So I’ve been both an employee and a manager in companies that aren’t faang level but break 1 billion in yearly revenue. This is advice from someone privileged

So I’ve been both an employee and a manager in companies that aren’t faang level but break 1 billion in yearly revenue. This is advice from someone privileged enough that it was easier for their manager to ignore them as a problem, rather than deal with them. Off the get go, it’s standard practice to remove all permissions and access to systems from someone who has tendered notice, in the interest of investors, security execs, and anyone who cares about the long term health of the applications being worked on. The investors and security execs are placated by knowing that someone who has indicated they might possibly be disgruntled doesn’t still have access to damage the systems. Any manager who cares about the long term health of their systems doesn’t want someone involved in the day to day architecture and design designs who already knows they won’t have to deal with any problems that arise after a few weeks. This isn’t even to blame the employee in question, they just no longer have the incentives to care about the codebase after their notice. I have also definitely never seen a single person who gave notice and didn’t have access cut off, get to “focus on the fun parts of the job”. In that case they were normally tasked with knowledge transfer the whole time as if it’s an org that can afford the sudden loss of a single person, they also likely don’t have good documentation