[deathanatos]

So, author, you claim to see the breakup coming. Yet, at the moment the employee gives their notice:

> find levers to negotiate

The time during which you "see it coming", when I the employee am asking more … pointed questions, usually about the company, how its run, the team's responsibilities or work or pay etc. … that, that is when you have the levers to negotiate. That is when you are still the BATNA.

But by the time I'm giving you notice, those levers are gone.¹

I also am pretty sure the last manager I gave notice to did not see it coming. He had a very quizzical look when I asked for the 1-on-1 mentioned in the article. He too, tried to fight what was by then destiny.

¹just in case someone tries to argue "everyone has a price": yeah, I'd agree. But I've not had anyone offer it, and by that time, it's far too high because of what you'd be asking. (Me to renege on a deal, me to stick with something I'm dissatisfied with, and it'd be a "pay replacing happiness" sort of an offer, which is why it'd be costly. You've had the chance to change the "happiness" part, and usually, the demonstration has been "we're unwilling to address those grievances")

(Also, too often, I think, the "problems" run deeper than the authority of the direct manager has control over. My last manager was in that situation: there was very little I think he could actually do. And that, in itself, is a problem.)

[dustintrex]

As a manager, even if you see The Signs, you rarely have 100% confidence: it's hard to tell if they're taking days off because they're interviewing or because their toddler is sick again. And if you take a punt and ask if they're going to leave, that's not going to go well: even if they are, they're going to deny it until the offer is signed, and it's going to come off as adversarial.

IMHO, once the switch of "I can't take this anymore and I want to leave" has been flipped, it's very difficult to flip that back. So your job as a manager is to do regular check-ins at sufficient frequency to identify and correct any issues before they get to this stage -- although as you say in your last paragraph, often these are outside your control. Which is why I've had X people leave my team in the past year, and am currently interviewing myself.

[aoms]

Good luck

[scottLobster]

> (Also, too often, I think, the "problems" run deeper than the authority of the direct manager has control over. My last manager was in that situation: there was very little I think he could actually do. And that, in itself, is a problem.)

Yep. Particularly at larger companies your immediate manager can often do little more than perhaps offer a mild pay raise or slightly alter working conditions.

I'm currently planning on leaving some time in the next couple of years (sticking around for family reasons in the near-term) because I've realized our business model isn't what I thought it was when I joined, and that engineering really is a cost center past a certain baseline, which explains the utterly mediocre equipment/procedures and lack of leadership/low morale. I'd rather work somewhere where engineering is a profit center. Nothing my immediate manager can do about that.

[geodel]

> because I've realized our business model isn't what I thought it was when I joined, and that engineering really is a cost center past a certain baseline, which explains the utterly mediocre equipment/procedures ...

This is a good point. I am seeing about same thing at work. Over obsession with Agile processes, tracking hours, third rate light duty computers, rigid working hours and so on. Many good engineers have already left instead banging head against "process" wall. And funnily today managers saying on call that they are finding difficult to hire and people are leaving left and right.

[0xFACEFEED]

Here's the reality that took me waaaay too long to accept: some companies are optimizing for mediocrity.

Mediocrity (often achieved through process) has cold advantages:

- It's cheaper because you're paying people less.

- It's more resilient because people are easier to replace.

- It's more predictable because you're not asking for groundbreaking work.

- Etc... you get the idea.

The only real downside is you're not going to build an exceptional product. But here's the rub: not every product needs to be exceptional in every way. Thus most departments in a company are perfectly fine with mediocrity.

Those "good engineers" aren't wanted.

[adingus]

My company held an all hands and when someone asked about the salary based attrition this is basically what the response was. And I believe it. It certainly seems like the company is geared toward attracting mediocre talent for mediocre pay and letting them slide by for 40 years. The company inevitably comes out ahead when inflation eats away your salary.

[jrmg]

I don't think the author was suggesting that it was the right time to think about this - they were more just reflecting on their emotional response.

When I close the video meeting, I settle. My mind is racing. “Can I try something to bring the person back?” A list of grievances sets in, and I go through a loss cycle for days. It’s a breakup. I let go.

That doesn't read to me like they're thinking that finding something to bring the person back is a plausible outcome.

[haswell]

I’d say these are pretty classic stages of grief. We instinctively go into bargaining mode even when we know we’ve already lost.

[kevinmchugh]

The "stages of grief" is not especially well supported scientifically and probably is a stretch to invoke it here. Negotiation is a natural reaction to an employee resigning because employment is a negotiated agreement.

[haswell]

> The "stages of grief" is not especially well supported scientifically

As a therapy aid, no. But as a general model for describing (or recognizing) the most common experiences post loss, still considered useful.

> because employment is a negotiated agreement

This does not logically follow the rest of the sentence preceding it.

The fact that negotiation takes place at the beginning of one’s employment does not have an automatic connection to the things a manager experiences when that employee resigns.

[mewse]

Agreed; if you’ve accepted a job offer, reneging on that deal because your current employer made you a better offer isn’t a great look. It’ll be remembered by the hiring company and the individual who made the offer, and that can follow you around for a long time, making future job searches a lot harder.

[seneca]

> Agreed; if you’ve accepted a job offer, reneging on that deal because your current employer made you a better offer isn’t a great look. It’ll be remembered by the hiring company and the individual who made the offer, and that can follow you around for a long time, making future job searches a lot harder.

I disagree. I've personally hired people who previously did this exact back and forth dance of getting an offer, then rejecting it because their current employer made them a better off. If a company is petty enough to hold it against you when you act in your best interests, you probably don't want to work there.

[toast0]

Making an offer and having it refused is different than having it accepted and then reneged.

[strken]

I think the author was talking about a low false negative rate (all the people who leave showed signs of leaving), but not a low false positive rate (many of the people who show signs of leaving don't leave).