Small aside, reading all these conversations: I just think a lot of static gets injected into these discussions about wage/employers/comp on HN because a large majority of the commenters here are either currently business owners, or founders, or trying to be either of those. But there is also a huge contingent of people who do regular waged labor here, whether FAANG or freelance. Beyond any political differences, I think this is the main operating tension here, when there is one.<p>The very essence of this website is not amenable to <i>workers</i> coming together to discuss things like the propriety of employment-tied healthcare, or what we should expect from our managers, but mostly for aspiring and current startup leaders to, probably, discuss everything <i>but</i> that stuff. It is a forum attached to a startup incubator after all, and I can't imagine much VC money goes to those companies that are worried about their own labor related issues/externalities, at least those that they don't need to legally be worried about.<p>I don't think anything is lost here, there is no problem per se, discussions are of course not being diminished by this ultimately demographic point; but just... if you come to these threads and feel a little disappointed that there is not a more universal solidarity towards the basic decency of the worker, just remember it is because not everyone here is a worker!
I’m not inclined to do an exit interview because I’ve likely already expressed my opinions.<p>I do think the “the company doesn’t care about you” type advice does require some nuance.<p>Different companies make different choices and just because someone moves from mega corporation to mega corp doesn’t mean you shouldn’t trust anyone…<p>There’s space in between giving your entire self to a company and imagining everyone is out to get you.<p>I’ve worked with folks who are absolutely obsessed with protecting themselves from being stomped on by a company, and nobody wanted to work with people who ooze cynicism like that / talk about taking a better job all the time . They of course interpret the results (not being put on some team or another) that as being punished because they “know” / are willing to express what they thin the truth is…
It truly is shocking that health insurance is tied to employment status.<p>I really think this is a large part of the trend towards overt ruthlessness in the USA, no one has their back so they have no ones back, as people age and experience medical bankruptcy (or narrowly avoid it at great cost) they are realizing this ruthlessness in our system.
There was a time in America a generation or two ago when you could give your all to a company. Here in Michigan there were a number of small towns where a single employer would dominate. If the town needed something, like a baseball park the owner would simply write a check. If a loyal employee had a health crisis that insurance didn't cover the company owner would write a check. When there were tough economic times the employees would rally to help the company knowing in better times it would have their back.<p>Then one of two things happened, the owner died with no capable heirs and the company was sold. Or after NAFTA the company wasn't competitive with low priced foreign labor and folded. If the company was sold a couple of MBA's came in to run the store and ruthlessly ran it exporting all the profits. Eventually the jobs would go overseas or to another part of America with lower wages like the South.<p>Either way the people eventually lost their jobs and entire towns would collapse. I have seen it here in Michigan happen over the past forty years again and again.
One of the wisest pieces of career advice I ever heard was "you cannot change an organization by leaving it."<p>It works both ways: if you're leaving in hopes that it'll be a wake-up call to management that a valuable person left, then it probably won't be. And, if you leave your workplace to improve your own life, you've also necessarily chosen not to try and improve the workplace. Leaving means giving up on trying to improve them.<p>With that in mind, the exit interview isn't a trap so much as pointless: all you can do is hurt yourself here, you can have them remember you fondly or not, but you can't get them to change things in the exit interview.
If anything, it isn't cut-throat enough.<p>I worked in academia for quite some time, and you would think, "Well, this ought to be less of the kind of horror you can get in the private sector," but no. It was everything you could expect from any other environment.<p>I didn't comment in the exit interview thread, but I absolutely <i>chortled</i> inside when my direct manager was present for my last exit interview -- kind of a big no-no -- but these folks just lack any kind of shame. You will hear the same "A five is given for outstanding performance ... WORDS ... but we will never give fives ... MORE WORDS ... it is expected that everyone try for outstanding performance" doublethink. Watching a sixty-three year old employee get shuffled off despite decades of loyal work, well ...<p>Working for family? Even worse.<p>Currently, I expect any employer to sell me to the knackers for a Jell-O cup later on and not feel the least bit bad about it. Assume that at least the first couple levels of management are dead-eyed lizard people wearing human costumes and you'll probably be safer.<p>Honestly, start gathering dirt on day number one. It goes bad after a while (but doesn't decay with the rapidity that gratitude does), so make sure to update your map of where the bodies are buried. Keep your resume fresh. Make sure you can put the hurt on someone if you suddenly get the boot, fairly or not. You don't have to <i>use</i> any of this, but it is nice to have on hand when you find a knife in your back.
At the end of his book AMP it up, Frank Slootman provides some career tips. The things he focuses on. 1. Join a company that's growing and moving up. He talks about getting in the elevator by joining the right company. And how everyone during certain years at Microsoft did well (just one example). 2. Next he recommends ignoring compensation in the early days of your career.<p>I see this at my company sometimes. Mid level engineer will switch from Stream to Google and be surprised that the comp is higher. Of course it's higher, what you're sacrificing is career growth. Early on in your career thats usually not the right move. (of course some people crush it at google. google is probably not the best example, while slower than a fast growing startup its still doing well. Someone else joined the FT or some public companies that literally don't grow.<p><a href="https://www.saastr.com/why-if-you-quit-every-year-you-wont-make-any-money/" rel="nofollow">https://www.saastr.com/why-if-you-quit-every-year-you-wont-m...</a><p>If you care about total comp the best options are.A. Grow your expertise so that you can join a FAANG company at a director level. B. Join a series A/B company and hope you can impact it enough to reach a good outcome.<p>The other thing people dont get it is that you're not negotiating salary once. You have to continue to deliver that value to the company. So if you sell yourself really well, get a massive salary, at some point the company will notice that you're not driving that much value. As an example see the people who joined Fast. I'd look for companies that share their revenue numbers with their team and are transparent.<p>Sometimes companies that pay the best are also under water in their stock options since they raised at a 200x revenue valuation. It gives them a lot of resources to pay top dollar, but its also more similar to joining a company where you don't get upside.<p>Not to be misunderstood, in general it's good to take the higher salary. Some people just don't negotiate well and some companies take advantage of that. (Still many engineers in the EU at <40k). You just want to make sure you understand the full picture and not focus only on salary.
I’ve seen too many layoffs where critical people were fired, and experienced the resulting train wrecks first hand, to have any sympathy for companies or management in this regard. Team mates yes, psychotic dystopian organizations? Hell no!
The apology is unneeded.<p>Not telling the entire truth during the very last phase of employment, the exit interview, is but a drip in a bucket of lies that is called employment.<p>You lied to get in. By emphasizing your strengths and hiding your weaknesses. The employer did the same thing.<p>You lie constantly about the work or its conditions being fine, as complaining about it is kind of a taboo. You lie to your peers and superiors all the time when they do or say things you disagree with, especially when the cost of conflict is too high.<p>You lie about the company drink being so much fun, whilst you really don't want to go. You lie about how much effort that task really costs, as you want to build in some security. You lie about how much time you're not really working.<p>You lie about being a well behaved human being whilst the minute you arrive home, you burp, fart and swear all over the place.<p>...yet you won't at your mother-in-law.<p>Conclusion: any human relation that is involuntary (you do not directly pick your manager, colleagues or mother-in-law) is diplomatic, which is a fancy word for not genuine. You keep up appearances and tell people what they want to hear, because the downside of the truth is too large.<p>So silence or lying is fine. Unless some massive humanitarian thing is at stake based on your input, which I figure to be rare. Alternatively, one can learn how to criticize in a non-damaging way.
I've had some interesting experiences with exit interviews but generally agree with the canned politically friendly response strategy, "I'm just moving on; need to make the best decision for me and my family" etc. If you have some angry criticism about why, personally I think it's one of those situations where you should write a letter expressing those feelings but not send it.<p>One I did with BigCo I was leaving was all just box checking yes/no questions like, Are you leaving because you felt discriminated against, are you leaving because you were harassed, etc.<p>During another one the HR person asks me, "At what point did you realize you had no future here?"<p>And at my most recent one I was asked if the client I was assigned to had anything to do with it, and I said yes. They were actually working on ending the relationship as far as I know.
I live and work in countries with good social security nets and less overtly dystopian work conditions (not perfect of course). I still agree with his advice. Work is a game we play for money. No more real than a choreographed dance. Companies do not really care for you, that should not need stating. Your coworkers might, and if the ones you're friendly with are high up or influential, things might seem like a family. It's actually an in-group.<p>Don't waste your time trying to be collectivist in an inherently individualistic system. You need to play the game by its rules if you want any results. And less stress.
My reaction reading "Exit Interviews Are a Trap" is that the danger was overstated a tad which left too little room for the value of potentially benefitting people that are not yourself. To me it wasn't so much as "thinking about yourself" as it was "overstating the risks to yourself".<p>But I think it's still the advice people need to hear despite that. I agree with your article that people have rose-colored glasses on when going into those meetings and speaking their mind.<p>On a personal note: Jacob and I worked at a company that to me fits the description of the one in the article. I'm very curious if it's the same one.
This piece is mostly a response to how people here thought the author was too paranoid about being honest in an exit interview. And the answer is unionization?<p>I 100% agree you should be a mercenary at work. Look out for number 1, HR isn't your friend, etc. But being so paranoid you can't even speak your mind in a nearly zero stakes situation of talking to your company before you leave speaks to a very negative outlook on work that seems honestly exhausting.<p>And more to point, if you are a good mercenary, unionization only harms you.
Was really on board with everything he'd written in both articles so its sad to see it devolve into a "late stage captialism" rant.<p>There is so much interesting critique to make of our current system, sad to see people going for these lazy, of the moment, arguments.
The fact that there was an outcry big enough to merit this is sad. HN and sites like it are saturated with people trying to turn the tides of a world with better worker protections. Some of it is because people making startups genuinely think they will "do better than those guys" which is never true at scale.
The reason that the job market is such a mess in the US is that it is dehumanizing from beginning to end, from interview to exit and at both of those stages there isn't really any benefit to trying to speak your mind.
Companies will do whatever makes them profit. If a car kills X people it has to outweigh Y in legal costs before a Z amount will be spent on a recall. You can be friendly and enjoy the comrodery of your fellow employees but at the end of the day make no mistake they are not invested in you and will replace you the moment you are dead or inefficient to their KPIs. Take care of yourself, take care of your family and friends but do not make the mistake of confusing those with your bosses or managers because I promise they won't get those mixed up when it comes your well being.<p>Exit interviews are a trap...because everything you say and do at your company has little landmines built into it because they are constantly trying to use humans like cogs in a clock and when you wear out you are no longer helpful to the clock maker or the people who use the clock everyday...then you get removed from the clock and replaced quickly.
The problem may be that his advice is a defeatist "never do this". In the referenced article about exit interviews, the advice centers entirely around not providing feedback. Be as bland as possible. The workplace is presented in a combative manner where you cannot ever win.<p>While that article mentions game theory, and describes one situation where it seemed safe to provide feedback, it then focuses on that feedback being unproductive. The author could have offered advice on /how/ to provide feedback. If enough people leave for the same reasons it may start to turn the ship - so let's consider why the feedback was not well received.<p>Providing negative feedback to the company follows similar patterns to the company providing negative feedback to employees. We're still talking about humans communicating with each other - emotional, flawed, egotistical (aka fairly normal) humans. Decide which one or two points are most important to communicate. Offer genuine positive feedback to make it easier to accept the negative feedback, and try not to present other topics in a negative manner. Let the 1-2 negative points stand out among other positive language.<p>Some companies care. Some bosses care. Some don't. Some are combative, dysfunctional, or selfish. Some care but are misguided. Rather than blanket "never do this" advice, let's focus on learning when to offer vs withhold feedback, and how to offer negative feedback when it is warranted.
I gave some very honest feedback during my exit interview at Yahoo when I left, and I was blacklisted. So from then on I never ever gave exit interview feedback ever. It’s not worth it.
From an employee's standpoint it's simple: You should do every possible thing to put your interests and those of your family or dependents first and foremost above all else, especially your job. Once you've done this to the best of your abilities, you politely give the company or companies you work for what you can based on how reasonably they're compensating you, while never being ashamed of taking a mercenary option as soon as it seems necessary.<p>Taking all questions of labor law fairness aside (you won't solve them alone in a workplace anyway), reality is what it is and while it's still imperfect, hedge yourself against those imperfections to your own benefit as well as you can, legally.<p>Secondly, companies that vomit platitudes about "we're all a family here" and "we look out for each other" are by default spewing lying, superficial PR bullshit. They should never be trusted for a second on such nonsense unless you've secured a written contract of provisions for how you'll be treated, have your healthcare taken care of or be compensated if dismissed for any reason. If you can't secure those things, then tread carefully and keep hedging.<p>edit: couple extra words.
Any company that says "we are a family" or talk about loyalty is immediately not to be trusted. Was on linkedIn today and say some director stating that the one thing she looks for on a resume is loyalty, if someone has jumped ship every couple of years she is not interested. Looked at her CV and she had been with the current company 5 years. Prior to that, not a single job longer than 17 months. She essentially reached leadership and then decided that its insulting for the plebs to quit on her. She also made a statement along the lines of 'you spend 12 hours a day at work...'. Any leader that thinks you should be spending 12 hours a day at work is not a leader you want. It was the clearest red flag I have ever seen a people leader post.<p>I will work for a company and try my best as long as they provide me with good yearly raises and benefits and don't require insane hours. Fail on any of those points and I am gone. There are plenty of opportunities for a 20% raise somewhere else. I know that as soon as times get tough they will cut whatever heads are required while being sure to give the execs or in-crowd a golden parachute and the rest nothing.
I recently joined a big tech company. It was a long term project and something quite new to me as I switched career and was working in a different context. There are pros and cons, but it's a bit of a disappointment.<p>I've got the impression very quickly that absolutely nobody cares about me in this company and that employees mostly don't love what they do. Specifically
- There's a high turn-over
- Everybody is focused on their performance, compensation and on improving evaluation metrics
- Right after joining, I found the form explaining how to resign. Extremely easy.
- People do get fired: including a skilled, friendly, colleague of mine (didn't meet expectations for two semesters).
- Management knows how to keep the pressure high (in a friendly manner)
- I can't like my project: there are too many things to do and broken things to fix, also no feeling of ownership, no incentives to refactor or redesign.
>It seems to me the healthiest behavior falls somewhere in between. “Put your own mask on first, before helping others”: look to help others, but do it from a place of safety. That’s the general tone I aim for. You absolutely should try to look out for your colleagues – but not when it comes at great personal expense.<p>Excellent advice. I also read the linked article about exit interviews and I concur they're a trap. I've dealt with vindictive former employers like that. Frankly, the easiest way to get over it is to pretend you never worked there and forget the place exists. When asked to explain the gap in my employment I just partially lie and say it was health related. Because of HIPAA in the US they can't pry too much, and as long as I can prove I'm healthy now and otherwise qualified they legally aren't supposed to deny me the job because of it.
I read through the exit interviews are a trap blog post and now this latest one. If you're leaving a company because of one particular person (manager, co-worker), then I agree that there's not much to gain from divulging honest feedback. That's a clear case where things can get ugly and personal and you're better off just not being 100% honest. But very often, there are inefficient processes that can't be attributed to one individual. Even when I left my recent team of 5 years, I wanted my co-workers and manager to be able to get support from upper management. To me that's worth providing feedback in an exit interview even if it does nothing and the cost is pretty minimal.
Eh, as much as I would like to be able to say that the advice is too 'mercenary', it is not. It is by far the most rational piece I have read on the matter.<p>In my little corner of the world, a good chunk of the team quit over the past few weeks leaving a skeleton crew. I know for a fact that each and every one of those, who quit indicated very clearly why they quit ( money, benefits, limited chance of promotion ). To the best of my knowledge, nothing changed ( we didn't suddenly get a better working environment )..and, realistically, this is the best case scenario: nothing changes.<p>If anything,as employees we are not being mercenary enough. All the niceties employers enjoyed worked only one way..
I don't think so. IMO, things function fine when everyone simply admits the truth: all any of us care about is ourselves (well, and our own families).<p>Companies want us to make them money and we only care about the company's success when it benefits us. But in this 'arrangement' there's an alignment of values: an agreement that we both want the company to make money.<p>More problems arise when companies succeed but don't share the success or when employees demand high compensation but do nothing to earn it. As long as everyone's honest about their own greed it can work out.
If you don't like something about your job/org, speak up and let management know.<p>If nothing happens, try to spearhead some change. It's your job! Sometimes the lower levels can see value that upper levels can't.<p>If you can't change it, cope.<p>If you can't cope, then leave.<p>Anything you want to say in an exit interview, you should have spoken up about already in step 1.<p>If there's something you haven't spoken up about, then it's probably for a reason. Just leave it. No need to be a martyr for your ex-colleagues, as it's only perceived. You have no idea the complexities of running a multi billion dollar tech organization.
I can imagine a lot of new graduates having trouble with this:<p>> I think many people, especially those newer to the working world, underestimate just how ruthless and sociopathic our late-stage Capitalist working conditions really are [...] I’d love to live in a world where less mercenary advice wasn’t dangerous, but that’s not our world.
The irony is that he's arguing more towards individualism, but then ends with the most collectivist urging that there is: "Don't like it - join a union".
I have no problem with mercenary advice, in fact I give it myself often: most relationships with a company are adversarial and it’s fine to operate on that basis… but I felt that the exit interview article was wrong: I’ve personally benefited from attending exit interviews and never incurred any costs because of one, and so from a purely selfish point of view, it makes complete sense to attend an exit interview. There’s a lot of value in relationships.
Zero-sum bridge burning makes sense sometimes. But a career is rarely fully zero-sum. You likely need a reference, may have stock options dependent upon improvement, want a job offer X years later from a colleague making the new hotness, etc. I've given references for mercenary folks, but always with that asterisk, which is a Career Limiting Move.
In my view, it's mercenary if you're exploiting a power or trust relationship. In the case of exit interviews, if businesses want to benefit from access to that kind of information, they can lobby for statutory protections for workers who disclose it. Or, they
The exit interview advice is not anything new, I heard it from 10 other people before Jacob wrote this post.<p>The general salary advice is also not new at all. The specifics of which tools to use is pretty helpful.
Being a mercenary is great if what makes you happy is being a mercenary. The problem is that mercenaries excel at destroying things and getting paid for it, not at creating things.
This is going to depend on the health of the organization you're in. If you're in a healthy environment, giving mercenary advice is probably not the best move - literally, less likely to advance your career.<p>If you're in a hypercompetitive and/or toxic environment, you'd better be very careful about what advice you give (and <i>everything</i> else you say).
Semi-related, I hate the term "late-stage capitalism". It was invented by a Nazi over 120 years ago and in the meantime has constantly been applied to whatever the new thing is. And the implication is awful - "things suck and it's not my responsibility to make things better besides waiting for the revolution".<p>Please stop using this phrase unless you want to further alienate me from the position you are trying to make.
> I think many people, especially those newer to the working world, underestimate just how ruthless and sociopathic our late-stage Capitalist working conditions really are. (I’m speaking mostly about the US here; that’s what I know.) Most employees have essentially no workplace protections; in most states you can be fired for no reason and no notice.<p>Non-US-dweller here: isn't that system entrenched since always? - i.e. that way of treating workers has been present in the US ever since there's been an "US"? Somehow Europeans managed to make life easier on themselves like mandatory vacation, a lot of sick leave, etc., but the US just didn't sign up for that.
I think there is a lot of us vs them in the world. We seem to have forgotten how to collaborate and cooperate. Unless you are in our tribe and you can only join the tribe after a trial by hazing. Then if you leave the tribe you are back to you and them again. Maybe that's the spirited world of capitalist competition but the reason we have companies and endeavor to solve humanity's problems.
No, companies killed collectively beneficial motivations. You could even risk some sort of lawsuit from the company in the form of malicious underperforming by suggesting things at an exit interview.<p>This was all you needed to write:<p>>I think many people, especially those newer to the working world, underestimate just how ruthless and sociopathic our late-stage Capitalist working conditions really are.
> I think many people, especially those newer to the working world, underestimate just how ruthless and sociopathic our late-stage Capitalist working conditions really are.<p>That is really the issue in a nutshell.
Thank you for this! I have been raised in and appreciate a Machiavellian approach to society, especially upwards mobility.<p>I have no sympathy for workplace advice that attempts to coddle someone who cannot psychologically operate in a world told more truthfully. “Mercenary” advice works in this environment, being more like a mercenary, a “sell sword”, is a pragmatic approach than being gaslit by the company’s “were a team” chant. This is why Netflix’s older culture document resonated with so many people, its appealing! Intruiging! Truthful! Refreshing!<p>Many of us can psychologically operate in a world so unforgiving and its a more effective tool for improving financial and healthcare stability, whether that includes an employer or [eventually] doesnt.<p>There are selective pressures towards people that can perceive reality accurately and use it to their advantage. another population relies on not perceiving reality at all to maintain a view that makes them happy enough to tolerate the mundane, and another population perceives reality accurately and it exacerbates chemical imbalances in their mind such that their chronic depression keeps them useless to society, which by definition means selective pressures against those traits.