5 ms·
> I read the article and I disagree. It does not say it either explicitly or implicitly. The article only urges the reader to think of the benefits to themselve
by PragmaticPulp 5y ago
> I read the article and I disagree. It does not say it either explicitly or implicitly. The article only urges the reader to think of the benefits to themselves first.. like a company would.
This article is a response to criticisms of a previous article where the author was definitely very mercenary and suggested the only purpose of the exit interview was to “trap” the employee into giving information that their managers could use against them later… somehow.
It seems this article was meant to walk back some of the aggressiveness.
- taberiand 5y agoI don't think that was the point of the exit interview article. My understanding is it was mostly that nothing you say will make any difference to the company, in all probability - so there is no need to go into the interview looking out for anyone but yourself. And definately do not go in to air your grievances. But I generally agree with the mercenary approach, my personal ethos when working for a company is - take as much money from them as possible and provide my best estimate of (money+some reasonable extra) back in value. The reasonable extra is an investment of time and effort with the goal of paying out as more money later.