize your rash decisions on your colleagues. Or did you move to SF for a dream with absolutely no safety net?

But whatever. If you're really in that position, sure, go ahead and fuck the people who took a chance on you and trusted you to build their business. If you're that scared they're going to turn around and fire you on the spot for taking another job, then be my guest.

But don't expect me to pat you on the back and say you did good when you're really just demonstrating a lack of foresight and a lack of faith in your coworkers / bosses.

I don't do business that way. My last job, I busted my ass to finish the project they gave me, even working on the weekend when I didn't have to, during the two weeks I gave notice. I told the guy who I was handing it off to to call me anytime if he needs any help.

If they'd just let me go, no sweat, I've got backup options. But generally, I don't take jobs anymore where my work isn't essential and I'm fungible. You shouldn't either, then you won't have to face this situation. If you're not damn useful to your organization, then what the hell are you there for then?

Never, ever give more than 2 (or 3 weeks if you're like senior staff) weeks notice. It's not your obligation to make sure the company is run well. You should also look out for yourself because no company will ever look out for you despite what you tell yourself. This is a shitty article.

@Kevinthew sounds like you've had some bad experiences. I didn't suggest giving more notice to "make sure the company is run well." I suggested giving more notice as a way to "ensure that when a valuable employee leaves, they leave in a timely and respectful manner to both them and the team they had worked with?" which was the question that was asked on my blog.

If you want to leave a company and burn the relationships you formed while you were there, then by all means, give as little notice as possible.

Yes, I would think it should be reciprocal. It's common in Denmark for employment contracts to specify 6 weeks notice on both sides. I would be fine signing such a contract in the U.S. too, if a company wanted to ensure a more stable employment relationship. But that condition isn't common.

If the employer doesn't offer you a contract with terms about mutual notice periods, I don't think it would be prudent to unilaterally extend a lengthy notice period with no assurances from the other side. As the article admits, if you give six weeks' notice and the boss reacts angrily, he/she can turn around and fire you instantly with no notice, since the company never committed to any notice period. It's a completely asymmetric situation there. Giving notice closer to when you plan to leave the job (say, the traditional two weeks) reduces your downside exposure to loss of income.

I do think it would be nice, for both sides, if mutual notice periods of at least a few weeks became more common terms in employment contracts. That way the company can plan for the loss of the employee, and employees who are to be terminated can plan for the loss of job/income.

This. What company acting in their best interest would give any sort of notice before a layoff? Maybe a frank discussion that things aren't going according to plan and we only have X months of runway, but that's about it.

The large companies I've worked for have done layoffs like "Surprise, we're laying you off in 6 weeks..." which is better than not telling you.

I've seen large companies lay off workers, some of whom have been with the company for many years, with no notice at all.

  Although two weeks notice is standard, give more notice
  if you're willing to. Give four or even six weeks

I question why this should be asymmetrical.

If it were the other way round, and it was to the company's advantage for you to leave as soon as possible, how many CEOs would give three times as much notice as they were contractually obliged to?

Because when what you're offering is more fungible than what the other party is offering, then you have greater discretion to set terms. In other words, since the employer is buying a service from the employee, the employer gets the say.

If you went to a store to buy fruit, and they would only give you the fruit two weeks after you bought it, you'd walk out. You've got the cash, so they need to meet your timeliness terms, not the other way around.

If 2 weeks isn't enough time, then why does the contract say 2 weeks? Instead of expecting one side to go above and beyond what's laid out in the contract (as many have said, the 2 weeks notice is a very asymmetrical part of the contract already), why not write it into the contract instead? Have incentives for employees to give 4 or 6 weeks notice, and maybe offer something back on the other side, like an employer-guaranteed severance of 4 weeks pay for any reason of termination that's not something like stealing from the company, etc.

When you start making blanket statements about "you should always give [something]," then maybe it should be contractual rather than an "unwritten rule."

"As a CEO it's really hard to understand why an employee doesn't have the same commitment."

Seriously? Let me spell it out:

The CEO has a significant amount of stock, unlike most employees, so the success of the company makes a big difference to the CEO. To the employees, it might translate into less money than they can get by changing jobs.

And to the employees, it feels like they have more commitment than the CEO. As jwz pointed out[1], the employees sleep under their desks but the CEO goes home at night.

[1] http://www.jwz.org/blog/2011/11/watch-a-vc-use-my-name-to-se...

Oddly enough the original question is what a CEO can do, but after discussion how hard it is for the CEO emotionally the all of the specific advice is aimed to the valuable employee who's leaving. I'm not clear on how exactly the post author missed the point of the question so impressively and then submitted it here - perhaps he couldn't think of anything else to write in response? The tips for the employee are good, though a bit patronizing and basic, but it's not exactly very useful to a CEO. I've been on both sides of that table (though as manager for the employee who was leaving, not CEO) and post that actually answered the question would have been more than welcome. It's usually too late to keep the employee when they're resigning, but there's often some room for a positive relationship when they leave. In my experience keeping up morale, keeping a potentially valuable contact (you wanted to them for some reason, right?) available, avoiding a reputation hit with other potential hires & partners, and maybe being able to tap them for tribal knowledge or the occasional bit of consulting is well worth a lot of effort for the CEO. How you do that tends to be a bit less clear...

> As a CEO it's really hard to understand why an employee doesn't have the same commitment.

Oh lawdamercy, cry me a river. Getting a new job is a PITA, and most employees aren't going to jump without very strong reasons.

  1. they got another offer to good to refuse. You should be happy for them. 
  2. the company does not feel financially stable. That's your fault, bubs.
  3. they're being treated badly or morale has flatlined -
     that's definitely your fault, twinkletoes.

This article is essentially telling the departing employee to bend over, for free. Good one.

Here's some better advice to a CEO:

  1. don't take it personally
  2. give the employee an opportunity for an exit interview *with you*. 
     Don't fob the job off onto some underling. 
     While some departing staff will decline as they don't want to 
     burn imaginary bridges, most passionate staff will give you an 
     unvarnished look at the company.
  3. talk to other seniors in the company and try to determine if the 
     problem is individual or systemic.

Two weeks, unless you have an exceptional relationship with the company. If you aren't sure your relationship is exceptional, then it isn't, so don't worry about it.

You'll be forgotten in three weeks.

For those who periodically ask why a start-up needs someone with HR skills, here's a good example. While the HR person may not be needed, the HR person can handle things like release forms, exit interviews, care and feeding of the remaining employees, etc. -- the first 2 may not be required, but "care and feeding" certainly is.

Some CEOs can handle this, but most probably can't, due to time or temperament. Some companies may not need this, but most probably do. . .at least to help with the initial shock and/or readjustment(s).

I'm in France right now and the usual legal notice here is a ... 3 month notice. This is a double edged sword: unless common agreement, the employer have to pay the employee 3 month (and if asked, the employee has to stay at work), but it gives him the time to replace it properly. I won't go in detail to the different legal issues for each case, but it avoids these kind of problem for startups (and create others).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com