371–380 of 431 posts
You haven't quit already, you're quitting after the meeting (likely 2 weeks from your notice). Presumably if they were the retaliatory type then they could fire you for not attending, right?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> criticize bad managers. What do you do when you work for a company where you think managers are bad, and their managers are bad, but they all think they are great and they think you're the problem? How do you objectively (not subjectively) determine if a manager is bad? If 200 people in the organization are "happy enough", it's your word versus theirs on what a good manager vs a bad manager is. HR doesn't care (in…
> What do you do when you work for a company where you think managers are bad, and their managers are bad, but they all think they are great and they think you're the problem? How do you objectively (not subjectively) determine if a manager is bad? If 200 people in the organization are "happy enough", it's your word versus theirs on what a good manager vs a bad manager is. If you notice you are the only one in 200 pe…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Getting into individual criticisms is probably about the last thing I would do in an exit interview. It’s not my problem any longer because it’s an exit interview. Generally speaking momentary catharsis associated with blowing up bridges isn’t worth it.
I’m weirded out by how this comment is exactly how to handle it imo but not many others seem to agree. I’m perplexed. I get more confused about other peoples opinions the older I get but maybe that’s the thing I’m older and wiser. Or maybe I’m just an idiot.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel like I’ve been at more companies than you and I started in 2013. The fuck. The game is about presenting an image that doesn’t actually exist. It’s about not acknowledging your manager is a toxic piece of shit and your company is completely broken and will likely be bankrupt in a few years while execs milk every ounce from it. It’s about faking positivity and that you’re so excited to join the company because i…
The game still exists in companies that build physical products, but I've found it's not quite as bad there. You're right, SV is the king of lying, along with any publicly traded company. My experience is small privately held businesses that offer physical product are the most pragmatic and 'honest.' The closer you are to the source of income, the less everything but the money matters. I like being only 1-2 steps fro…
This cannot be accomplished in a largecap company. Too many politic layers. Cant be done in a startup that is professionally backed - too much window dressing for investors.
However, small privates are the sweet spot for honest workers. Get stuff done, or make sales, and ownership doesnt care if your hair is blue or your style is brash. In fact, most savvy owners will hire exactly that "rough" worker precisely because what they see is what they get.
That worker is not an apiring manager, but an artisan, with no patience for nonsense, and ready to call out BS when they see it.
That is management-repellant
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What do you do when you work for a company where you think managers are bad, and their managers are bad, but they all think they are great and they think you're the problem? How do you objectively (not subjectively) determine if a manager is bad? If 200 people in the organization are "happy enough", it's your word versus theirs on what a good manager vs a bad manager is. If you notice you are the only one in 200 pe…
> If you notice you are the only one in 200 people have any issues, a reasonable question to ask yourself is if the problem is you. This is exactly the right attitude. If everyone else is happy and the only problem is you, all the more reason to be respectful! It's better to treat it as a cultural misfit rather than ask them risk making 200 other employees unhappy to appease you.
Being honest opens you up to having that honesty used against you, so people just put on a cheerful saccharine smile and lie.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It should have been HR that interviewed you, and your direct boss should not have been given specific information that would make them hold a grudge about anything you said. Sounds like that company has some issues.
What does "should" mean here? You seem to be implying that there is exactly one correct way to handle this which there is broad consensus on. If so where can i go read the rule book for the correct answers on all of managing people for all human endeavors? It reminds me of people who are convinced that there is one true way to do "agile" and that every one who disagrees is somehow subjectively wrong because some blog…
If you’re looking for the book of these basic rules, maybe take an HR class?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What does "should" mean here? You seem to be implying that there is exactly one correct way to handle this which there is broad consensus on. If so where can i go read the rule book for the correct answers on all of managing people for all human endeavors? It reminds me of people who are convinced that there is one true way to do "agile" and that every one who disagrees is somehow subjectively wrong because some blog…
HR typically conducts the exit interviews as they are a neutral party. It’s common sense as to why your boss shouldn’t do it... you know, since the feedback people have is often about their boss. If you’re looking for the book of these basic rules, maybe take an HR class?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hypothetically and assuming 1) at-will employment, 2) company policy requires exit interview and 3) they didn't care about the knowledge transfer, could the company then terminate you "for cause" because you refused to do the exit interview?
Probably but that just means they're on the hook for unemployment.
However the definition of with cause varies by state.
Also, i genuinely dont know if refusing an exit interview meets that criteria.
Generally, exit inteeviews are: - Not what you were required to to do in the first place - Not a policy in the standard handbook - Not a critical ad hoc work function
Therefore, the issue is murky and wouldnt pass HR review. I would bet most companies would let it go unless this decision came from ownership itself
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does this amount to doxxing though? Naming someone or a company in a public forum is one thing, posting their home address and phone number is different
what if that person has a particularly identifiable name? It wouldnt be hard to guess who it was in that case by searching for their name on LinkedIn, noting their geographic history, and guessing at which (tech or otherwise) companies the manager has worked at. What's more, a common name might mean multiple people get harassed via that same method due to poor detective skills.