5 ms·

Two weeks is a common courtesy. People quit because they are either bored or their boss sucks. Best you can do is have an honest conversation with the guy abou

Two weeks is a common courtesy. People quit because they are either bored or their boss sucks. Best you can do is have an honest conversation with the guy about the real reasons he's leaving and then learn from it.

molbioguy 15y ago
Yeah, that seems to be the take home message. I understand it, but I still feel that two weeks leaves most employers in the hole. I mean, you can't realistically have a list of people to fill the spot ready to go at all times. In my business (small molecular biology/bioinformatics lab) it will probably take 3 months from submitting a hiring request to accepting an applicant. Maybe more. I was curious if people give much thought to the disruption that happens when they leave, especially when it's to join a startup (elective, non-emergency move). But it sounds like two weeks is pretty much accepted as fair regardless of the reasons for leaving. Like you said, you learn from it. Thanks.
- danpat 15y ago
  You'd like to be able to hire a new employee as quickly as possible, but you'd like departing employees to hang around as long as possible. That seems to me to be a fundamental conflict. New employees don't appear from a vacuum and old employees don't disappear into one. Other than new entrants to the market and retirees, almost everyone is moving from one place to another, with the same pressures. Given that companies usually only hire when they already need the staff, there's likely a fairly strong incentive to encourage the new hire to move to the new job as quickly as possible. As someone one the receiving end of that, it sucks. But now, facing the other end of the hiring game, I'll bet you're going to encourage your new hire to start ASAP (in fact, giving preference to those that can start sooner rather than later). It's like the passing around of electron holes.
  - molbioguy 15y ago
    I like that! I never thought of it as electron flow. So to maximize employee retention I need to minimize the potential difference between the current job and the alluring startup. It all comes down to physics, as always.

molbioguy 15y ago

Yeah, that seems to be the take home message. I understand it, but I still feel that two weeks leaves most employers in the hole. I mean, you can't realistically have a list of people to fill the spot ready to go at all times. In my business (small molecular biology/bioinformatics lab) it will probably take 3 months from submitting a hiring request to accepting an applicant. Maybe more. I was curious if people give much thought to the disruption that happens when they leave, especially when it's to join a startup (elective, non-emergency move). But it sounds like two weeks is pretty much accepted as fair regardless of the reasons for leaving. Like you said, you learn from it. Thanks.

danpat 15y ago
You'd like to be able to hire a new employee as quickly as possible, but you'd like departing employees to hang around as long as possible. That seems to me to be a fundamental conflict. New employees don't appear from a vacuum and old employees don't disappear into one. Other than new entrants to the market and retirees, almost everyone is moving from one place to another, with the same pressures. Given that companies usually only hire when they already need the staff, there's likely a fairly strong incentive to encourage the new hire to move to the new job as quickly as possible. As someone one the receiving end of that, it sucks. But now, facing the other end of the hiring game, I'll bet you're going to encourage your new hire to start ASAP (in fact, giving preference to those that can start sooner rather than later). It's like the passing around of electron holes.
- molbioguy 15y ago
  I like that! I never thought of it as electron flow. So to maximize employee retention I need to minimize the potential difference between the current job and the alluring startup. It all comes down to physics, as always.