[BeetleB]

There's a typo in the article's headline. It should read:

"How Your Boss Would Like You to Quit"

I've always found the sociology of work fascinating, and how it can vary so much from industry to industry. When I read statements like:

> Your team trusted you and depended on you. It’s unethical to screw them over because they’re not paying you any more.

I wonder what their world view is, and why they think you're screwing them over and not the manager/company screwing them over. I see this often in society where there is a large imbalance of power: The weak turn on the weak rather than turn on those in power.

> Again, it’s unethical!

Leaving the team at short notice is unethical? You may want to look into how such a notion came into place, and who it benefits more.

Similarly, I often call out people at work who start throwing the words "professionalism" or "unprofessional" around. What do they think it means and why do they think that? It is fascinating.

There is some good stuff in the article. While I do believe one should treat the management and company well if they treat you well, I also tell people that they should never forget that if they can drop you at no notice, you don't owe them any more than that. Staying 2 weeks or longer is a courtesy, and not a sign of professionalism.

Just today got an email from a coworker who moved to another company some years ago. Her manager who she got along with very well recently jumped ship to another company, and her life is miserable under the new manager. Even if you have a great manager, always remember that they can (and probably will) leave. Plan your career accordingly.

[medvezhenok]

Sort of. I think everyone should read "How to win friends and influence people" by Dale Carnegie. I think in any interaction, if you want to maximize your success, you have to approach it from the frame of reference of the person you are talking to. Put yourself in their shoes, and think about what they care about, what they value, and then whatever you want to do, express it to them with reference to their perspective.

This is especially true for hard conversations (like firing someone, or leaving a company, etc etc). Note that understanding and getting into their shoes does not mean bending over backwards to do it their way; you can still do things your way (or find a compromise between the two), but you have to convey that you understand their perspective and (ideally) how what you are doing can be beneficial / neutral for them from that perspective.

Another good source is Coyote Talk vs Giraffe talk (it sounds silly, but I promise it isn't). That one is more focused on personal relationships, but I think much of it can be applied to work interactions too.

Most fighting and animosity in the world is caused by people talking past each other, not engaging in actual constructive dialogue.

[billllll]

The thing about "How to win friends..." that isn't explicitly stated is that you are doing the things recommended in the book because you WANT something from them. You want their friendship, so you put yourself in their shoes to help achieve that.

In the case of quitting your job, I'm not sure it applies since what you really want to do is to leave. If you have a good relationship with your team and company, by all means be generous with your time. Otherwise, I don't think you'll get much value out of being overly considerate of your old company.

[com2kid]

> In the case of quitting your job, I'm not sure it applies since what you really want to do is to leave. If you have a good relationship with your team and company, by all means be generous with your time. Otherwise, I don't think you'll get much value out of being overly considerate of your old company.

The # of times I've encountered people from my past is staggering.

No reason to needlessly anger people, especially if leaving a good impression just takes a wee bit more effort.

[BeetleB]

I'm not disagreeing with what you say, but I am having trouble connecting your comment to mine - did you mean to reply to someone else?

> Put yourself in their shoes, and think about what they care about, what they value, and then whatever you want to do, express it to them with reference to their perspective.

Agreed, but applies equally to managers as it does to employees.

> Most fighting and animosity in the world is caused by people talking past each other, not engaging in actual constructive dialogue.

The challenge in doing this is that there is often a great deal of information asymmetry between employees and management. It's quite common for managers not to be completely transparent (and at times, they're not allowed to when it comes to things like compensation). This automatically (and in my opinion, fairly) results in employees withholding information (personal motives, etc) as well. When there is either a power or information asymmetry, you'll find that usually the one who has the more power/information has to put in more effort to win the trust of the other.

[jamesbrady]

> It should read: "How Your Boss Would Like You to Quit"

Touché, yes there's some truth to this. Many of the points in the post were reflections on people leaving my team as I have an order of magnitude more examples of that than me leaving a team. If you're implying there's some kind of zero-sum thing going on here though, I disagree: it can be good for both you and your boss.

> I wonder what their world view is…

I don't quite follow this paragraph, could you rephrase?

> Leaving the team at short notice is unethical?

Ah, no – this is in the "Don’t sabotage, it’s a dick move" section: it's sabotage which is unethical.

[BeetleB]

> Ah, no – this is in the "Don’t sabotage, it’s a dick move" section: it's sabotage which is unethical.

I guess the source of the confusion is that you didn't specify what the sabotage actually is. I mean, deleting all your code before leaving is sabotage. Leaving without notice isn't. What did you have in mind when you wrote that?

> I don't quite follow this paragraph, could you rephrase?

I was highlighting a bunch of beliefs some people have:

- The notion that you should have loyalty to the team beyond your last paycheck.

- The notion that it is you being disloyal to the team, as opposed to management being disloyal to the team.

- The general framing that by lumping people into a team, that there is a single shared goal. A lot of people come to work to get paid, and they do it by providing value. Two people in the same team are allowed to have very different goals. One may care much more deeply about the mission than the other, etc.

- That much of the article places the burden on the employee leaving compared to on the management.

[jamesbrady]

> I guess the source of the confusion is that you didn't specify what the sabotage actually is

Ah ha, I see – yes I had in mind actively doing stuff to undermine the team after the person has left (on the benign end, deliberately doing a crappy job of documentation; on the malignant end, stuff like data destruction). I will make this clearer in the post, thanks!

> - The notion that you should have loyalty to the team beyond your last paycheck.

It made me sad to read this. You don't have to be loyal to your team, of course, but your framing makes me think that you've never been in a position where you've wanted to be loyal to your team, long-term.

[weego]

Wanting to be loyal to a team is a fools errand. It's the embodiment of having been successfully indoctrinated into the 'work as life & family' culture. I went through 20 years of that because it's my nature. Without a doubt it has been to the detriment of my career and personal life. Stayed on too long at dead-end jobs where I was the parent in the room; Stayed on too long at jobs that underpaid and leveraged my loyalty to add responsibility without recompense; Worked far too many hours a week for no actual reward other than praise.

Managers preach this because they want to make their problems yours as an employee. I know this because I've done it too and will probably do it again at some point.

Loyalty is not a one way street, but being an employee always is, there are no exceptions. Employment is having Damocles sword hanging over you and it's foolish to think otherwise.

[lmm]

I've been in a team that I wanted to be loyal to. I'm actually still friends with some of my former teammates from there. It was a great job right up until the point where they laid off as many people as legally possible and lied about the reasons.

It might be different for an employee-owned cooperative, but if you're working for a corporation, loyalty is a bad tradeoff even if you like your team. The risk/reward of things like being honest with your manager about what isn't working just isn't there (and you'd be surprised - or maybe you wouldn't - how quickly a seemingly friendly manager can decide to act like a total dickhead, and there's nothing you can do about it if they do).

[BeetleB]

> You don't have to be loyal to your team, of course, but your framing makes me think that you've never been in a position where you've wanted to be loyal to your team, long-term.

I'm sure such places exist, but most jobs are not like that, sadly.

In any case, there's a difference between want and should. I'm not criticizing people who want to be loyal to the team. Just those that think there is an obligation to.

[bavila]

> I guess the source of the confusion is that you didn't specify what the sabotage actually is. I mean, deleting all your code before leaving is sabotage. Leaving without notice isn't. What did you have in mind when you wrote that?

There are three main sections in the article:

- Your reasons for leaving shouldn’t be a surprise to your boss

- Match your notice period to the handover period

- Set the team up to flourish without you

The "don't sabotage" subsection is under the "Set the team up to flourish without you" section, not the "Match your notice period to the handover period" section.

Seems fairly common sense that the author did not intend to conflate lack of notice with sabotage, considering that the subject of sabotage is completely independent and separate from the section relating to notice.

[cwkoss]

Yeah.

Breaking things out of malice is bad sabotage.

Speaking the painful truths to your coworkers and higher ups can be very productive 'sabotage': you don't have to worry about job security anymore so you can say things that need to be said but others are afraid to.

[ipaddr]

Not having a backup or turnover process in place is a rookie move made by companies that haven't reached a maturity.

Thinking the employee is sabotaging by leaving the company is a sign you don't understand what the role of an employee is. You are not 5 friends hacking together a game and if someone quits because they get a girlfriend you call them a dick. You are a resource that has been purchased and assigned to work on a specific task. The company hopes to leverage something you do into a profit or as support for a business unit.