24 ms·

Is my advice too mercenary?

247 points by Tangiest 5y ago

farmerstan 5y ago
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.
charbuff 5y ago
I can imagine a lot of new graduates having trouble with this: > 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.
- blihp 5y ago
  That's OK, they'll refer back to posts like this if[1] they get burned once or twice. I think its the sort of thing most have to experience themselves before they believe it rather than accepting it's true up front. [1] Who knows, maybe they'll be one of the lucky few who don't get burned.
- etempleton 5y ago
  If you are lucky you will land in a place that has empathy and you will work with people whom you can trust, but those places are hard to find and even in the best places there will be ruthless actors. If you are going to say something on exit it is best to say it to someone who has power who you trust. If you have access to a VP or CEO, for example. HR’s job is to quickly make problems go away and minimize risk to to the company. Them passing along helpful information to impact change is the opposite of making something go away, it creates a complication. No one hires HR people to create complications.
- chasd00 5y ago
  I'm 46 and never in my whole career have working conditions been less ruthless nor less sociopathic than they are today. I'm constantly barraged with acceptance training, "human connection" training and calls where the expectation is to "share and connect" by telling the group something personal. I'm not with a bunch of kids either, these are all upper management very high 6 figure types. I don't want to be one of those "back in my day" types but it use to be up-or-out. You came in at the bottom and either went up the corporate ladder at the proper rate or you were fired. That was sociopathic and bread ruthlessness in the workforce. Today it is touchy feely to the point of being confusing on what the actual expectations of the job are.
  - nmhancoc 5y ago
    I'd like to agree with the latter part of this sentiment as a young person who didn't experience any other times of working to which you refer. I got fed this narrative that the corporate environment was ruthless and cutthroat, but I found it highly resistant to even profitable, labor-saving new ideas or practices in favor of ego management, image management, and non disruption. Maybe it's a false expectation on my part, but I would have at least expected ruthless people to be pragmatic and open minded toward things which may be of benefit. That's not to say they're without fault or downside, but that's certainly not generally characteristic of the corporate environment I've experienced. OTOH, I've found smaller employers with a more direct connection to market forces much better in this regard. I don't think those two things are unrelated.
  - dvtrn 5y ago
    I'm constantly barraged with acceptance training, "human connection" training and calls where the expectation is to "share and connect" by telling the group something personal We had a "leadership training" thing a few weeks back where one of the segments involved a breakout session with a random coworker who you may or may not already know, with the expectation that you share something deep and revealing you've never told anyone else. The person I got paired up with and I were both incredulous about the exercise, specifically the "something you've never told anyone else" part, and shared a couple of surface level phobias "I'm afraid of spiders", I told him. He told me he was scared of sharks. We spent the remaining 5 minutes of our breakout talking about local sports. Companies need to back the hell off with this stuff. I pay a therapist for those kinds of conversations. I'm fine being friendly and even making friends with my coworkers over drinks for a little bit work before we all go home, if it happens organically and in a way where people get to choose their level of interaction and disclosure about their personal lives, but a lot of this "top down camaraderie/management facilitated team building" going around feels like a toddler smashing a Barbie and Ken doll together making smooching noises at best, at worst it feels like mommy and daddy making play dates.
    - arghnoname 5y ago
      I know someone who had a similar event happen in training, except the deep and dark secrets were meant to be shared among a group of six or seven. People shared actual deep and dark secrets; crying was involved. My friend who told me about this was deeply uncomfortable with the whole affair and found it bizarre and cultish, but of course, they went along with it and made up some semi-plausible thing to be a "team player." Amusingly enough, IIRC, it was also a phobia.
AnimalMuppet 5y ago
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. If you're in a hypercompetitive and/or toxic environment, you'd better be very careful about what advice you give (and everything else you say).
- evilotto 5y ago
  If you're in a toxic environment, then the only way to survive is to be toxic yourself?
  - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
    No. But if you're in a toxic environment, you need to be very careful not to give other people ammunition to use against you.
fellowniusmonk 5y ago
It truly is shocking that health insurance is tied to employment status. 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.
- rootusrootus 5y ago
  > It truly is shocking that health insurance is tied to employment status. I think "annoying" is a better description. It's not shocking at all, it was a fairly predictable outcome given the situation. It is really annoying that we haven't managed to walk it back to something more reasonable since then.
  - AYBABTME 5y ago
    Candidly, do you mind flushing out what you mean here by a fairly predictable outcome given the situation?
    - uoaei 5y ago
      Not GP, but: historically Protestant work ethic + unrestrained pursuit of profit + weak labor protections and domination of corporate interests in the halls of legislation = predictable outcome.
      - kansface 5y ago
        This is not historically accurate. Insurance through employers came out of the federally mandated price controls during WW2, and was later solidified by massive tax breaks for corporations for providing said insurance (under the eager endorsement by unions among others). Changing the system would require changing the tax incentive. Changing the deduction to apply to individuals could be a path forward.
        5y ago
bin_bash 5y ago
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". 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. 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.
le-mark 5y ago
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!
- shakezula 5y ago
  For real, I've seen companies fire some of their best and brightest, I'm talking top-tier academic talent in some cases, because they didn't think they were committing code frequently enough, only to wonder why their shit is on fire 6 months later and why the systems those same engineers maintained aren't able to produce new features as fast as before, messing up their delivery timelines, etc... Even funnier is when it's not a money issue, some middle manager just thought they could find better or wanted to make room for some of their own hires. In all of these cases, the company held "exit interviews", in some of these cases myself being one of the few or many others, and I have to say, there's nothing you can tell them that will benefit anyone, even your old co-workers who you're not trying to actively harm.
  - tomjakubowski 5y ago
    Wow. It's incredibly degrading to ask an employee to do an exit interview immediately after they were laid off. A company which does that deserves naming and shaming.
vmception 5y ago
Thank you for this! I have been raised in and appreciate a Machiavellian approach to society, especially upwards mobility. 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! 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. 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.
- danuker 5y ago
  Those who need coddling are also the ones most affected by gaslighting.
- uoaei 5y ago
  I see only a complete rejection of the collaborative organization that is society, which provided literally everything that gave you the opportunities and outcomes you now enjoy. And now you brag about enriching yourself beyond your share, occupying space where others could make use of those opportunities, reducing the opportunities for everyone in the future. Society improves when more people have more chances to contribute positively. There is so much underutilized talent out there. To block off those opportunities hampers the development of society writ large. Still have an obsessive attachment to acting purely selfishly? Then think of it like this: acting to close off others' opportunities prevents them from inventing and producing things that you could benefit from. Would you act differently knowing that giving someone else a chance may lead to the development of a medicine that will save your life a few years down the road? Also, that last paragraph makes me think you don't really interact with real human beings that often.
tschellenbach 5y ago
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. 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. https://www.saastr.com/why-if-you-quit-every-year-you-wont-make-any-money/ https://www.saastr.com/why-if-you-quit-every-year-you-wont-m... 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. 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. 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. 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.
- bin_bash 5y ago
  If it's early in your career (<10 years) I think the best possible thing you could be doing for your career is SWE at a FAANG. You're too young to move into management (IMO) and nothing will give you that level of resume credential. The real life experience of working on big projects is important too. After that I think you have a point. I work at a FAANG as a SWE (15 YOE) and want to move into management, but it requires a SWE promotion first to staff engineer I don't think I'm capable of getting at this company. (I've been a staff engineer at a previous firm though). I could switch to a lower tier company and definitely find a way to move into management and develop my career on that ladder but I would likely have to take a big pay cut. I think the trouble is people with 10+ years of experience are like me and have families and a mortgage. It's just not an option to make less for me even if the future was bright. EDIT: As someone pointed out, 10 years entirely in FAANG is probably not as good as a varied career that includes FAANG.
phphphphp 5y ago
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.
duxup 5y ago
I’m not inclined to do an exit interview because I’ve likely already expressed my opinions. I do think the “the company doesn’t care about you” type advice does require some nuance. Different companies make different choices and just because someone moves from mega corporation to mega corp doesn’t mean you shouldn’t trust anyone… There’s space in between giving your entire self to a company and imagining everyone is out to get you. 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…
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 5y ago
  > I do think the “the company doesn’t care about you” type advice does require some nuance. Probably something like: The company doesn't care about you regardless of the individuals at the company who might care about you. (Unless one of those individuals is the CEO, I guess. More nuance!)
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- sanderjd 5y ago
  One of the reasons I left a BigCo is the pervasive cynicism. I really had trouble finding it satisfying to work in an environment where cynicism was so deep and widespread but nobody wanted to leave because of the advantages (like good pay and good tooling). It just felt stifling after awhile.
  - duxup 5y ago
    > but nobody wanted to leave because of the advantages The cynical approach does seem to lead people to … the places that make them cynical.
unregistereddev 5y ago
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. 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. 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. 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.
kache_ 5y ago
Actually, fuck you, got mine _is_ my attitude. It just turns out that getting mine involves helping others
- brodouevencode 5y ago
  This is the point most people miss. People operate by incentives, mostly internal ones. You go where you derive the most value. He also lost me at `late-stage Capitalist` as if that were a real thing.
  - kache_ 5y ago
    You might have misunderstood me. I really meant that my incentives (which are 98% monetary) are well aligned with helping my peers. If they do well, we all elevate each other (I'm monetarily motivated to elevate my peers, through aligned incentives at work through good management and tending to my network) FWIW I'm intentional & clear to my peers about priorities.
    - brodouevencode 5y ago
      I think I got you - a rising tide lifts all boats. And the same can be said about non-monetary values.
muh_gradle 5y ago
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.
randrews 5y ago
One of the wisest pieces of career advice I ever heard was "you cannot change an organization by leaving it." 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. 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.
- qq66 5y ago
  You cannot meaningfully change any organization without being one of the ~10 most powerful people in it.
  - randrews 5y ago
    Then if you really want them to change, you should try to become one of those powerful people... Not leave, and give up all power you have over them, is my point.
    - qq66 5y ago
      Yes, but the chance of becoming one of the ~10 most powerful people at Apple or Goldman Sachs is extraordinarily small, and you pretty much know if you even have a shot at it after you've been working at the company for a year. If you've been there three years and haven't been promoted twice you have zero chance of ever being in the top 10.
- syedkarim 5y ago
  Why would you even want to change an organization?
  - brokencode 5y ago
    If you have a chance to make things better where you are, then it’s good for everybody who works there. Also, you might not even have the option of getting a job elsewhere depending on where you live and what qualifications you have.
dj_mc_merlin 5y ago
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. 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.
evilotto 5y ago
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.
- CameronNemo 5y ago
  The urge to destroy is also a creative urge.
anm89 5y ago
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. There is so much interesting critique to make of our current system, sad to see people going for these lazy, of the moment, arguments.
rmason 5y ago
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. 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. 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.
- hobs 5y ago
  Extremely true and it happened all over, my dad worked for a place for 40 years and the last 10 the MBAs moved in, they were profitable, had profit sharing, and a great company. Today its a footnote in a merger, place is closing down.
  - nerpderp82 5y ago
    NAFTA really destroyed the middle class and middle america.
    - chrisseaton 5y ago
      The middle class are the ones who are doing fine or great. It's the working class who got screwed over.
      - nerpderp82 5y ago
        Working class was middle class.
ivoras 5y ago
> 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. 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.
beaconstudios 5y ago
I hope we can return to the social democracy of before the 1980s soon in the West. Austerity politics hurt everybody except the ultra-wealthy.
spicyusername 5y ago
> 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. That is really the issue in a nutshell.
A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
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. 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. If anything,as employees we are not being mercenary enough. All the niceties employers enjoyed worked only one way..
wnolens 5y ago
If you don't like something about your job/org, speak up and let management know. If nothing happens, try to spearhead some change. It's your job! Sometimes the lower levels can see value that upper levels can't. If you can't change it, cope. If you can't cope, then leave. Anything you want to say in an exit interview, you should have spoken up about already in step 1. 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.
- karmakaze 5y ago
  Nice succinct todo/checklist.
- bsuvc 5y ago
  > try to spearhead some change. It's your job! To an extent. The key is to have a limit. Depending on the organization and your position in it, it can take a tremendous amount of mental energy and effort to accomplish anything, having a negative effect on your mental and physical health. Is that cost worth fixing something that doesn't even belong to you? I've learned this lesson the hard way, both successfully and unsuccessfully. Now I have a much lower threshold of what effort I am willing to exert to help a company change.
- tonyedgecombe 5y ago
  >It's your job! It rarely is. Not only that but it isn't wanted most of the time.
lordnacho 5y ago
Tit for tat seems to be the strategy. If the company treats you well, treat them well. If it treats you and others poorly, return the favor.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Kylekramer 5y ago
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? 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. And more to point, if you are a good mercenary, unionization only harms you.
beepbooptheory 5y ago
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. The very essence of this website is not amenable to workers 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 but 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. 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!
- yodsanklai 5y ago
  > a large majority of the commenters here are either currently business owners, or founders, or trying to be either of those. I wonder to what extent this is true. I've been on HN several years without even knowing that it has anything to do with start up. A lot of contributors don't even work in tech.
- legitster 5y ago
  > a large majority of the commenters here are either currently business owners, or founders, or trying to be either of those A good point. And I think the reason this article is so fraught is that the writer is basically arguing even that if you met all of their demands and tried to make the world a better place, they will fundamentally remain hostile to you.
- PragmaticPulp 5y ago
  > 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 I've been reading HN for years and I would assume 90% of the comment section or more is people who only want to be employees. I hate to say it, but HN isn't a great place for genuine startup, management, or operation advice. At all. Even product discussions are very customer-centric rather than company-centric, and companies will get roasted here for making good business decisions that don't directly benefit the users. For example, years ago the common refrain on HN was "charge more" and encouraged businesses to raise prices, fire problematic customers that weren't contributing value, and otherwise focus on the company's bottom line. Now whenever a company pulls a "charge more" and raises prices, reduces the free plan, or discontinues services for non-paying customers it's nothing but rage and pitchforks in the comment section. HN comments can still be useful, but it's definitely not a friendly place for actual founders and business owners making tough decisions.
yodsanklai 5y ago
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. 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.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
fleddr 5y ago
The apology is unneeded. 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. You lied to get in. By emphasizing your strengths and hiding your weaknesses. The employer did the same thing. 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. 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. You lie about being a well behaved human being whilst the minute you arrive home, you burp, fart and swear all over the place. ...yet you won't at your mother-in-law. 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. 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.
- aahortwwy 5y ago
  > You lied to get in. By emphasizing your strengths and hiding your weaknesses. The employer did the same thing. One of the most powerful tools I use when interviewing senior candidates is being brutally honest about the company's weaknesses. Implicit in the act of hiring is the reality that you have a problem you need an employee to solve for you. Pretending those problems don't exist is bizarre.
  - fleddr 5y ago
    That sounds wonderful, I'm sure in such an open and honest dialogue, a candidate would also be more comfortable to admit a weakness. Other than anxiously hiding weaknesses, the other bizarre thing in business is the idea that any and all weaknesses must be addressed. To use the sports analogy: one can conclude that the star attack player is terrible at defense, but it really makes zero sense to invest a lot in defensive skills.
legitster 5y ago
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". Please stop using this phrase unless you want to further alienate me from the position you are trying to make.
- johnday 5y ago
  > It was invented by a Nazi over 120 years ago That'd be a good trick, given that there were no Nazis until 1920.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > That'd be a good trick, given that there were no Nazis until 1920. It was in a work published starting in 1902 (though the part concerning late-stage capitalism was published in 1927) by a German Marxist [0] (at the time he wrote coined the term) who became a nationalist in the Weimar era to the point that some of his writings later in the early 1930s apparently aligned to a certain extent with Nazi ideology, but who was putting out anti-Nazi writings (actively suppressed by the Nazis) by the late 1930s. So, while “by a Nazi over 120 years ago” is not really accurate at all, it has some recognizable connection to facts. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werner_Sombart https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werner_Sombart
krupan 5y ago
The exit interview advice is not anything new, I heard it from 10 other people before Jacob wrote this post. The general salary advice is also not new at all. The specifics of which tools to use is pretty helpful.
lmeyerov 5y ago
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.
at_a_remove 5y ago
If anything, it isn't cut-throat enough. 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. I didn't comment in the exit interview thread, but I absolutely chortled 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 ... Working for family? Even worse. 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. 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 use any of this, but it is nice to have on hand when you find a knife in your back.
helloworld11 5y ago
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. 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. 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. edit: couple extra words.
waylandsmithers 5y ago
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. 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. During another one the HR person asks me, "At what point did you realize you had no future here?" 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.
genis 5y ago
a
- genis 5y ago
  a1
wonderwonder 5y ago
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. 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.
sjg007 5y ago
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.
Epiphany21 5y ago
>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. 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.
analog31 5y ago
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
citizenpaul 5y ago
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. This was all you needed to write: >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.
spacemanmatt 5y ago
I don't like it, so I support unions. Much appreciated follow-up.
rkangel 5y ago
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".
cosmiccatnap 5y ago
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. 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_sleaze9 5y ago
Let me just compliment your writing. It is truly a pleasure to read your blog. Thank you.
_hcuq 5y ago
No.Having just sampled your blog, you have strong, well articulated opinions. People don’t have to follow your advice.
Mikeb85 5y ago
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). 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. 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.

247 points by Tangiest 5y ago

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.

charbuff 5y ago

I can imagine a lot of new graduates having trouble with this: > 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.

blihp 5y ago
That's OK, they'll refer back to posts like this if[1] they get burned once or twice. I think its the sort of thing most have to experience themselves before they believe it rather than accepting it's true up front. [1] Who knows, maybe they'll be one of the lucky few who don't get burned.
etempleton 5y ago
If you are lucky you will land in a place that has empathy and you will work with people whom you can trust, but those places are hard to find and even in the best places there will be ruthless actors. If you are going to say something on exit it is best to say it to someone who has power who you trust. If you have access to a VP or CEO, for example. HR’s job is to quickly make problems go away and minimize risk to to the company. Them passing along helpful information to impact change is the opposite of making something go away, it creates a complication. No one hires HR people to create complications.
chasd00 5y ago
I'm 46 and never in my whole career have working conditions been less ruthless nor less sociopathic than they are today. I'm constantly barraged with acceptance training, "human connection" training and calls where the expectation is to "share and connect" by telling the group something personal. I'm not with a bunch of kids either, these are all upper management very high 6 figure types. I don't want to be one of those "back in my day" types but it use to be up-or-out. You came in at the bottom and either went up the corporate ladder at the proper rate or you were fired. That was sociopathic and bread ruthlessness in the workforce. Today it is touchy feely to the point of being confusing on what the actual expectations of the job are.
- nmhancoc 5y ago
  I'd like to agree with the latter part of this sentiment as a young person who didn't experience any other times of working to which you refer. I got fed this narrative that the corporate environment was ruthless and cutthroat, but I found it highly resistant to even profitable, labor-saving new ideas or practices in favor of ego management, image management, and non disruption. Maybe it's a false expectation on my part, but I would have at least expected ruthless people to be pragmatic and open minded toward things which may be of benefit. That's not to say they're without fault or downside, but that's certainly not generally characteristic of the corporate environment I've experienced. OTOH, I've found smaller employers with a more direct connection to market forces much better in this regard. I don't think those two things are unrelated.
- dvtrn 5y ago
  I'm constantly barraged with acceptance training, "human connection" training and calls where the expectation is to "share and connect" by telling the group something personal We had a "leadership training" thing a few weeks back where one of the segments involved a breakout session with a random coworker who you may or may not already know, with the expectation that you share something deep and revealing you've never told anyone else. The person I got paired up with and I were both incredulous about the exercise, specifically the "something you've never told anyone else" part, and shared a couple of surface level phobias "I'm afraid of spiders", I told him. He told me he was scared of sharks. We spent the remaining 5 minutes of our breakout talking about local sports. Companies need to back the hell off with this stuff. I pay a therapist for those kinds of conversations. I'm fine being friendly and even making friends with my coworkers over drinks for a little bit work before we all go home, if it happens organically and in a way where people get to choose their level of interaction and disclosure about their personal lives, but a lot of this "top down camaraderie/management facilitated team building" going around feels like a toddler smashing a Barbie and Ken doll together making smooching noises at best, at worst it feels like mommy and daddy making play dates.
  - arghnoname 5y ago
    I know someone who had a similar event happen in training, except the deep and dark secrets were meant to be shared among a group of six or seven. People shared actual deep and dark secrets; crying was involved. My friend who told me about this was deeply uncomfortable with the whole affair and found it bizarre and cultish, but of course, they went along with it and made up some semi-plausible thing to be a "team player." Amusingly enough, IIRC, it was also a phobia.

AnimalMuppet 5y ago

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. If you're in a hypercompetitive and/or toxic environment, you'd better be very careful about what advice you give (and everything else you say).

evilotto 5y ago
If you're in a toxic environment, then the only way to survive is to be toxic yourself?
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  No. But if you're in a toxic environment, you need to be very careful not to give other people ammunition to use against you.

fellowniusmonk 5y ago

It truly is shocking that health insurance is tied to employment status. 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.

rootusrootus 5y ago
> It truly is shocking that health insurance is tied to employment status. I think "annoying" is a better description. It's not shocking at all, it was a fairly predictable outcome given the situation. It is really annoying that we haven't managed to walk it back to something more reasonable since then.
- AYBABTME 5y ago
  Candidly, do you mind flushing out what you mean here by a fairly predictable outcome given the situation?
  - uoaei 5y ago
    Not GP, but: historically Protestant work ethic + unrestrained pursuit of profit + weak labor protections and domination of corporate interests in the halls of legislation = predictable outcome.
    - kansface 5y ago
      This is not historically accurate. Insurance through employers came out of the federally mandated price controls during WW2, and was later solidified by massive tax breaks for corporations for providing said insurance (under the eager endorsement by unions among others). Changing the system would require changing the tax incentive. Changing the deduction to apply to individuals could be a path forward.
      - 5y ago

bin_bash 5y ago

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". 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. 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.

le-mark 5y ago

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!

shakezula 5y ago
For real, I've seen companies fire some of their best and brightest, I'm talking top-tier academic talent in some cases, because they didn't think they were committing code frequently enough, only to wonder why their shit is on fire 6 months later and why the systems those same engineers maintained aren't able to produce new features as fast as before, messing up their delivery timelines, etc... Even funnier is when it's not a money issue, some middle manager just thought they could find better or wanted to make room for some of their own hires. In all of these cases, the company held "exit interviews", in some of these cases myself being one of the few or many others, and I have to say, there's nothing you can tell them that will benefit anyone, even your old co-workers who you're not trying to actively harm.
- tomjakubowski 5y ago
  Wow. It's incredibly degrading to ask an employee to do an exit interview immediately after they were laid off. A company which does that deserves naming and shaming.

vmception 5y ago

Thank you for this! I have been raised in and appreciate a Machiavellian approach to society, especially upwards mobility. 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! 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. 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.

danuker 5y ago
Those who need coddling are also the ones most affected by gaslighting.
uoaei 5y ago
I see only a complete rejection of the collaborative organization that is society, which provided literally everything that gave you the opportunities and outcomes you now enjoy. And now you brag about enriching yourself beyond your share, occupying space where others could make use of those opportunities, reducing the opportunities for everyone in the future. Society improves when more people have more chances to contribute positively. There is so much underutilized talent out there. To block off those opportunities hampers the development of society writ large. Still have an obsessive attachment to acting purely selfishly? Then think of it like this: acting to close off others' opportunities prevents them from inventing and producing things that you could benefit from. Would you act differently knowing that giving someone else a chance may lead to the development of a medicine that will save your life a few years down the road? Also, that last paragraph makes me think you don't really interact with real human beings that often.

tschellenbach 5y ago

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. 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. https://www.saastr.com/why-if-you-quit-every-year-you-wont-make-any-money/ https://www.saastr.com/why-if-you-quit-every-year-you-wont-m... 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. 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. 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. 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.

bin_bash 5y ago
If it's early in your career (<10 years) I think the best possible thing you could be doing for your career is SWE at a FAANG. You're too young to move into management (IMO) and nothing will give you that level of resume credential. The real life experience of working on big projects is important too. After that I think you have a point. I work at a FAANG as a SWE (15 YOE) and want to move into management, but it requires a SWE promotion first to staff engineer I don't think I'm capable of getting at this company. (I've been a staff engineer at a previous firm though). I could switch to a lower tier company and definitely find a way to move into management and develop my career on that ladder but I would likely have to take a big pay cut. I think the trouble is people with 10+ years of experience are like me and have families and a mortgage. It's just not an option to make less for me even if the future was bright. EDIT: As someone pointed out, 10 years entirely in FAANG is probably not as good as a varied career that includes FAANG.

phphphphp 5y ago

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.

duxup 5y ago

I’m not inclined to do an exit interview because I’ve likely already expressed my opinions. I do think the “the company doesn’t care about you” type advice does require some nuance. Different companies make different choices and just because someone moves from mega corporation to mega corp doesn’t mean you shouldn’t trust anyone… There’s space in between giving your entire self to a company and imagining everyone is out to get you. 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…

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 5y ago
> I do think the “the company doesn’t care about you” type advice does require some nuance. Probably something like: The company doesn't care about you regardless of the individuals at the company who might care about you. (Unless one of those individuals is the CEO, I guess. More nuance!)
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
sanderjd 5y ago
One of the reasons I left a BigCo is the pervasive cynicism. I really had trouble finding it satisfying to work in an environment where cynicism was so deep and widespread but nobody wanted to leave because of the advantages (like good pay and good tooling). It just felt stifling after awhile.
- duxup 5y ago
  > but nobody wanted to leave because of the advantages The cynical approach does seem to lead people to … the places that make them cynical.

unregistereddev 5y ago

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. 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. 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. 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.

kache_ 5y ago

Actually, fuck you, got mine _is_ my attitude. It just turns out that getting mine involves helping others

brodouevencode 5y ago
This is the point most people miss. People operate by incentives, mostly internal ones. You go where you derive the most value. He also lost me at `late-stage Capitalist` as if that were a real thing.
- kache_ 5y ago
  You might have misunderstood me. I really meant that my incentives (which are 98% monetary) are well aligned with helping my peers. If they do well, we all elevate each other (I'm monetarily motivated to elevate my peers, through aligned incentives at work through good management and tending to my network) FWIW I'm intentional & clear to my peers about priorities.
  - brodouevencode 5y ago
    I think I got you - a rising tide lifts all boats. And the same can be said about non-monetary values.

muh_gradle 5y ago

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.

randrews 5y ago

One of the wisest pieces of career advice I ever heard was "you cannot change an organization by leaving it." 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. 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.

qq66 5y ago
You cannot meaningfully change any organization without being one of the ~10 most powerful people in it.
- randrews 5y ago
  Then if you really want them to change, you should try to become one of those powerful people... Not leave, and give up all power you have over them, is my point.
  - qq66 5y ago
    Yes, but the chance of becoming one of the ~10 most powerful people at Apple or Goldman Sachs is extraordinarily small, and you pretty much know if you even have a shot at it after you've been working at the company for a year. If you've been there three years and haven't been promoted twice you have zero chance of ever being in the top 10.
syedkarim 5y ago
Why would you even want to change an organization?
- brokencode 5y ago
  If you have a chance to make things better where you are, then it’s good for everybody who works there. Also, you might not even have the option of getting a job elsewhere depending on where you live and what qualifications you have.

dj_mc_merlin 5y ago

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. 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.

evilotto 5y ago

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.

CameronNemo 5y ago
The urge to destroy is also a creative urge.

anm89 5y ago

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. There is so much interesting critique to make of our current system, sad to see people going for these lazy, of the moment, arguments.

rmason 5y ago

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. 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. 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.

hobs 5y ago
Extremely true and it happened all over, my dad worked for a place for 40 years and the last 10 the MBAs moved in, they were profitable, had profit sharing, and a great company. Today its a footnote in a merger, place is closing down.
- nerpderp82 5y ago
  NAFTA really destroyed the middle class and middle america.
  - chrisseaton 5y ago
    The middle class are the ones who are doing fine or great. It's the working class who got screwed over.
    - nerpderp82 5y ago
      Working class was middle class.

ivoras 5y ago

> 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. 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.

beaconstudios 5y ago

I hope we can return to the social democracy of before the 1980s soon in the West. Austerity politics hurt everybody except the ultra-wealthy.

spicyusername 5y ago

> 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. That is really the issue in a nutshell.

A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago

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. 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. If anything,as employees we are not being mercenary enough. All the niceties employers enjoyed worked only one way..

wnolens 5y ago

If you don't like something about your job/org, speak up and let management know. If nothing happens, try to spearhead some change. It's your job! Sometimes the lower levels can see value that upper levels can't. If you can't change it, cope. If you can't cope, then leave. Anything you want to say in an exit interview, you should have spoken up about already in step 1. 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.

karmakaze 5y ago
Nice succinct todo/checklist.
bsuvc 5y ago
> try to spearhead some change. It's your job! To an extent. The key is to have a limit. Depending on the organization and your position in it, it can take a tremendous amount of mental energy and effort to accomplish anything, having a negative effect on your mental and physical health. Is that cost worth fixing something that doesn't even belong to you? I've learned this lesson the hard way, both successfully and unsuccessfully. Now I have a much lower threshold of what effort I am willing to exert to help a company change.
tonyedgecombe 5y ago
>It's your job! It rarely is. Not only that but it isn't wanted most of the time.

lordnacho 5y ago

Tit for tat seems to be the strategy. If the company treats you well, treat them well. If it treats you and others poorly, return the favor.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

Kylekramer 5y ago

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? 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. And more to point, if you are a good mercenary, unionization only harms you.

beepbooptheory 5y ago

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. The very essence of this website is not amenable to workers 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 but 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. 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!

yodsanklai 5y ago
> a large majority of the commenters here are either currently business owners, or founders, or trying to be either of those. I wonder to what extent this is true. I've been on HN several years without even knowing that it has anything to do with start up. A lot of contributors don't even work in tech.
legitster 5y ago
> a large majority of the commenters here are either currently business owners, or founders, or trying to be either of those A good point. And I think the reason this article is so fraught is that the writer is basically arguing even that if you met all of their demands and tried to make the world a better place, they will fundamentally remain hostile to you.
PragmaticPulp 5y ago
> 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 I've been reading HN for years and I would assume 90% of the comment section or more is people who only want to be employees. I hate to say it, but HN isn't a great place for genuine startup, management, or operation advice. At all. Even product discussions are very customer-centric rather than company-centric, and companies will get roasted here for making good business decisions that don't directly benefit the users. For example, years ago the common refrain on HN was "charge more" and encouraged businesses to raise prices, fire problematic customers that weren't contributing value, and otherwise focus on the company's bottom line. Now whenever a company pulls a "charge more" and raises prices, reduces the free plan, or discontinues services for non-paying customers it's nothing but rage and pitchforks in the comment section. HN comments can still be useful, but it's definitely not a friendly place for actual founders and business owners making tough decisions.

yodsanklai 5y ago

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. 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.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

fleddr 5y ago

The apology is unneeded. 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. You lied to get in. By emphasizing your strengths and hiding your weaknesses. The employer did the same thing. 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. 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. You lie about being a well behaved human being whilst the minute you arrive home, you burp, fart and swear all over the place. ...yet you won't at your mother-in-law. 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. 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.

aahortwwy 5y ago
> You lied to get in. By emphasizing your strengths and hiding your weaknesses. The employer did the same thing. One of the most powerful tools I use when interviewing senior candidates is being brutally honest about the company's weaknesses. Implicit in the act of hiring is the reality that you have a problem you need an employee to solve for you. Pretending those problems don't exist is bizarre.
- fleddr 5y ago
  That sounds wonderful, I'm sure in such an open and honest dialogue, a candidate would also be more comfortable to admit a weakness. Other than anxiously hiding weaknesses, the other bizarre thing in business is the idea that any and all weaknesses must be addressed. To use the sports analogy: one can conclude that the star attack player is terrible at defense, but it really makes zero sense to invest a lot in defensive skills.

legitster 5y ago

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". Please stop using this phrase unless you want to further alienate me from the position you are trying to make.

johnday 5y ago
> It was invented by a Nazi over 120 years ago That'd be a good trick, given that there were no Nazis until 1920.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > That'd be a good trick, given that there were no Nazis until 1920. It was in a work published starting in 1902 (though the part concerning late-stage capitalism was published in 1927) by a German Marxist [0] (at the time he wrote coined the term) who became a nationalist in the Weimar era to the point that some of his writings later in the early 1930s apparently aligned to a certain extent with Nazi ideology, but who was putting out anti-Nazi writings (actively suppressed by the Nazis) by the late 1930s. So, while “by a Nazi over 120 years ago” is not really accurate at all, it has some recognizable connection to facts. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werner_Sombart https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werner_Sombart

krupan 5y ago

The exit interview advice is not anything new, I heard it from 10 other people before Jacob wrote this post. The general salary advice is also not new at all. The specifics of which tools to use is pretty helpful.

lmeyerov 5y ago

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.

at_a_remove 5y ago

If anything, it isn't cut-throat enough. 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. I didn't comment in the exit interview thread, but I absolutely chortled 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 ... Working for family? Even worse. 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. 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 use any of this, but it is nice to have on hand when you find a knife in your back.

helloworld11 5y ago

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. 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. 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. edit: couple extra words.

waylandsmithers 5y ago

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. 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. During another one the HR person asks me, "At what point did you realize you had no future here?" 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.

genis 5y ago

genis 5y ago
a1

wonderwonder 5y ago

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. 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.

sjg007 5y ago

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.

Epiphany21 5y ago

>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. 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.

analog31 5y ago

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

citizenpaul 5y ago

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. This was all you needed to write: >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.

spacemanmatt 5y ago

I don't like it, so I support unions. Much appreciated follow-up.

rkangel 5y ago

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".

cosmiccatnap 5y ago

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. 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_sleaze9 5y ago

Let me just compliment your writing. It is truly a pleasure to read your blog. Thank you.

_hcuq 5y ago

No.Having just sampled your blog, you have strong, well articulated opinions. People don’t have to follow your advice.

Mikeb85 5y ago

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). 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. 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.