Modern etiquette: Proper protocol when leaving a job

Flipping your desk over while shouting, "I've had enough of this!!!"?

Giving the Bilbo Baggins birthday speech? http://www.tk421.net/lotr/film/fotr/05.html

Yeah it sucks for the little people to have to mind all this crap, meanwhile most companies just either send you packing or box you in for the last couple weeks until yr finally out the door for good

Depressing. What next?

1) Respect the police.

2) Report any suspicious behaviour by neighbours.

3) Obey the government.

It's all for your own good....

I say leave with a bang especially if you hated the place.

It seems to me all the points presented in the article were good ones. Indeed, take the high road; act professionally even in the face of adversity.

my oft-referred to enormous half-black puerto rican friend had the best exit: after clogging the entire building's plumbing system (on taco tuesday, of course), he ran, buck naked, up to the roof - trailing all sorts of nasty behind him - and launched himself to the street below. as you'd expect, he's quite indestructible and walked away fine, but the cars parked below weren't so lucky. it was glorious, to say the least.

Remember to keep your resignation letter short, simple and to the point. Ask if there is anything you can do during the transition period over the next two weeks such as help train your successor, tie up loose ends, or delegate tasks. Don't forget to let your supervisor know that you appreciate all the company's done for you and that you'll do everything in your power to make your departure as smooth and painless as possible.

With regards to the last job that let me go, I was called into the Director's office and had a meeting with him, his primary assistant, and his secondary associate (my immediate supervisor). After being notified of my not receiving a new contract, and the Director's being "disappointed about how everything worked out," I simply thanked them for the opportunity to be a part of their organization; for their allowing me to work with the great people I worked with; and for giving me three good years. The Director said I could use them for a reference and after thanking him and his two assistants, shaking their hands (none of them looked me in the eye as during the entire meeting nor when I shook each of their hands) left. The whole meeting lasted four minutes. They never told me why I was being let go, and I never asked.

Sing Dead Kennedeys' 'Take this job and shove it!'

In my last company, I worked with a guy who was a hard worker, and did good work. He was quite dedicated to the company. However, he ran into some personal issues which impacted upon his work, and the company eventually let him go. He left with the scorched earth policy - he left with a final email to everyone, that outed secrets, condemned the company, and caused a bunch of havoc.

We've kept in contact (I wasn't one of those scorched by the final email), and last year he asked me if I had a position for him in one of my companies. I politely declined, saying we had nothing open, but the fact is that I wouldn't hire him after his final actions at our previous company. If he hadn't done that, I would have given him a job, as he was a solid employee at our previous company, and the personal issues he had been facing are now in the past. But I'd always wonder what was going to happen when it came time for him to move on, so it wasn't worth the risk to me.

Jason Lovelace: They never told me why I was being let go, and I never asked.

A lot of invisible competition goes on and the hardest workers may be totally unaware of it, even when it bites them. Have learned that by working two contracts at the same office several years apart. By the second contract, several managers and climbers had been sidelined or even let go, basically for predatory office politicking, but that didn't help those they'd pushed out prior to that, most or all of whom had no idea what was going on. Always best to deal up front but a lot of people don't, and I can imagine a lot get away with it.

Even leaving out things like productivity is not always a virtue (because improving the bottom line is not always the goal, in a feudal state / modern office), and now management's got someone they can blame anything they choose to on (personnel who just left), and so on and so on.

I wonder if this person also offers etiquette advice to corporations about how best to make employees redundant. Lets face it, there are a lot of HR departments out there who don't give two for how they treat soon to be axed employees.

sometimes it's not your wish of a "grateful exit", but the employer or immediate supervisor will try to tarnish you. I have a case where the company withdrawn its project after 15 plus years, causing a big budget shortfall, however, they shift the blame to employee, ie by giving absolute bad, poor performance appraisal without its consent. The employer also shutting its door for any redress citing it's already discussed. Employer can play thuggery and resort to intimidating act too, it's by way to shut your mouth. by the way, it's one of the top 5 trading houses in Japan go by circle of red??

Personally I think this article just reveals the utter lack of HR planning in companies.

For example, "you may be tempted to ... leave an unfinished project for your eventual replacement."

This brings up many points:

Why are you the only one with knowledge of that project? Why is it your responsibility to finish it? If the project is long-term (which is what the term "project" implies, rather than "task" which is a short-term issue) then there should be no reasonable expectation that you should work overtime or try to finish it. It simply isn't realistic or reasonable. Why do they refer to "eventual replacement"? If the company is running on such a lean HR model that there's nobody to hand over to, and no-one else to maintain the project when you leave then this is the company's fault, and not your responsibility.

Some of the suggestions are just laughable, for example: " Could you stay longer to assist in training your replacement? Will you leave the company in a bind?"

This comment exposes the fundamental hypocrisy of the author:

The company would think nothing of firing you if it served their financial interests, and wouldn't let you stay on longer until you found a new job, even if it left you in a financial "bind". Why should the company expect loyalty when it doesn't extend the same loyalty to employees? As for training your replacement... don't make me laugh. I've been in this situation several times, and every time the company hired two or three inexperienced, under-qualified individuals to replace me and then asked me to, "Please train them.". I did my part but the company was in such a state of constant change that most of my advice was along the lines of, "The current situation is this . It evolved from this . What it will be next week when the CEO gets his latest brainstorm is anyone's guess.". Inexperienced and under-qualified individuals simply can't cope with that degree of uncertainty and change, but the finance department sets the budget for hiring and the HR department tows the financial line.

Frankly this article is nothing more than a string of hypocrisy intended to place the blame for the company's poor planning on the shoulders of departing employees.

I agree that you should be professional when leaving, refrain from burning bridges and continue to work as usual up to and including the last day, but the company has no right to expect you to work harder in your final days or weeks to make up for their lack of planning.

The old maxim applies, "A lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part".

It's not necessarily a lack of planning. Most companies have limited resources. It's not like they can put 1.5 people onto every one person's job. If they did, profit margins go down, costs go up, and customers stop buying the company's products/services. One of the hardest things in building a company is scaling up the number of employees. The company needs to ensure that there is enough ongoing work for all employees in order to be able to ensure that they can keep the employee paid and employed. This often means not hiring someone right away even when it appears they may be necessary at the moment, as there may not be enough guaranteed work in the future to support that employee. And most employers don't want to have to let someone go a few months after they have brought them on.

It's easy to criticize employers when you've never been in their permission (I sure did it a lot when I was an employee), but the reality is that being an employer is a juggling game, deciding when is the most opportune moment to increase the number of staff, while not bringing on too many staff and pricing yourself out of the game. It's an area that many companies have difficulty with, which is why they either don't grow, or grow to fast and collapse.

One of our vendors collapsed last year - they had 50 employees, and a 12000 foot square office. But they had misjudged their resources and went under. With five-year constant growth, and a good track record, they looked like they were solid with everything under control - until it wasn't. It was a surprise to me, and a good lesson learned.