[NikolaNovak]

I think the very first sentiment is the most universal one:

Your quitting should not be a surprise to your manager.

Just like year-end review (for those companies that have it) should not be a surprise to the employee - feedback should be continuous. Similarly, if your (rational, to another posters point) manager's reaction is one of complete shock and surprise, it may be a sign you two weren't communicating sufficiently and planned/discussed your goals/expectations/challenges/direction/etc.

[marbletimes]

The assumption here is that the employee leaving the company was due to some problems that could not be solved after careful discussion with the manager, skip-level etc. But leaving a company can also happen because another company offers you 50% more money or a different role, or you just feel like changing.

For any employee, including managers, directors and up—there is only one thing to remember: when the company intends to let you go, they don't ask for your opinion. Two-week notice is professional and more than enough.

[Dayshine]

> when the company intends to let you go, they don't ask for your opinion. Two-week notice is professional and more than enough

American culture is so bizarre.

Here in the UK notice (in both directions) is usually contractually 1 month after 6 months, sometimes up to 3 months. If they really want to get rid of you they can pay you to job seek full-time for a few months, which is great. In practice, you get several months of relaxed handover.

After 2 years you get statutory protection and can't be fired, only made redundant, which comes with 1 week notice per year worked.

[Nursie]

In the UK 3 months is unusual, I've only ever heard about it for management positions. In tech roles 1 month is standard AFAICT.

Personally I'd never work on a three month term, I consider it abusive, it completely kills your ability to find a new role before handing in your notice. You'd have to be really confident of your skills and of the market before you made that leap.

And you can be fired for all sorts of reasons after 2 years, including poor performance, but there has to be a reason and you have to be given notice and a chance or three to fix the problem.

[Dayshine]

I've never had an employer unwilling to wait 3 months for me to start.

> And you can be fired for all sorts of reasons after 2 years, including poor performance, but there has to be a reason and you have to be given notice and a chance or three to fix the problem.

If you're working a tech role you have the money to get legal advice and help avoid illegal firing. They can't just make up poor performance.

[Nursie]

> I've never had an employer unwilling to wait 3 months for me to start.

I've had employers unwilling to wait two weeks, and that was when I was the only person on the market with the specific skills they needed (in the UK). Hell, in later years when I've been contracting the entire job can be done and over in in three months.

Fundamentally if I need someone to fill a role, and if you can't do it for three months but someone else can do it in one, or even better immediately, I'm taking them.

Are the roles you've been in all in very large corporates?

> They can't just make up poor performance.

Of course, but they can fire you for reasons like poor performance if they are well grounded in that evaluation. Clearly it shouldn't be a surprise as your management should have been talking to you and helping you get up to scratch, but it does exist as a way to get rid of someone who is genuinely underperforming. Your post above made it sound like redundancy was the only way.

[refurb]

I’ve worked under both systems and prefer the short notice period (no notice is typical in the US, but 2 weeks is customary).

Landing a new role, then giving notice and working for 90 more days is a huge pain in the ass.

[jamesbrady]

Yes! Good point: the manager needs to create the forum for those conversations to happen but the report still needs to take it on themselves to have that sometimes-awkward conversation.