> There was a time in America a generation or two ago when you could give your all to a company.
The problem with these advice columns is that they aren't saying "don't give your all to a company".
They end up saying "your company is the enemy". The original article that this blog refers to was titled "Exit interviews are a trap", which many pointed out was a gross exaggeration. It assumes that every company performing an exit interview is doing something malicious, which is a ridiculous claim.
Yes, it's possible that some companies somewhere are using exit interviews as some sort of trap to get dirt or leverage over employees, and it's also true that you shouldn't rush in and use it as an opportunity to complain about everyone you hated at the company. However, it's unreasonable to assume that it's a trap and that the company is interested in nothing more than revenge.
That's the problem with these advice blogs. They cater to an idea that managers and HR are "the other", and once someone crosses the line to management or HR, they become evil and incapable of doing anything other than abusing you for no good reason.
We should warn young people about abusive employers, but it's not helpful to teach them that employers are universally malicious.
I think the message is more "you shouldn't form loyalty ties with your company, because your company won't form them with you".
Loyalty ties are still important, but not something you will find in most employer-employee relationships. Better to have a more "extractive" vision of companies and build loyalty ties somewhere else.
> They cater to an idea that managers and HR are "the other", and once someone crosses the line to management or HR, they become evil and incapable of doing anything other than abusing you for no good reason.
No one says they're evil. Corporate leadership, like corporations themselves, are amoral, which means they have no compunctions to actions that to them, are without intention, but for translates to the recipient as maliciousness.
<< They end up saying "your company is the enemy".
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.
> 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.
I 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.
What is the difference, from an employee's perspective, between an abusive employer, and one that would not hesitate to steamroll them in the name of profit. Sure one is intentionally targetted and the other is collateral damage, but in the end the employee is in the same boat. All you've said so far is "..but not ALL employers!"
The problem with these advice columns is that they aren't saying "don't give your all to a company".
They end up saying "your company is the enemy". The original article that this blog refers to was titled "Exit interviews are a trap", which many pointed out was a gross exaggeration. It assumes that every company performing an exit interview is doing something malicious, which is a ridiculous claim.
Yes, it's possible that some companies somewhere are using exit interviews as some sort of trap to get dirt or leverage over employees, and it's also true that you shouldn't rush in and use it as an opportunity to complain about everyone you hated at the company. However, it's unreasonable to assume that it's a trap and that the company is interested in nothing more than revenge.
That's the problem with these advice blogs. They cater to an idea that managers and HR are "the other", and once someone crosses the line to management or HR, they become evil and incapable of doing anything other than abusing you for no good reason.
We should warn young people about abusive employers, but it's not helpful to teach them that employers are universally malicious.