It seems to me that the author is suggesting a third type of person: one who is professional until they're criticized.

1) The formal exit interview with HR. The HR person was apparently called to do it on her day off (no idea why they didn't just have someone else do it), and made sure I knew it, complained that "we just spent a lot of money on those classes you took and you were on track for Leadership training." Seriously? People leave: it's a cost of doing business!

2) The VP of Engineering called me into his office to say goodbye and ask a few questions. Specifically, he wanted to know if the company's diversity programs were accomplishing anything useful (I'm black) or if they were just fooling themselves. In his words "you already have another job, so I'm sure I can trust you to be completely honest." I took him seriously and tried to give complete, honest answers to. Truth be told, I loved working there. I just wanted to move away from that part of the country and had a great opportunity.

HR's attitude pissed me off so much that if I didn't already like the place I would probably have badmouthed them to anyone who asked.

The HR person sounds like an HR person.

But if you are leaving a company, that's even less of a reason for the person you're critiquing to listen to what you are saying (b/c they can just write it off as someone who has sour grapes or was leaving anyway), and even more of an opportunity to just create unnecessary animosity. And that professionalism that becomes a necessity when the person is still a coworker can disappear completely.

Some people are just insecure and always get offended by constructive criticism, some people have poor communication skills and think they are "just being honest and constructive" while actually being very offensive (we probably all know a few coworkers like this) and sometimes the person doing the exit interview has just had the worst day of their lives. Bland platitudes in the exit interview will almost never hurt but candid feedback can definitely go sideways very quick. Game theory says it's better to play it safe.

I thought about wording it differently (e.g., a person will behave professionally until ...) to help illustrate that but the way I chose to word it also helps to illustrate the perceptions of the other individual: it seemed very much that they were professional until their behavior changed.

Or to rephrase, one who is professional until an actual test of their professionalism.

What do you do when you work for a company where you think managers are bad, and their managers are bad, but they all think they are great and they think you're the problem? How do you objectively (not subjectively) determine if a manager is bad? If 200 people in the organization are "happy enough", it's your word versus theirs on what a good manager vs a bad manager is.

HR doesn't care (in my opinion) that you think a manager is bad. They need bodies to do jobs. They just do what they are told in my experience. They aren't going to go up the ladder and get rid of a manager because you don't like their style.

It's a cruel world out there. Worst part about doing IT for a living if you ask me (or whatever it is you call what we do). Same boring stuff every day M-F 9am-5pm. Everything's always broken. Login/auth/2FA/plumbing data back and forth from one system in one format to another in a slightly different format aren't "sexy" problems. Are humans really designed to do the roughly the same thing from 21 years old to 65 years old?

Some manager chirping in your ear about a deadline or an estimate, like we don't do this same song and dance every week. Projects with no requirements. I worked for an organization that valued how nice you and be versus how much you can get done. I understand how important collaboration is and how important teamwork is. It's just frustrating to log on to a job where... your manager controls your happiness and they think they rock and you think they suck and the truth is somewhere in the middle but it doesn't matter because... their managers and the managers of those people are all about a certain culture. How do you quantify culture?

If you notice you are the only one in 200 people have any issues, a reasonable question to ask yourself is if the problem is you. If you end up believing you aren't, you should at least be able to articulate why you're the only one.

This is exactly the right attitude. If everyone else is happy and the only problem is you, all the more reason to be respectful! It's better to treat it as a cultural misfit rather than ask them risk making 200 other employees unhappy to appease you.

I agree it's probably best to start from a position that it's just a cultural mismatch. I imagine sometimes it gets entangled with a lot of other issues though, whether rightfully so or in perception only.

Being honest opens you up to having that honesty used against you, so people just put on a cheerful saccharine smile and lie.

If you refuse to speak up because you think no one will listen, you might equally be part of the problem.

Generally speaking momentary catharsis associated with blowing up bridges isn’t worth it.

Or maybe I’m just an idiot.

I really do you see where you were coming from here, but there are two things to consider here.

1) Subjective assessment is totally valid when discussing management. It’s a job about people at its core, so how people feel is relevant. If a company can’t see that then there is a larger company culture issue there. Unhappy people not working well with their manager(s) are not going to put out as much - or necessarily good - work

2) It’s not about “are most people happy or not complaining,” it’s more about patterns/repetition (e.g. “a pattern of behavior.”) If you oversee 200 people over 5 years and 10 of them left citing “inappropriate conduct/I was uncomfortable at work,” that’s going to get HR and upper management hopefully asking questions.

HR should track the attrition rate for each manager. If twice as many of manager X's reports are quitting or transfer to other teams than manager Y's reports, then manager X or the projects they manage might be a problem (for employee morale and company success).

HR can also send out anonymous employee engagement surveys.

If employees view management or the company as Bad™, they will assume such surveys are 1. not actually anonymous, and 2. never going to make a difference, and all claims to the contrary will be seen as empty platitudes. (Obviously this can be counteracted by actually showing that the company is willing to act on feedback, but even if you're in a position to do that you have to get over the bootstrapping hump.)

Yes, there was the usual verbiage about anonymizing, blah, blah, but I lost all confidence that my response wouldn't be tracked to me. I never returned the survey.

I still haven't determined whether this was by incompetent or malicious design.

(But then again, I guess plumbers work on the same boring stuff every day from age 21 to 65+)

If you need catharsis after leaving a job, call up your old college roommate or your parents to bellyache.

Nothing you say is confidential. There's a good chance the notes will go directly to your old manager and/or manager's manager, with your name on it.

Be bland and non-committal, and if you are really pressed, give the mildest criticism like "I wish the ticketing system was easier to use". Even that has a risk since if the current ticketing system is somebody's pet project and your criticize it, you might get that someone mad at you.

I consider it part of my integrity that I try to bring to every job to give honest and direct criticism about things I found lacking, especially if I'm leaving because of those lacks.

Perhaps they fix them, perhaps they don't, perhaps it helps other people on the team, but I can't imagine an actual downside outside of highly specialized niches where one could actually be cut out of further opportunities even with competitors

Why should I care? I say things during an exit interview I want them to know.

Because you can't predict the future with 100% fidelity. Which means you could find yourself in situations like:

- working under the same person (that you pissed off via the exit interview) again at a different company

- applying for a job at another company where that person (that you pissed off via the exit interview) now works and will badmouth you

- applying to go back to the company you're now leaving

- etc., etc.

I would say there's nothing to be gained from being honest during an exit interview, and just enough to be lost, to make it a bad deal. But a lot of it honestly comes down to "luck of the draw." I'm sure plenty of people have gone all "scorched earth" in an exit interview and never had any fallout from it. Others, however...

I think the assumption that the only possible result of being honest in your exit interview is that everyone who becomes aware of what you said dislikes you are a result is weird. Is this the same confusion where assholes claim that they're just "brutally honest" making people think that being honest in your exit interview requires you to be a jerk?

Sure, those things could happen. But those of us arguing against being overly honest in exit interviews would generally say, based on our experiences, those things are just very unlikely. Personally I find them so unlikely as to be in the "not even worth considering" category. Kinda like, yes, I could be killed by a meteorite smashing through my roof and striking me, but I don't spend any time worrying about the possibility.

Is this the same confusion where assholes claim that they're just "brutally honest" making people think that being honest in your exit interview requires you to be a jerk?

I don't know anything about being "brutally" honest, nor am I suggesting that one must be a jerk about anything. But many (most?) people don't suffer criticism well in my experience - and this seems to be especially true of the people who are most worthy of being criticized.

Like others have said... the idea isn't to be intentionally deceitful during an exit interview. At least that's not what I'm suggesting. But it's also not necessary to say everything you could say, or even you might want to say. Especially since the biggest gain is often just a momentary sense of catharsis.

That said, everybody has to judge their own circumstances and make decision based on their own values, goals, constraints, etc. "Do what you think is right, and hope for the best" isn't the worst strategy one could follow.

This is definitely a cultural thing, I brought this up with my team recently, the concept of "negative feedback" and got two different reactions – my feedback to the team was about how we give negative feedback, and nobody at all agreed with that phrasing LOL

Either some people who heard what I said and thought, surely this means when you have done something wrong, and it's not actually negative feedback, but corrective feedback so that you know how to do that thing right in the future.

And the other reaction was, "negative feedback, positive feedback" no such thing it is all just feedback, but watch out for positive feedback because all of it is probably fake, and nobody is fooled by that "compliment sandwich" BS.

I don't think this is a problem for exit interviews, at least not exclusively; the point is that people are either receptive to feedback or they aren't. You can try to candy coat it, but if there's any chance that being direct is going to make the feedback more likely to land, I personally think I prefer the direct approach.

(Then again, I never notice compliment sandwiches, so maybe they work on me.)

But the second I hear a bullshit compliment, I feel like I’m about to get a sales pitch.

Maybe for me. But I know for a fact that one of my exit interviews was used as part of a basis to reassign a manager and give everyone in the department a raise. So I consider giving a good exit interview part of doing the right thing.

With a little benefit to you (other than catharsis) and unlimited downside if you do. The entity benefitting from that conversation is none other than the company itself. They are usually not going to change as a result. And if they do, you no longer work there. So why would it matter?

You. Owe. Them. Nothing.

Corporate entities are not your friends and they are not your family. If they say they are...RUN.

If "them" is your old manager, why not just tell them directly?

At the big corporation I work at, we have yearly surveys. We also do exit interviews with people who are leaving. You're right the notes usually go directly to the person's supervisor. Then the upper management guys put together some kind of directive to try and improve whatever was spelled out in the surveys or the exit interview feedback if they start seeing a pattern.

Then it becomes a quarterly goal for the manager - say reducing team churn before EOY. Goal is met, everything goes back to normal and nobody is the wiser about anything said in the exit interview.

Its literally a one-time deal that is a short-term, surface level managerial fix.

Even when you supposedly have a system in place that should theoretically handle negative survey and exit interview feedback, the system is designed to more or less just sweep it under the carpet as if nothing ever happened.

An exit interview is an explicit opt-in from the interviewer to hear bad news…

It's actually something of an archetype for a manager to be snide and 'keep within the rules' while absolutely making employee's lives miserable. That's how they survive politically. I should know, I've had it done to me.

The more you need to vent at the exit interview, the more likely there will be unprofessional behavior at your expense.

Like you said, if it is handled professionally - that is, you have valid concerns/criticisms that you are able to quantify and address in a constructive manner - it can be very useful for everyone involved.

I get that for every company that seems to care there are probably 10 that seem to not, but I always find this sort of stereotypical "work sucks and is a zero-sum game" attitude that is common on Reddit and HN a little saddening. Sure, your primary concern should be to take care of yourself, but this idea that everything with 'Inc.' after its name is full of layers of uncaring, heartless drones is frankly untrue. People think the same about IT/tech/dev, and it's not true there either. It does not have to be you vs them, even when you decide to leave.

My exit interview at a toxic job was really bad. I was given old format of exit interview form, me and my manager knew it's not going to be imported into a system and analysed, it has quite stupid questions like "would you stay for 2% more salary", or asking to blame people "is any of below a reason of you leaving: PO, SM, fellow developer/QA", while most people were leaving thanks to C-level people who didn't want to recognise their fault. If they knew employee was leaving the company for a lot more money of changing role, they were asked different questions that made the company look more positive to investors.

Wut? I hope you responded with something like "Hell no, but make it 60% and we can talk". Typically when I have jumped ship I got something like 20%-40% more with my new employer.

Right now Glassdoor basically serves that purpose and is more cathartic than venting to some poor HR peon--someone might actually read your Glassdoor review.

You can do that over a beer or two with the (ex-)colleagues any time before or after you leave. It's not like you are forced to delete them from the contact list. And if you have managed to build this kind of trust between yourself and another employee, it's always a good idea to keep a connection to them. Ping them a couple times per year, discuss some common topics, and be ready to refer each other if one is looking for a job and the other one has an opening at their company. This is called "networking".

As far as the exit interview goes, the only things it's wise to say there are the same as telling your new employer why you left the previous workplace. "Just wanted to work with X, while they were focusing on Y, so we shook hands and parted". Everyone knows it's bullshit, but it's a test of your ability to de-escalate and avoid conflict, and it is very important.

Oh, and don't underestimate the bad managers either. If they abuse you and you still act professionally (and leave politely), you are just a resource. You are no longer needed, they have no interest in abusing you, they might even give you a neutral reference if anybody asks (although don't count on that). If you personally call out their bullshit in front of other subordinates, they may take it personally, and you really do not want a personal vendetta with someone who's full-time job is to spread gossip and manipulate people.

Most 'references' are "Bill worked here from 6/2019 to 12/2020. Bill left with the title of Chief Ball Washer."

They may throw in an eligible for rehire or not but the boomer idea of a Employer Reference has been dead and buried almost as long as I have been in the workforce. And I'm closer to retirement than I am to when I joined the workforce.

Shit at most of the places I have been the leadership turns over faster than the employees so there's no one there to say how I worked anyway.

As an example, before I moved into software engineering, I worked in digital media. There are maybe 22,000 working journalists in digital media in the United States (and that's also allowing for employees at the larger national papers like WSJ, NYT, Washington Post, etc) -- give or take a couple of thousand. If you then factor in for location (say, New York City) and coverage area (say, technology), you're now down to a small enough number of people that you can and will realistically know someone at almost every single place you would be going for a job. You run into people at conferences. You see people at the same parties. You have mutual friends. It's small and incestuous. So in that case, telling HR or your editor how the company can go fuck itself is usually not a great idea. Because you'll wind up working with these people again someday.

Unless you're in a more specialized area or community, software is different because you have 8x employees at one FAANG than in some entire industries. So in that case, as you said, turnover can be so swift and the reference is usually "Bill worked here from X to Y and had the title of Z."

But if you ARE in a specialized area, social capital matters a lot (I frequently get pinged by people at companies I don't even work at, asking my thoughts on a particular person) and so that's one more reason NOT to do the exit interview, or to at least not tell the person where to shove it in that interview.

Somebody at new company is a buddy with someone at old company, and calls up to ask "What's the deal on <potential hire>". No paper trail, nothing for the lawyers to track down.

Do you really think that never happens?

If HR is printing and handing out your exit interview to all your former colleagues and they all disagree with your POV; a) you have a bigger problem and/or b) you might just be the asshole everyone else is talking about.

Edit: To be fair, your feedback could get back to the person it was about and they could fuck with you later but aren't they doing you a favor at that point. Anyone who I dislike enough to specifically call out by name in a negative way in an exit interview was typically someone I would never work for or with again.

It does happen. In the worst cases, the bad guy will actively sabotage the frankly speaking exiter's job search.

You say, "I really found Bad-Director's micromanaging our sprints unendurable".

Now Bad-Director is your enemy and will bad mouth you at every opportunity including off the record reference checks. Doesn't happen 100% of the time, but often enough to be a risk.