Comment by O____________O | Hacker News Reader

Comment by O____________O | Hacker News Reader

Well, that could’ve been awkward. If I had written what I really wanted to say in the exit interview, our final conversation could have gone much differently.

So? Leaving a company is always uncomfortable. And you're leaving. Who cares if your parting conversation with your ineffectual boss is a slightly worse experience?

If I had been harsh in my exit interview, what could have happened? What might my old boss say if he was called to verify my previous employment?

This seems like much anxiety over theoretical possibilities.

It seems to me that people's attitudes toward hiring would utterly doom anyone who has ever had an incompetent, a-hole boss. Personally, I've found that employers who actually want me will hire me on the spot. Ones who want to dink around with references and confirming employment history have proved to be wishy-washy and overly cautious in everything. If someone wants to chat with your last employer, expect them to be reluctant to approve that new machine you've been asking for all year.

I agree with saying it as it is. Also: don't you think that this "system", whereby nobody is supposed to say what they really think, either in these interviews, or in giving references, is deeply counter-productive and demeaning to all concerned? Things did not always used to be this way.

I don't care for the high sounding "rights" justifications. What about the most basic right of everyone to speak the truth as they see it?

Clearly, it is better not to needlessly exaggerate any criticism. Nevertheless, it works both ways. If a leaving employee has only positive things to say, I know he is being disingenuous - and if some friends ask about him/her, I would actually be far less likely to recommend such an "a.se licker".

A lot of the hiring process seems to be about making sure you'll write/say the correct lies.

Look at common intro paragraphs for résumés. They're horse shit, and everyone knows it, but deviate much from the usual "dedicated team player who blah blah blah" and it goes in the bin. Doesn't matter that it's horse shit—it matters that you follow convention.

"Where do you see yourself in 5 years" -> honest answer in 99% of cases is "I don't know, but odds are it'll be more or less the same place as now but slightly richer and fatter". You cannot say this. Doesn't matter that it's true.

"What makes you want to work at our company?" -> honest answer in 99.9% of cases is "it pays enough money and seems less awful than my other options for performing activities that pay similar amounts of money". You really can't say this, and even a heavily buttered-up (that is, coated in bullshit) version isn't likely to pass muster. Lie or GTFO.

Not telling the expected lies is a great way to end interviews, or never get them in the first place. The only actual purpose it can possibly serve, that I can think of, is to weed out some of the crazies and eccentrics very quickly. Someone more conspiracy-minded might come up with a bunch of stuff about how it ensures the applicant is sufficiently cowed by this horrible economic machine we all serve, but I suspect the situation is more of an accident than anything with much intention behind it.

Yes, yes, there are exceptions, but this is the reality that the mass of employment-seekers face most of the time. Tell the right lies or go in the bin. One of the more shocking and difficult-to-cope-with elements of adult life if you're brought up to value honesty. Try to talk to people about it and many seem to become confused. "But that's just what you put on it. Here, you need to add something about how you're a self-starter." Sigh.

[edit] I would add that the "why do you want to work here?" question carries the bonus stupidity/uselessness-factor in that no place where someone wanted to work for reasons other than just money and it being less shitty than the other options would ever feel the urge to ask it. SpaceX doesn't have to ask. They launch fucking rockets in to space. You sell (e.g.) Point of Sale software, so you ask because there's no obvious answer other than "you pay money, I want money". It's a question dripping with insecurity.

> "Where do you see yourself in 5 years"

My stock answer to this is to quote Carl Sagan and say that prophecy is a lost art.

Maybe if enough people start giving that answer, employers will stop asking this incredibly stupid question.

What if the sanitized version is more accurate than the ranty version? Turning off your filters doesn't guarantee truth; it might just be more biased.

>What about the most basic right of everyone to speak the truth as they see it?

You're certainly welcome to speak the truth as you see it, just don't be surprised when the people who won't like that truth refuse to help you along the way. Be careful not to confuse 'right' with 'obligation'.

You never know who you might run into in the future. Or whom those people could influence. That's why its better not to burn bridges for the sake of feeling good about yourself.

Exactly. One of the things my first boss tried to impress upon me was how small the world really was. Specifically he was referring to the software scene in Boston, but the point holds wherever. There were a handful of times over the years where holding back and not being a bridge arsonist really paid off for just that reason.

It's a lot more obvious these days with things like LinkedIn. There are very few people that I would talk to for a potential new job who aren't either directly connected or 1 step away from many of my former and current coworkers. People talk, it's better to be remembered as the good guy and not the jerk.

That's why its better not to burn bridges

This assumes the bridge isn't already burnt.

If you worked for an incompetent a-hole, chances are he'll have a negative opinion of you regardless of your exit behavior.

I've watched people bust their asses to leave their employer in the best position possible. The employer goes on to hold a negative opinion of them because they were too self-centered and stupid to understand the value that employee created. It was all wasted effort.

And running your mouth would just validate their opinion of you.

running your mouth

I noticed that every person arguing with me over this is using inflammatory language implying unprofessional and irrational behavior.

Because that's how people react when they quit, and that's what you need to guard against. Its hard to not become emotional and keep the ego in check. The original post was about how it would have been a mistake if he had let his emotions get the better of him.

Because that's how people react when they quit

I'm sorry, so you're now casting my comments under the light of the tautology you're declaring?

The original post was about how it would have been a mistake if he had let his emotions get the better of him.

The original post was about how he stifled his criticisms and caved to the general advice to keep opinions to yourself. The exact statement was:

So I backed off and gave some general feedback—hard to find interesting projects, considering a career change, that sort of thing—without going into too much detail.

As other commenters here are pointing out, this is doing a disservice to the company and to your now-former coworkers.

Nobody is advocating "running your mouth", whatever that highly subjective and inflammatory phrase means to you.

> As other commenters here are pointing out, this is doing a disservice to the company and to your now-former coworkers.

Again: so what? What's in it for _me_?

If the bridge is already burnt, then there's no reason to attempt to burn it further. The leaving employee has no rational reason to participate in an exit interview.

Stopped lurking just for this.

I've only ever worked in the 'enterprise' - large consultancies, systems integrators and massive, very well known, software companies.

Every single one of these did a very intense background check on me.

With the exception of Accenture, I have never had a request for a MAC or LINUX machine turned down. I have never had my expenses denied, I have always been paid very well and I have never ever been hired on the spot.

Your expereinces are your own, let's not try to pass them off as the way things are.

let's not try to pass them off as the way things are.

I did no such thing.

A large chunk of mycareer success you have in life will come from your professional network. You never know where folks will end up. So its never worthwhile to burn bridges.

Second. Its just not professional. If you have some constructive criticism that can be provided without being "harsh" its valuable and reflects well on you.

Second. Its just not professional.

You assumed that I'm promoting unprofessional behavior. In fact, you appear to be defining the entire discussion such that anything that disagrees with you is inherently unprofessional and, thus, a poor decision.

Also "harsh" is entirely subjective.

I've also had the opposite experience. I've been hired on the spot with no checks and the company turned out to do things in a random, hurried and slipshod fashion and was always operating in emergency mode. This caused chaos which caused them to burn through people like crazy, which further inflamed the problem.

They aren't in business anymore. A company taking a bit of diligence is a comforting sign sometimes.

Please explain to me exactly the upside of taking the chance that you seem to be suggesting by giving more realistic feedback. I can see very little upside but can definitely see risk and downside.

Please explain to me exactly the upside

Explain to me the upside of honesty.

but can definitely see risk and downside

And this is the problem, in my opinion. People are being dishonest with themselves and others, promoting bad work environments, all due to fear of imagined consequences.

> Explain to me the upside of honesty.

You're removing an important piece of context: there's no upside to honesty in an exit interview.

there's no upside to honesty in an exit interview.

Wrong. As others are pointing out, by stifling your honest feedback you're harming the company and your now-former coworkers.

All because you fear a hypothetical situation.

> As others are pointing out, by stifling your honest feedback you're harming the company and your now-former coworkers.

...and? So what? What's in it for _me_?

The exit interview is the wrong place to try to improve the workplace. You should be doing it diligently while you're there, in every interaction with cow-orkers, providing respectful feedback to supervisors and helping to improve processes.

The exit interview is unlikely to be read by the audience to which you seem to be referring (or at least, read in any serious way). By the time you've left, the only meaningful feedback to leadership is attrition.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com