[AznHisoka]

I can empathize with the OP, but why go through the hassle of causing a commotion, and making it a Techcrunch story? Just leave amicably - they're NOT forcing you to work. You can get up and leave anytime you want, which is the mature thing to do.

[michaelochurch]

I think we should encourage people like OP to speak up.

For years, we've had a climate where people are terrified to speak up about unethical management practices, bad hiring and worse firing, and other idiocies within organizations where they've worked. Why? Why is the employee supposed to protect an employer that might have screwed him over royally?

This is American Spring. People are speaking the fuck up, and it's great. It puts a damper on the idiotic and unethical behaviors that companies will pursue if they can get away with it. Companies will be less likely to pursue unethical management practices (or, failing that, more likely to cut generous severance checks; and generous severance to people like OP means more startups) if people are unafraid to speak up when they're treated badly.

[ryanmolden]

Yeah, there is definitely a balance to strike between just venting your spleen and calling out real douchebaggery. I have always suspected the "never talk about being screwed over/speak ill of a previous employer" meme is strikingly similar to the kind of meme sociopaths would want to become "the norm". Absent anyone talking about their experiences (good or bad) there would really be much less downside for terrible behavior, since no one would ever mention it so the offenders could just continue on mistreating people with impunity, of course as I said, balance is called for and not all situations are really so one-sided. I was reading a Marshall Goldsmith book awhile back and he made a good point, to paraphrase: "There are the facts and there is the story we tell ourselves about the facts. These are two different things but most people don't differentiate them".

[michaelochurch]

I have always suspected the "never talk about being screwed over/speak ill of a previous employer" meme is strikingly similar to the kind of meme sociopaths would want to become "the norm".

Not sociopathy. Managerial tribalism. To be fair, you probably wouldn't want to work with a company that didn't respect technical talent, right? Well, that goes both ways. Most people making hiring decisions are managers, and therefore don't want to hire someone who seems to dislike managerial authority. Managers and executives tend to protect their own.

I agree with the "no-badmouthing policy" on job interviews. In that context, time is so limited that wasting any on what went wrong at previous companies is just worthless. We're here to talk about the future, not the past. On the other hand, that principle shouldn't have to extend to all quarters of a person's life. I don't think OP is a loser because he failed at Microsoft, nor that he's a douchebag for exposing corporate silliness. I think he should have that right.

The disquieting thing about managerial tribalism is that the good protect the bad. No programmer would argue against the fact that there are some people in software engineering jobs who don't deserve to be there... but managers have a hard time admitting that the bottom 40% of their tribe (at least) are counterproductive, unethical, or even destructive.

[kamaal]

>>The disquieting thing about managerial tribalism is that the good protect the bad. No programmer would argue against the fact that there are some people in software engineering jobs who don't deserve to be there... but managers have a hard time admitting that the bottom 40% of their tribe (at least) are counterproductive, unethical, or even destructive.

That is because the default job of a manager doesn't involve 'getting things done'. That itself brings their profession a degree of inefficiency. Add to this some managers just perceive their jobs as merely exchanging emails, calling for pointless status meetings, asking questions about things they have no clue of, approving leave requests, pushing things as they are as long as they can and things like that. And for that they need to build faithful loyal gang of people, to can bend to their service at command.

True managers lead with example. Bring business, build business, promote meritocracy, and building strong teams that can form common goals and achieve them.

[WalterBright]

The "speak no ill of a previous employer" is not about tribalism or protecting other managers. It's that your prospective employer doesn't care to be disparaged by you when you leave them.

[michaelochurch]

No, it's tribalism. Tribalism mixed with an expectation of authority.

Companies don't make decisions. People do. When someone speaks ill of a previous manager, the reason he is unlikely to get hired is that the person assessing him usually is a manager, and managers don't like people who have the gall to speak out about executive decisions, even when they're objectively bad ones.

Software engineers have a similar tendency, except we don't take it as far. We avoid working at companies that have a reputation for not respecting engineering talent. The difference is that we don't protect the malevolent or incompetent among us. They do too much damage, and we're too rational. No engineer would protect the scumbag consultant who puts a time-bomb in software to hold the client hostage. Yet bad managers are just as destructive, while run-of-the-mill managers routinely defend the actions of the worst managers.

[tallanvor]

"American Spring"? Hardly. We're not talking about the government, here.

Look, you want to make complaints about your former employer? Fine. But if you do so publicly, be prepared to have a much harder time finding your next job (or if you've already found your next job, they may reevaluate their decision to hire you). Any company should be wary about hiring someone who has a history of airing their dirty laundry in public.

The truth is that if you want to, you can create change, even in large companies like Microsoft, and even without being in a management position. Most people are simply too impatient and not willing to do the work. --It takes time to build influence and figure out what has to be said in public vs in private. Most(?) engineers aren't very good at politics - we're blunt and worry more about saying what we think needs to be said than how people will take it, an approach that tends to fail miserably when dealing with non-engineers.

And, of course, eventually you'll probably move to another company no matter what. When I've decided to move on, I've always made sure to send my manager an email describing what I think the company was doing right, what it was doing wrong, and what made me decide it was time to leave. At that point, they can decide how much of that they want to share up the management chain, and this way I don't burn bridges.

[kamaal]

>>The truth is that if you want to, you can create change, even in large companies like Microsoft, and even without being in a management position. Most people are simply too impatient and not willing to do the work.

My experience has been the opposite. Every time I've tried to create some nice stuff, the manager above me always perceived as a threat to his position.

And he purposefully rewarded under performers and build his own gang around such people to gather support.

In fact one manager told me, I am not a good player because I was going too fast, and good team player always goes as fast his team.

In other words, he wanted me to become as inefficient as others if I had to become his best man.

Good experience in $LARGECOMPANIES are exceptions, not rules.

[michaelochurch]

"American Spring"? Hardly. We're not talking about the government, here.

Yeah, but in this country, it's corporate (not governmental) malevolence that is the problem.

Any company should be wary about hiring someone who has a history of airing their dirty laundry in public.

Attitudes like yours, while not uncommon, are the reason companies are able to pull so much unethical shit. People are afraid to speak up because they're worried about what will happen to them in the future.

If companies don't want to be disparaged by ex-employees, they should treat them well. And if things get to a point where someone decent still needs to be fired, they should write a severance contract. If you fire good employees without severance, you deserve to have your name dragged through the mud. If you're completely cash-strapped and can't afford a severance check, at least have the decency to (a) write a good reference, and (b) not contest the person's unemployment.

The truth is that if you want to, you can create change, even in large companies like Microsoft, and even without being in a management position. Most people are simply too impatient and not willing to do the work.

Ha! Not so. Important change steps on the toes of people who are entrenched and powerful. Always. Sure, you can clean up a few desks, but real change is just hard to push through.

It takes time to build influence and figure out what has to be said in public vs in private.

Right or wrong, many people find white-collar social climbing to be disgusting and slimy. One could argue that this attitude reflects defensive dismissal or "sour grapes" (i.e. because people aren't good at it, they decry it as an immoral mode of combat) but I think there is some valor in that attitude, nonetheless. Ideally, decisions should be made based on whether they are right or wrong, not based on political extrinsics.

When I've decided to move on, I've always made sure to send my manager an email describing what I think the company was doing right, what it was doing wrong, and what made me decide it was time to leave.

I've never seen that have any kind of effect. In fact, when leaving a company is the time when I'd be least inclined to try to "help" it, because I have no reason to care anymore, and because a departing employee has no credibility anyway.

[poorpointofview]

If an employee does NOT publicly speak about her or his experience she or he is providing the company with less of an incentive to value his or her experience there.

The public image of a company has value to a company and if the company knows that an employee can speak out about the employee's experience at the company they will have more of an incentive to ensure that employee's experience is pleasant because to do otherwise would harm their public image and their hiring abilities.

By being silent you are creating information asymmetry(the employer knows more than the employee) in the job market which contributes to people making less informed decisions. Less informed decisions leads to inefficiency.

The mature thing to do is to inform the public to ensure that competition between companies does not stop.

By being silent you are throwing wrenches in the wheels of regulated market capitalism.

[Cyndre]

This one can be taken even farther and be applied to the "don't discuss your salary". My opinion has always been that this rule exists so that companies can continue to underpay employees.

[creamyhorror]

Great post. Information asymmetry leading to market inefficiency (and poor outcomes for the info-poor side) is how I think of it too.

[jxi]

What's wrong about ranting about it? If it's interesting and useful, people can learn from it and not make the same mistakes? I don't think you should have to leave amicably if you felt like you weren't treated well, otherwise every company can just treat all their employees like shit and nobody would know/care.

[uzair88]

I'd love to see Microsoft respond to this!