4 ms·

> If you are both professionals, it's a cathartic experience that supports your remaining coworkers. If they are not professional, they weren't going to give yo

> If you are both professionals, it's a cathartic experience that supports your remaining coworkers. If they are not professional, they weren't going to give you a good reference anyway. It seems to me that the author is suggesting a third type of person: one who is professional until they're criticized.

rising-sky 5y ago
then they are not professional, taking constructive criticism come with being being professional
- jrsj 5y ago
  most “professionals” aren’t professional about this (in my experience)
- WJW 5y ago
  Sure, but the GGP comment said they would be giving you a bad reference anyway, while the GP comment (and the article) made the point that sometimes they will only give you a bad reference if you manage to offend them during the exit interview. Some people are just insecure and always get offended by constructive criticism, some people have poor communication skills and think they are "just being honest and constructive" while actually being very offensive (we probably all know a few coworkers like this) and sometimes the person doing the exit interview has just had the worst day of their lives. Bland platitudes in the exit interview will almost never hurt but candid feedback can definitely go sideways very quick. Game theory says it's better to play it safe.
- filmgirlcw 5y ago
  Yeah, but most people cannot take constructive criticism, whether they think of themselves as being professional or not. They might put on a good face but are internally seething that someone dared critique them. It's a difficult line and if you need to give that sort of feedback to someone because you are actively working together, that's one thing. People can be professional, as you say, and can work through it. But if you are leaving a company, that's even less of a reason for the person you're critiquing to listen to what you are saying (b/c they can just write it off as someone who has sour grapes or was leaving anyway), and even more of an opportunity to just create unnecessary animosity. And that professionalism that becomes a necessity when the person is still a coworker can disappear completely.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 5y ago
  I would agree with this take but there's still a point about why I worded it the way I did. I thought about wording it differently (e.g., a person will behave professionally until ...) to help illustrate that but the way I chose to word it also helps to illustrate the perceptions of the other individual: it seemed very much that they were professional until their behavior changed.
HeyLaughingBoy 5y ago
I had two exit interviews at the same large corporation with very different outcomes. 1) The formal exit interview with HR. The HR person was apparently called to do it on her day off (no idea why they didn't just have someone else do it), and made sure I knew it, complained that "we just spent a lot of money on those classes you took and you were on track for Leadership training." Seriously? People leave: it's a cost of doing business! 2) The VP of Engineering called me into his office to say goodbye and ask a few questions. Specifically, he wanted to know if the company's diversity programs were accomplishing anything useful (I'm black) or if they were just fooling themselves. In his words "you already have another job, so I'm sure I can trust you to be completely honest." I took him seriously and tried to give complete, honest answers to. Truth be told, I loved working there. I just wanted to move away from that part of the country and had a great opportunity. HR's attitude pissed me off so much that if I didn't already like the place I would probably have badmouthed them to anyone who asked.
- unfocussed_mike 5y ago
  The VP of Engineering sounds like a mensch. The HR person sounds like an HR person.
jrsj 5y ago
Not only does the third type exist, they appear to be the default.
mmcnl 5y ago
Then you are not a professional.
babyshake 5y ago
> It seems to me that the author is suggesting a third type of person: one who is professional until they're criticized. Or to rephrase, one who is professional until an actual test of their professionalism.

rising-sky 5y ago

then they are not professional, taking constructive criticism come with being being professional

jrsj 5y ago
most “professionals” aren’t professional about this (in my experience)
WJW 5y ago
Sure, but the GGP comment said they would be giving you a bad reference anyway, while the GP comment (and the article) made the point that sometimes they will only give you a bad reference if you manage to offend them during the exit interview. Some people are just insecure and always get offended by constructive criticism, some people have poor communication skills and think they are "just being honest and constructive" while actually being very offensive (we probably all know a few coworkers like this) and sometimes the person doing the exit interview has just had the worst day of their lives. Bland platitudes in the exit interview will almost never hurt but candid feedback can definitely go sideways very quick. Game theory says it's better to play it safe.
filmgirlcw 5y ago
Yeah, but most people cannot take constructive criticism, whether they think of themselves as being professional or not. They might put on a good face but are internally seething that someone dared critique them. It's a difficult line and if you need to give that sort of feedback to someone because you are actively working together, that's one thing. People can be professional, as you say, and can work through it. But if you are leaving a company, that's even less of a reason for the person you're critiquing to listen to what you are saying (b/c they can just write it off as someone who has sour grapes or was leaving anyway), and even more of an opportunity to just create unnecessary animosity. And that professionalism that becomes a necessity when the person is still a coworker can disappear completely.
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 5y ago
I would agree with this take but there's still a point about why I worded it the way I did. I thought about wording it differently (e.g., a person will behave professionally until ...) to help illustrate that but the way I chose to word it also helps to illustrate the perceptions of the other individual: it seemed very much that they were professional until their behavior changed.

HeyLaughingBoy 5y ago

I had two exit interviews at the same large corporation with very different outcomes. 1) The formal exit interview with HR. The HR person was apparently called to do it on her day off (no idea why they didn't just have someone else do it), and made sure I knew it, complained that "we just spent a lot of money on those classes you took and you were on track for Leadership training." Seriously? People leave: it's a cost of doing business! 2) The VP of Engineering called me into his office to say goodbye and ask a few questions. Specifically, he wanted to know if the company's diversity programs were accomplishing anything useful (I'm black) or if they were just fooling themselves. In his words "you already have another job, so I'm sure I can trust you to be completely honest." I took him seriously and tried to give complete, honest answers to. Truth be told, I loved working there. I just wanted to move away from that part of the country and had a great opportunity. HR's attitude pissed me off so much that if I didn't already like the place I would probably have badmouthed them to anyone who asked.

unfocussed_mike 5y ago
The VP of Engineering sounds like a mensch. The HR person sounds like an HR person.

jrsj 5y ago

Not only does the third type exist, they appear to be the default.

mmcnl 5y ago

Then you are not a professional.

babyshake 5y ago

> It seems to me that the author is suggesting a third type of person: one who is professional until they're criticized. Or to rephrase, one who is professional until an actual test of their professionalism.