Why would managers want to keep it top secret that an employee is leaving?

Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP

.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;

up vote
52
down vote

favorite

8

Since I started to work for my first employer, I have seen two employees quit the organization. What surprised me was that news of their exit was broken by team managers' only a week before the actual exit happened. Until then, even the closest of their friends were unaware of the developments.

Our employment terms state that an employee has to tender an exit notice of 45 days, so the fact these employees were leaving was known by management for quite some time. After speaking to outgoing employees, I found out that they were strictly instructed by their managers not to disclose the information that they were leaving until they were permitted to do so.

What are the business reasons for managers to give these instructions?

management resignation

share|improve this question

edited Oct 4 '12 at 19:01

IDrinkandIKnowThings

43.9k1398188

asked May 2 '12 at 17:22

Anon

26733

• 
  
  
  

  
  5
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  45 days is a long time. I have seen Reduction in Force (RIF) done where the employer wants to keep it a secret to not spook the ones remaining with the company.
  – mhoran_psprep
  May 2 '12 at 18:39
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  6
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @Chad: There is a question: "Is there any business reason for managers to give these strict instructions?" I find it reasonable to ask to understand the motivations of the employer.
  – sleske
  May 3 '12 at 11:52
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  11
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @Chad failing to understand the reason for management's actions can be a huge detriment to everyone involved. If employees don't know what's up it sows distrust which makes your job harder. Understanding is a part of working.
  – Rarity
  May 3 '12 at 13:20
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  4
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Our employment terms state that an employee has to tender an exit notice of 45 days ==> Your contract can say that if you want to quit you have to eat your hand first, but that doesn't mean that you actually have to do it.
  – Andreas Bonini
  May 3 '12 at 15:12
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  3
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  They keep it until a week? In my company, we hear it the last day, or day before a person leaves o_O
  – BЈовић
  May 3 '12 at 19:28
  
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 3 more comments

up vote
52
down vote

favorite

8

Since I started to work for my first employer, I have seen two employees quit the organization. What surprised me was that news of their exit was broken by team managers' only a week before the actual exit happened. Until then, even the closest of their friends were unaware of the developments.

Our employment terms state that an employee has to tender an exit notice of 45 days, so the fact these employees were leaving was known by management for quite some time. After speaking to outgoing employees, I found out that they were strictly instructed by their managers not to disclose the information that they were leaving until they were permitted to do so.

What are the business reasons for managers to give these instructions?

management resignation

share|improve this question

edited Oct 4 '12 at 19:01

IDrinkandIKnowThings

43.9k1398188

asked May 2 '12 at 17:22

Anon

26733

• 
  
  
  

  
  5
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  45 days is a long time. I have seen Reduction in Force (RIF) done where the employer wants to keep it a secret to not spook the ones remaining with the company.
  – mhoran_psprep
  May 2 '12 at 18:39
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  6
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @Chad: There is a question: "Is there any business reason for managers to give these strict instructions?" I find it reasonable to ask to understand the motivations of the employer.
  – sleske
  May 3 '12 at 11:52
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  11
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @Chad failing to understand the reason for management's actions can be a huge detriment to everyone involved. If employees don't know what's up it sows distrust which makes your job harder. Understanding is a part of working.
  – Rarity
  May 3 '12 at 13:20
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  4
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Our employment terms state that an employee has to tender an exit notice of 45 days ==> Your contract can say that if you want to quit you have to eat your hand first, but that doesn't mean that you actually have to do it.
  – Andreas Bonini
  May 3 '12 at 15:12
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  3
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  They keep it until a week? In my company, we hear it the last day, or day before a person leaves o_O
  – BЈовић
  May 3 '12 at 19:28
  
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 3 more comments

up vote
52
down vote

favorite

8

up vote
52
down vote

favorite

8

8

Since I started to work for my first employer, I have seen two employees quit the organization. What surprised me was that news of their exit was broken by team managers' only a week before the actual exit happened. Until then, even the closest of their friends were unaware of the developments.

Our employment terms state that an employee has to tender an exit notice of 45 days, so the fact these employees were leaving was known by management for quite some time. After speaking to outgoing employees, I found out that they were strictly instructed by their managers not to disclose the information that they were leaving until they were permitted to do so.

What are the business reasons for managers to give these instructions?

management resignation

share|improve this question

edited Oct 4 '12 at 19:01

IDrinkandIKnowThings

43.9k1398188

asked May 2 '12 at 17:22

Anon

26733

Since I started to work for my first employer, I have seen two employees quit the organization. What surprised me was that news of their exit was broken by team managers' only a week before the actual exit happened. Until then, even the closest of their friends were unaware of the developments.

Our employment terms state that an employee has to tender an exit notice of 45 days, so the fact these employees were leaving was known by management for quite some time. After speaking to outgoing employees, I found out that they were strictly instructed by their managers not to disclose the information that they were leaving until they were permitted to do so.

What are the business reasons for managers to give these instructions?

management resignation

share|improve this question

edited Oct 4 '12 at 19:01

IDrinkandIKnowThings

43.9k1398188

asked May 2 '12 at 17:22

Anon

26733

share|improve this question

share|improve this question

edited Oct 4 '12 at 19:01

IDrinkandIKnowThings

43.9k1398188

edited Oct 4 '12 at 19:01

IDrinkandIKnowThings

43.9k1398188

edited Oct 4 '12 at 19:01

IDrinkandIKnowThings

43.9k1398188

43.9k1398188

asked May 2 '12 at 17:22

Anon

26733

asked May 2 '12 at 17:22

Anon

26733

asked May 2 '12 at 17:22

Anon

26733

26733

• 
  
  
  

  
  5
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  45 days is a long time. I have seen Reduction in Force (RIF) done where the employer wants to keep it a secret to not spook the ones remaining with the company.
  – mhoran_psprep
  May 2 '12 at 18:39
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  6
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @Chad: There is a question: "Is there any business reason for managers to give these strict instructions?" I find it reasonable to ask to understand the motivations of the employer.
  – sleske
  May 3 '12 at 11:52
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  11
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @Chad failing to understand the reason for management's actions can be a huge detriment to everyone involved. If employees don't know what's up it sows distrust which makes your job harder. Understanding is a part of working.
  – Rarity
  May 3 '12 at 13:20
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  4
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Our employment terms state that an employee has to tender an exit notice of 45 days ==> Your contract can say that if you want to quit you have to eat your hand first, but that doesn't mean that you actually have to do it.
  – Andreas Bonini
  May 3 '12 at 15:12
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  3
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  They keep it until a week? In my company, we hear it the last day, or day before a person leaves o_O
  – BЈовић
  May 3 '12 at 19:28
  
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 3 more comments

• 
  
  
  

  
  5
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  45 days is a long time. I have seen Reduction in Force (RIF) done where the employer wants to keep it a secret to not spook the ones remaining with the company.
  – mhoran_psprep
  May 2 '12 at 18:39
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  6
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @Chad: There is a question: "Is there any business reason for managers to give these strict instructions?" I find it reasonable to ask to understand the motivations of the employer.
  – sleske
  May 3 '12 at 11:52
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  11
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @Chad failing to understand the reason for management's actions can be a huge detriment to everyone involved. If employees don't know what's up it sows distrust which makes your job harder. Understanding is a part of working.
  – Rarity
  May 3 '12 at 13:20
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  4
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Our employment terms state that an employee has to tender an exit notice of 45 days ==> Your contract can say that if you want to quit you have to eat your hand first, but that doesn't mean that you actually have to do it.
  – Andreas Bonini
  May 3 '12 at 15:12
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  3
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  They keep it until a week? In my company, we hear it the last day, or day before a person leaves o_O
  – BЈовић
  May 3 '12 at 19:28
  
  

  
  
  
  

5

5

45 days is a long time. I have seen Reduction in Force (RIF) done where the employer wants to keep it a secret to not spook the ones remaining with the company.
– mhoran_psprep
May 2 '12 at 18:39

45 days is a long time. I have seen Reduction in Force (RIF) done where the employer wants to keep it a secret to not spook the ones remaining with the company.
– mhoran_psprep
May 2 '12 at 18:39

6

6

@Chad: There is a question: "Is there any business reason for managers to give these strict instructions?" I find it reasonable to ask to understand the motivations of the employer.
– sleske
May 3 '12 at 11:52

@Chad: There is a question: "Is there any business reason for managers to give these strict instructions?" I find it reasonable to ask to understand the motivations of the employer.
– sleske
May 3 '12 at 11:52

11

11

@Chad failing to understand the reason for management's actions can be a huge detriment to everyone involved. If employees don't know what's up it sows distrust which makes your job harder. Understanding is a part of working.
– Rarity
May 3 '12 at 13:20

@Chad failing to understand the reason for management's actions can be a huge detriment to everyone involved. If employees don't know what's up it sows distrust which makes your job harder. Understanding is a part of working.
– Rarity
May 3 '12 at 13:20

4

4

Our employment terms state that an employee has to tender an exit notice of 45 days ==> Your contract can say that if you want to quit you have to eat your hand first, but that doesn't mean that you actually have to do it.
– Andreas Bonini
May 3 '12 at 15:12

Our employment terms state that an employee has to tender an exit notice of 45 days ==> Your contract can say that if you want to quit you have to eat your hand first, but that doesn't mean that you actually have to do it.
– Andreas Bonini
May 3 '12 at 15:12

3

3

They keep it until a week? In my company, we hear it the last day, or day before a person leaves o_O
– BЈовић
May 3 '12 at 19:28

They keep it until a week? In my company, we hear it the last day, or day before a person leaves o_O
– BЈовић
May 3 '12 at 19:28

 | 
show 3 more comments

8 Answers
8

active

oldest

votes

up vote
58
down vote

Sometimes it's a matter of practicality.

1. Letting team members know earlier than necessary sometimes runs the risk of turning him into a lame duck with no significant benefit. Not to mention the political maneuvring for his position.




2. Sometimes these "exits" don't happen or change at the last minute.




3. Employees leaving create all types of distractions. It's better to reduce this distraction until the last responsible minute.

I'm sure there are plenty of other reasons, but letting employees know earlier than needed really serves no benefit. If that is indeed the case, why bother?

share|improve this answer

edited Aug 12 '12 at 16:45

yoozer8

4,10442955

answered May 2 '12 at 18:51

Permas

4,83111829

• 
  
  
  

  
  17
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  I'd argue thet letting employees know earlier creates one important benefit: It allows the leaving employee to transfer his responsibilities and knowledge to others. I have seen several cases where the employer asked the leaving employee to explain things to his successor, or even hold small workshops. That proved quite valuable.
  – sleske
  May 3 '12 at 11:54
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @sleske, that's why I mentioned "last RESPONSIBLE minute". Hand overs can be done in a week, a day, an hour. It doesn't make sense to let them know any earlier than is needed for a proper hand over. You can also conduct workshops and transfer knowledge WITHOUT letting them know the instructor is leaving until the right time comes.
  – Permas
  May 3 '12 at 12:31
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  11
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  One other reason that wasn't mentioned: Not wanting customers to find out - If a key / high-visibility employee is leaving and the employer wants to carefully handle the transition they probably don't want word slipping to customers before they're ready.
  – voretaq7
  May 3 '12 at 14:34
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  +1 - #1 especially is a great reason for even the most ethical companies to wait until later to announce. It's no fun to work for a job where people don't feel that they can rely on you because you're about to leave, especially when you really need to be effective in order to get things wrapped up for the next person to fill your shoes.
  – Ethel Evans
  May 3 '12 at 20:57
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Of course, there's a difference between proactively "letting employees know" and telling the person who's leaving "the first rule about leaving is that you don't talk about leaving". In my experience employers who do the second thing do it 1) out of fear of how other employees will react and 2) a desire to feel in control of things for the sake of feeling in control. There's not always a legitimate business case to be made.
  – aroth
  Apr 6 '14 at 23:38
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 2 more comments

up vote
22
down vote

There are political reasons not to let the news out, too. For instance, the manager may want to hire a replacement without someone he isn't interested in hiring having the chance to apply for the opening. This is especially true if there is someone well qualified that the manager doesn't like or want to have working for him.

The manager may not want it to appear he is losing staff because he is working towards getting some major new project internally.

The manager may think he is going to persuade the person to stay.

He may not want to make the announcement until it is decided if the position will be filled or not.

If there is a major deadline or delivery in that time frame, he may not want to make the client nervous that his team is leaving. Or he might not want them to find out until he has a replacement.

He may not want people to know that company ABC has some openings right now and so the delay may ensure that any other vacancies they currently have are filled before everyone tries to go to the same place.

He may be a jerk who has no particular reason except that he can do it.

He may feel the person is less likely to slack off if others are unaware he is leaving (45 days is a long time period to wait until someone leaves).

share|improve this answer

edited Jan 7 '15 at 1:39

Aaron Hall

4,16312033

answered May 2 '12 at 19:06

HLGEM

133k25227489

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  It sounds like delaying notifying others of departures is policy just as the 45-day notice is policy, so some of these can't apply, but a good list nonetheless.
  – David Navarre
  Aug 13 '12 at 18:18
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

up vote
20
down vote

If a person is known to be leaving, conversations swerve from getting the job done into where are you going and why.

Some managers want to feel like they are in control of everything, and those managers will try to control even news of other employees departing. Those sort of managers tend to be obsessed with appearances. The subordinates of these managers tend to feel like mushrooms: kept in the dark and have manure flung on them.

One past employer had an entire legal department in order to dodge WARN Act notifications. While the parade of departing employees was constant, and the employees themselves knew about their own layoff more than a month ahead of time, it was not common for the layoff to be announced more than a couple days ahead of the departure. Many of them would have going away parties (frowned on by management), and many of them were identified as "Bob is the last guy who knows/does X". Morale was so bad that many people switched from working Fridays to working Saturdays in order to avoid facing the departures. You could tell larger than normal layoffs were scheduled when the main entrances had extra armed guards checking badges (rather than the old guy with a flashlight checking them) and the foreign staff were directed to work from home those days.

share|improve this answer

edited May 2 '12 at 19:32

Rarity

4,37643457

answered May 2 '12 at 19:15

Tangurena

5,0401936

• 
  
  
  

  
  7
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Related to this is a sort of "sinking ship syndrome", where the employees with a mix of strong skills and political savvy walk out the door as soon as they see things going downhill. The "why?" part of "where are you going and why?" can expose this motivation, and cause other skilled employees with less political savvy to leave sooner than they might have otherwise. Skilled employees are most likely to decide to move on, because they will have the easiest time finding employment elsewhere - leaving only the least desirable employees behind.
  – Ethel Evans
  May 3 '12 at 20:54
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

up vote
8
down vote

The reason I ask my employees to not discuss they are leaving is because I know there is always a pack mentality and people have very strong social bonds who work together.

If one person wants a new job and has time to discuss it with other employees, the more time they have to plan and figure out leaving together. If it is sudden and not known, there is a much much less chance others will be able to leave with them.

Next, loosing multiple people with the knowledge is much more of a hit on productivity and money. If I can get people in to train others and cycle slowly there is not an impact, but if everyone or multiple key people leave at the same time, I'm screwed.

share|improve this answer

edited Apr 6 '14 at 23:25

Peter Mortensen

45547

answered Oct 5 '12 at 22:36

Greg McNulty

2,6701523

• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Usually the departee tells the other team members anyway, so cloak and dagger is not too successful. It might be viewed as a lack of trust, and thus will have a huge negative impact to employee morale.
  – Juha Untinen
  Oct 15 '14 at 11:20
  
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

up vote
4
down vote

This is VERY painful. I've found that silence can be caused by many reasons, some malignant, some behind.

1. The manager is waiting for the right time to tell customers.


2. The manager wants a coordinated message.


3. The manager is looking for a replacement, and doesn't want to inform people without it. (This can take a while, as then they have to find the replacement for the replacement...)


4. The manager is conflict-averse.

Every company has a rumor mill, and in the absence of a formal announcement, the rumor mill generates it's own reasons.

share|improve this answer

answered Aug 14 '12 at 3:20

MathAttack

2,3061220

add a comment | 

up vote
2
down vote

A separate point is that 45 days of notice doesn't neccessarily mean 45 days between announcing and leaving. You can give 45 days of notice and get escorted out the same day. That person may easily had negotiated different exit terms at the time of notice.

share|improve this answer

answered Apr 5 '14 at 14:04

Peteris

617814

add a comment | 

up vote
2
down vote

I don't think anyone has mentioned this yet, apologies if I missed it:

Many companies wish to maintain the appearance (and it might even be mostly true) that all employees are fully committed to the company and believe in what it's doing.

Someone who's leaving is clearly an exception to that rule. As a matter of presentation both to clients and to other employees, the company might choose to take steps to conceal facts that don't fit the narrative.

The most direct way to have everyone carry on as normal, is to restrict the information only to those who absolutely must know (the employee leaving, their boss, anyone in management above that to whom this single person is significant, someone in HR, anyone involved in replacing the exiting employee).

Naturally some people think this is sensible PR, while others think it's dishonest dealing with both clients and other employees. It might even be both.

share|improve this answer

answered Jan 6 '15 at 10:06

Steve Jessop

8,9081941

add a comment | 

up vote
0
down vote

I found out that they were strictly instructed by their managers not
to disclose the information that they were leaving until they were
permitted to do so.

It is possible that the manager was responding to concerns of the employee. The employee may not have felt comfortable sharing with you that they were leaving and did not want the distraction of being asked about the new position, or people asking them to take them with. Blaming management is an easy way to sidestep these issues with out looking like the bad guy. So this could have been suggested as the solution.

I find when I am about to leave a position that people tend to vent their frustrations with the company to me like I hated the company and that was the reason I was leaving. Most often I am moving on to something else. I try to explain this to people which then turns them into trying to convert me to their opinion. For this reason I only broadcast my departure to those people whom my departure will impact. And I only do so to help facilitate hand off of my responsibilities.

In all of my positions in the past 20 years of IT work I have never been asked not to share the news of my imminent departure with my coworkers. I have been asked by the company I was actually employed by to allow them to tell the company I was contracted to that I would be leaving to allow them to bring some one in to back fill the position I would be vacating.

share|improve this answer

edited May 3 '12 at 16:43

answered May 3 '12 at 13:14

IDrinkandIKnowThings

43.9k1398188

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  +1 - although this answer does not answer the question directly, it does give some options as to why it is good to let certain colleagues aware of the departure.
  – tehnyit
  May 3 '12 at 15:03
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  So, you're saying that the employees that were departing were simply lying to him? If it were only one employee and not what appears to the poster as a policy decision by management, your answer might be useful, but just because you've never worked for this kind of manager doesn't mean they don't exist.
  – David Navarre
  Aug 13 '12 at 18:25
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

Your Answer

StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "423"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: false,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
noCode: true, onDemand: false,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);

 

draft saved

draft discarded

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);

Sign up using Google

Sign up using Facebook

Sign up using Email and Password

Post as a guest

Name Email

StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworkplace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f1138%2fwhy-would-managers-want-to-keep-it-top-secret-that-an-employee-is-leaving%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest

Name Email

StackExchange.ready(function ()
$("#show-editor-button input, #show-editor-button button").click(function ()
var showEditor = function()
$("#show-editor-button").hide();
$("#post-form").removeClass("dno");
StackExchange.editor.finallyInit();
;

var useFancy = $(this).data('confirm-use-fancy');
if(useFancy == 'True')
var popupTitle = $(this).data('confirm-fancy-title');
var popupBody = $(this).data('confirm-fancy-body');
var popupAccept = $(this).data('confirm-fancy-accept-button');

$(this).loadPopup(
url: '/post/self-answer-popup',
loaded: function(popup)
var pTitle = $(popup).find('h2');
var pBody = $(popup).find('.popup-body');
var pSubmit = $(popup).find('.popup-submit');

pTitle.text(popupTitle);
pBody.html(popupBody);
pSubmit.val(popupAccept).click(showEditor);

)
else
var confirmText = $(this).data('confirm-text');
if (confirmText ? confirm(confirmText) : true)
showEditor();


);
);

8 Answers
8

active

oldest

votes

8 Answers
8

active

oldest

votes

active

oldest

votes

active

oldest

votes

up vote
58
down vote

Sometimes it's a matter of practicality.

1. Letting team members know earlier than necessary sometimes runs the risk of turning him into a lame duck with no significant benefit. Not to mention the political maneuvring for his position.




2. Sometimes these "exits" don't happen or change at the last minute.




3. Employees leaving create all types of distractions. It's better to reduce this distraction until the last responsible minute.

I'm sure there are plenty of other reasons, but letting employees know earlier than needed really serves no benefit. If that is indeed the case, why bother?

share|improve this answer

edited Aug 12 '12 at 16:45

yoozer8

4,10442955

answered May 2 '12 at 18:51

Permas

4,83111829

• 
  
  
  

  
  17
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  I'd argue thet letting employees know earlier creates one important benefit: It allows the leaving employee to transfer his responsibilities and knowledge to others. I have seen several cases where the employer asked the leaving employee to explain things to his successor, or even hold small workshops. That proved quite valuable.
  – sleske
  May 3 '12 at 11:54
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @sleske, that's why I mentioned "last RESPONSIBLE minute". Hand overs can be done in a week, a day, an hour. It doesn't make sense to let them know any earlier than is needed for a proper hand over. You can also conduct workshops and transfer knowledge WITHOUT letting them know the instructor is leaving until the right time comes.
  – Permas
  May 3 '12 at 12:31
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  11
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  One other reason that wasn't mentioned: Not wanting customers to find out - If a key / high-visibility employee is leaving and the employer wants to carefully handle the transition they probably don't want word slipping to customers before they're ready.
  – voretaq7
  May 3 '12 at 14:34
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  +1 - #1 especially is a great reason for even the most ethical companies to wait until later to announce. It's no fun to work for a job where people don't feel that they can rely on you because you're about to leave, especially when you really need to be effective in order to get things wrapped up for the next person to fill your shoes.
  – Ethel Evans
  May 3 '12 at 20:57
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Of course, there's a difference between proactively "letting employees know" and telling the person who's leaving "the first rule about leaving is that you don't talk about leaving". In my experience employers who do the second thing do it 1) out of fear of how other employees will react and 2) a desire to feel in control of things for the sake of feeling in control. There's not always a legitimate business case to be made.
  – aroth
  Apr 6 '14 at 23:38
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 2 more comments

up vote
58
down vote

Sometimes it's a matter of practicality.

1. Letting team members know earlier than necessary sometimes runs the risk of turning him into a lame duck with no significant benefit. Not to mention the political maneuvring for his position.




2. Sometimes these "exits" don't happen or change at the last minute.




3. Employees leaving create all types of distractions. It's better to reduce this distraction until the last responsible minute.

I'm sure there are plenty of other reasons, but letting employees know earlier than needed really serves no benefit. If that is indeed the case, why bother?

share|improve this answer

edited Aug 12 '12 at 16:45

yoozer8

4,10442955

answered May 2 '12 at 18:51

Permas

4,83111829

• 
  
  
  

  
  17
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  I'd argue thet letting employees know earlier creates one important benefit: It allows the leaving employee to transfer his responsibilities and knowledge to others. I have seen several cases where the employer asked the leaving employee to explain things to his successor, or even hold small workshops. That proved quite valuable.
  – sleske
  May 3 '12 at 11:54
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @sleske, that's why I mentioned "last RESPONSIBLE minute". Hand overs can be done in a week, a day, an hour. It doesn't make sense to let them know any earlier than is needed for a proper hand over. You can also conduct workshops and transfer knowledge WITHOUT letting them know the instructor is leaving until the right time comes.
  – Permas
  May 3 '12 at 12:31
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  11
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  One other reason that wasn't mentioned: Not wanting customers to find out - If a key / high-visibility employee is leaving and the employer wants to carefully handle the transition they probably don't want word slipping to customers before they're ready.
  – voretaq7
  May 3 '12 at 14:34
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  +1 - #1 especially is a great reason for even the most ethical companies to wait until later to announce. It's no fun to work for a job where people don't feel that they can rely on you because you're about to leave, especially when you really need to be effective in order to get things wrapped up for the next person to fill your shoes.
  – Ethel Evans
  May 3 '12 at 20:57
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Of course, there's a difference between proactively "letting employees know" and telling the person who's leaving "the first rule about leaving is that you don't talk about leaving". In my experience employers who do the second thing do it 1) out of fear of how other employees will react and 2) a desire to feel in control of things for the sake of feeling in control. There's not always a legitimate business case to be made.
  – aroth
  Apr 6 '14 at 23:38
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 2 more comments

up vote
58
down vote

up vote
58
down vote

Sometimes it's a matter of practicality.

1. Letting team members know earlier than necessary sometimes runs the risk of turning him into a lame duck with no significant benefit. Not to mention the political maneuvring for his position.




2. Sometimes these "exits" don't happen or change at the last minute.




3. Employees leaving create all types of distractions. It's better to reduce this distraction until the last responsible minute.

I'm sure there are plenty of other reasons, but letting employees know earlier than needed really serves no benefit. If that is indeed the case, why bother?

share|improve this answer

edited Aug 12 '12 at 16:45

yoozer8

4,10442955

answered May 2 '12 at 18:51

Permas

4,83111829

Sometimes it's a matter of practicality.

1. Letting team members know earlier than necessary sometimes runs the risk of turning him into a lame duck with no significant benefit. Not to mention the political maneuvring for his position.




2. Sometimes these "exits" don't happen or change at the last minute.




3. Employees leaving create all types of distractions. It's better to reduce this distraction until the last responsible minute.

I'm sure there are plenty of other reasons, but letting employees know earlier than needed really serves no benefit. If that is indeed the case, why bother?

share|improve this answer

edited Aug 12 '12 at 16:45

yoozer8

4,10442955

answered May 2 '12 at 18:51

Permas

4,83111829

share|improve this answer

share|improve this answer

edited Aug 12 '12 at 16:45

yoozer8

4,10442955

edited Aug 12 '12 at 16:45

yoozer8

4,10442955

edited Aug 12 '12 at 16:45

yoozer8

4,10442955

4,10442955

answered May 2 '12 at 18:51

Permas

4,83111829

answered May 2 '12 at 18:51

Permas

4,83111829

answered May 2 '12 at 18:51

Permas

4,83111829

4,83111829

• 
  
  
  

  
  17
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  I'd argue thet letting employees know earlier creates one important benefit: It allows the leaving employee to transfer his responsibilities and knowledge to others. I have seen several cases where the employer asked the leaving employee to explain things to his successor, or even hold small workshops. That proved quite valuable.
  – sleske
  May 3 '12 at 11:54
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @sleske, that's why I mentioned "last RESPONSIBLE minute". Hand overs can be done in a week, a day, an hour. It doesn't make sense to let them know any earlier than is needed for a proper hand over. You can also conduct workshops and transfer knowledge WITHOUT letting them know the instructor is leaving until the right time comes.
  – Permas
  May 3 '12 at 12:31
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  11
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  One other reason that wasn't mentioned: Not wanting customers to find out - If a key / high-visibility employee is leaving and the employer wants to carefully handle the transition they probably don't want word slipping to customers before they're ready.
  – voretaq7
  May 3 '12 at 14:34
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  +1 - #1 especially is a great reason for even the most ethical companies to wait until later to announce. It's no fun to work for a job where people don't feel that they can rely on you because you're about to leave, especially when you really need to be effective in order to get things wrapped up for the next person to fill your shoes.
  – Ethel Evans
  May 3 '12 at 20:57
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Of course, there's a difference between proactively "letting employees know" and telling the person who's leaving "the first rule about leaving is that you don't talk about leaving". In my experience employers who do the second thing do it 1) out of fear of how other employees will react and 2) a desire to feel in control of things for the sake of feeling in control. There's not always a legitimate business case to be made.
  – aroth
  Apr 6 '14 at 23:38
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 2 more comments

• 
  
  
  

  
  17
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  I'd argue thet letting employees know earlier creates one important benefit: It allows the leaving employee to transfer his responsibilities and knowledge to others. I have seen several cases where the employer asked the leaving employee to explain things to his successor, or even hold small workshops. That proved quite valuable.
  – sleske
  May 3 '12 at 11:54
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @sleske, that's why I mentioned "last RESPONSIBLE minute". Hand overs can be done in a week, a day, an hour. It doesn't make sense to let them know any earlier than is needed for a proper hand over. You can also conduct workshops and transfer knowledge WITHOUT letting them know the instructor is leaving until the right time comes.
  – Permas
  May 3 '12 at 12:31
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  11
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  One other reason that wasn't mentioned: Not wanting customers to find out - If a key / high-visibility employee is leaving and the employer wants to carefully handle the transition they probably don't want word slipping to customers before they're ready.
  – voretaq7
  May 3 '12 at 14:34
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  +1 - #1 especially is a great reason for even the most ethical companies to wait until later to announce. It's no fun to work for a job where people don't feel that they can rely on you because you're about to leave, especially when you really need to be effective in order to get things wrapped up for the next person to fill your shoes.
  – Ethel Evans
  May 3 '12 at 20:57
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Of course, there's a difference between proactively "letting employees know" and telling the person who's leaving "the first rule about leaving is that you don't talk about leaving". In my experience employers who do the second thing do it 1) out of fear of how other employees will react and 2) a desire to feel in control of things for the sake of feeling in control. There's not always a legitimate business case to be made.
  – aroth
  Apr 6 '14 at 23:38
  

  
  
  
  

17

17

I'd argue thet letting employees know earlier creates one important benefit: It allows the leaving employee to transfer his responsibilities and knowledge to others. I have seen several cases where the employer asked the leaving employee to explain things to his successor, or even hold small workshops. That proved quite valuable.
– sleske
May 3 '12 at 11:54

I'd argue thet letting employees know earlier creates one important benefit: It allows the leaving employee to transfer his responsibilities and knowledge to others. I have seen several cases where the employer asked the leaving employee to explain things to his successor, or even hold small workshops. That proved quite valuable.
– sleske
May 3 '12 at 11:54

2

2

@sleske, that's why I mentioned "last RESPONSIBLE minute". Hand overs can be done in a week, a day, an hour. It doesn't make sense to let them know any earlier than is needed for a proper hand over. You can also conduct workshops and transfer knowledge WITHOUT letting them know the instructor is leaving until the right time comes.
– Permas
May 3 '12 at 12:31

@sleske, that's why I mentioned "last RESPONSIBLE minute". Hand overs can be done in a week, a day, an hour. It doesn't make sense to let them know any earlier than is needed for a proper hand over. You can also conduct workshops and transfer knowledge WITHOUT letting them know the instructor is leaving until the right time comes.
– Permas
May 3 '12 at 12:31

11

11

One other reason that wasn't mentioned: Not wanting customers to find out - If a key / high-visibility employee is leaving and the employer wants to carefully handle the transition they probably don't want word slipping to customers before they're ready.
– voretaq7
May 3 '12 at 14:34

One other reason that wasn't mentioned: Not wanting customers to find out - If a key / high-visibility employee is leaving and the employer wants to carefully handle the transition they probably don't want word slipping to customers before they're ready.
– voretaq7
May 3 '12 at 14:34

+1 - #1 especially is a great reason for even the most ethical companies to wait until later to announce. It's no fun to work for a job where people don't feel that they can rely on you because you're about to leave, especially when you really need to be effective in order to get things wrapped up for the next person to fill your shoes.
– Ethel Evans
May 3 '12 at 20:57

+1 - #1 especially is a great reason for even the most ethical companies to wait until later to announce. It's no fun to work for a job where people don't feel that they can rely on you because you're about to leave, especially when you really need to be effective in order to get things wrapped up for the next person to fill your shoes.
– Ethel Evans
May 3 '12 at 20:57

Of course, there's a difference between proactively "letting employees know" and telling the person who's leaving "the first rule about leaving is that you don't talk about leaving". In my experience employers who do the second thing do it 1) out of fear of how other employees will react and 2) a desire to feel in control of things for the sake of feeling in control. There's not always a legitimate business case to be made.
– aroth
Apr 6 '14 at 23:38

Of course, there's a difference between proactively "letting employees know" and telling the person who's leaving "the first rule about leaving is that you don't talk about leaving". In my experience employers who do the second thing do it 1) out of fear of how other employees will react and 2) a desire to feel in control of things for the sake of feeling in control. There's not always a legitimate business case to be made.
– aroth
Apr 6 '14 at 23:38

 | 
show 2 more comments

up vote
22
down vote

There are political reasons not to let the news out, too. For instance, the manager may want to hire a replacement without someone he isn't interested in hiring having the chance to apply for the opening. This is especially true if there is someone well qualified that the manager doesn't like or want to have working for him.

The manager may not want it to appear he is losing staff because he is working towards getting some major new project internally.

The manager may think he is going to persuade the person to stay.

He may not want to make the announcement until it is decided if the position will be filled or not.

If there is a major deadline or delivery in that time frame, he may not want to make the client nervous that his team is leaving. Or he might not want them to find out until he has a replacement.

He may not want people to know that company ABC has some openings right now and so the delay may ensure that any other vacancies they currently have are filled before everyone tries to go to the same place.

He may be a jerk who has no particular reason except that he can do it.

He may feel the person is less likely to slack off if others are unaware he is leaving (45 days is a long time period to wait until someone leaves).

share|improve this answer

edited Jan 7 '15 at 1:39

Aaron Hall

4,16312033

answered May 2 '12 at 19:06

HLGEM

133k25227489

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  It sounds like delaying notifying others of departures is policy just as the 45-day notice is policy, so some of these can't apply, but a good list nonetheless.
  – David Navarre
  Aug 13 '12 at 18:18
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

up vote
22
down vote

There are political reasons not to let the news out, too. For instance, the manager may want to hire a replacement without someone he isn't interested in hiring having the chance to apply for the opening. This is especially true if there is someone well qualified that the manager doesn't like or want to have working for him.

The manager may not want it to appear he is losing staff because he is working towards getting some major new project internally.

The manager may think he is going to persuade the person to stay.

He may not want to make the announcement until it is decided if the position will be filled or not.

If there is a major deadline or delivery in that time frame, he may not want to make the client nervous that his team is leaving. Or he might not want them to find out until he has a replacement.

He may not want people to know that company ABC has some openings right now and so the delay may ensure that any other vacancies they currently have are filled before everyone tries to go to the same place.

He may be a jerk who has no particular reason except that he can do it.

He may feel the person is less likely to slack off if others are unaware he is leaving (45 days is a long time period to wait until someone leaves).

share|improve this answer

edited Jan 7 '15 at 1:39

Aaron Hall

4,16312033

answered May 2 '12 at 19:06

HLGEM

133k25227489

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  It sounds like delaying notifying others of departures is policy just as the 45-day notice is policy, so some of these can't apply, but a good list nonetheless.
  – David Navarre
  Aug 13 '12 at 18:18
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

up vote
22
down vote

up vote
22
down vote

There are political reasons not to let the news out, too. For instance, the manager may want to hire a replacement without someone he isn't interested in hiring having the chance to apply for the opening. This is especially true if there is someone well qualified that the manager doesn't like or want to have working for him.

The manager may not want it to appear he is losing staff because he is working towards getting some major new project internally.

The manager may think he is going to persuade the person to stay.

He may not want to make the announcement until it is decided if the position will be filled or not.

If there is a major deadline or delivery in that time frame, he may not want to make the client nervous that his team is leaving. Or he might not want them to find out until he has a replacement.

He may not want people to know that company ABC has some openings right now and so the delay may ensure that any other vacancies they currently have are filled before everyone tries to go to the same place.

He may be a jerk who has no particular reason except that he can do it.

He may feel the person is less likely to slack off if others are unaware he is leaving (45 days is a long time period to wait until someone leaves).

share|improve this answer

edited Jan 7 '15 at 1:39

Aaron Hall

4,16312033

answered May 2 '12 at 19:06

HLGEM

133k25227489

There are political reasons not to let the news out, too. For instance, the manager may want to hire a replacement without someone he isn't interested in hiring having the chance to apply for the opening. This is especially true if there is someone well qualified that the manager doesn't like or want to have working for him.

The manager may not want it to appear he is losing staff because he is working towards getting some major new project internally.

The manager may think he is going to persuade the person to stay.

He may not want to make the announcement until it is decided if the position will be filled or not.

If there is a major deadline or delivery in that time frame, he may not want to make the client nervous that his team is leaving. Or he might not want them to find out until he has a replacement.

He may not want people to know that company ABC has some openings right now and so the delay may ensure that any other vacancies they currently have are filled before everyone tries to go to the same place.

He may be a jerk who has no particular reason except that he can do it.

He may feel the person is less likely to slack off if others are unaware he is leaving (45 days is a long time period to wait until someone leaves).

share|improve this answer

edited Jan 7 '15 at 1:39

Aaron Hall

4,16312033

answered May 2 '12 at 19:06

HLGEM

133k25227489

share|improve this answer

share|improve this answer

edited Jan 7 '15 at 1:39

Aaron Hall

4,16312033

edited Jan 7 '15 at 1:39

Aaron Hall

4,16312033

edited Jan 7 '15 at 1:39

Aaron Hall

4,16312033

4,16312033

answered May 2 '12 at 19:06

HLGEM

133k25227489

answered May 2 '12 at 19:06

HLGEM

133k25227489

answered May 2 '12 at 19:06

HLGEM

133k25227489

133k25227489

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  It sounds like delaying notifying others of departures is policy just as the 45-day notice is policy, so some of these can't apply, but a good list nonetheless.
  – David Navarre
  Aug 13 '12 at 18:18
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  It sounds like delaying notifying others of departures is policy just as the 45-day notice is policy, so some of these can't apply, but a good list nonetheless.
  – David Navarre
  Aug 13 '12 at 18:18
  

  
  
  
  

It sounds like delaying notifying others of departures is policy just as the 45-day notice is policy, so some of these can't apply, but a good list nonetheless.
– David Navarre
Aug 13 '12 at 18:18

It sounds like delaying notifying others of departures is policy just as the 45-day notice is policy, so some of these can't apply, but a good list nonetheless.
– David Navarre
Aug 13 '12 at 18:18

add a comment | 

up vote
20
down vote

If a person is known to be leaving, conversations swerve from getting the job done into where are you going and why.

Some managers want to feel like they are in control of everything, and those managers will try to control even news of other employees departing. Those sort of managers tend to be obsessed with appearances. The subordinates of these managers tend to feel like mushrooms: kept in the dark and have manure flung on them.

One past employer had an entire legal department in order to dodge WARN Act notifications. While the parade of departing employees was constant, and the employees themselves knew about their own layoff more than a month ahead of time, it was not common for the layoff to be announced more than a couple days ahead of the departure. Many of them would have going away parties (frowned on by management), and many of them were identified as "Bob is the last guy who knows/does X". Morale was so bad that many people switched from working Fridays to working Saturdays in order to avoid facing the departures. You could tell larger than normal layoffs were scheduled when the main entrances had extra armed guards checking badges (rather than the old guy with a flashlight checking them) and the foreign staff were directed to work from home those days.

share|improve this answer

edited May 2 '12 at 19:32

Rarity

4,37643457

answered May 2 '12 at 19:15

Tangurena

5,0401936

• 
  
  
  

  
  7
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Related to this is a sort of "sinking ship syndrome", where the employees with a mix of strong skills and political savvy walk out the door as soon as they see things going downhill. The "why?" part of "where are you going and why?" can expose this motivation, and cause other skilled employees with less political savvy to leave sooner than they might have otherwise. Skilled employees are most likely to decide to move on, because they will have the easiest time finding employment elsewhere - leaving only the least desirable employees behind.
  – Ethel Evans
  May 3 '12 at 20:54
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

up vote
20
down vote

If a person is known to be leaving, conversations swerve from getting the job done into where are you going and why.

Some managers want to feel like they are in control of everything, and those managers will try to control even news of other employees departing. Those sort of managers tend to be obsessed with appearances. The subordinates of these managers tend to feel like mushrooms: kept in the dark and have manure flung on them.

One past employer had an entire legal department in order to dodge WARN Act notifications. While the parade of departing employees was constant, and the employees themselves knew about their own layoff more than a month ahead of time, it was not common for the layoff to be announced more than a couple days ahead of the departure. Many of them would have going away parties (frowned on by management), and many of them were identified as "Bob is the last guy who knows/does X". Morale was so bad that many people switched from working Fridays to working Saturdays in order to avoid facing the departures. You could tell larger than normal layoffs were scheduled when the main entrances had extra armed guards checking badges (rather than the old guy with a flashlight checking them) and the foreign staff were directed to work from home those days.

share|improve this answer

edited May 2 '12 at 19:32

Rarity

4,37643457

answered May 2 '12 at 19:15

Tangurena

5,0401936

• 
  
  
  

  
  7
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Related to this is a sort of "sinking ship syndrome", where the employees with a mix of strong skills and political savvy walk out the door as soon as they see things going downhill. The "why?" part of "where are you going and why?" can expose this motivation, and cause other skilled employees with less political savvy to leave sooner than they might have otherwise. Skilled employees are most likely to decide to move on, because they will have the easiest time finding employment elsewhere - leaving only the least desirable employees behind.
  – Ethel Evans
  May 3 '12 at 20:54
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

up vote
20
down vote

up vote
20
down vote

If a person is known to be leaving, conversations swerve from getting the job done into where are you going and why.

Some managers want to feel like they are in control of everything, and those managers will try to control even news of other employees departing. Those sort of managers tend to be obsessed with appearances. The subordinates of these managers tend to feel like mushrooms: kept in the dark and have manure flung on them.

One past employer had an entire legal department in order to dodge WARN Act notifications. While the parade of departing employees was constant, and the employees themselves knew about their own layoff more than a month ahead of time, it was not common for the layoff to be announced more than a couple days ahead of the departure. Many of them would have going away parties (frowned on by management), and many of them were identified as "Bob is the last guy who knows/does X". Morale was so bad that many people switched from working Fridays to working Saturdays in order to avoid facing the departures. You could tell larger than normal layoffs were scheduled when the main entrances had extra armed guards checking badges (rather than the old guy with a flashlight checking them) and the foreign staff were directed to work from home those days.

share|improve this answer

edited May 2 '12 at 19:32

Rarity

4,37643457

answered May 2 '12 at 19:15

Tangurena

5,0401936

If a person is known to be leaving, conversations swerve from getting the job done into where are you going and why.

Some managers want to feel like they are in control of everything, and those managers will try to control even news of other employees departing. Those sort of managers tend to be obsessed with appearances. The subordinates of these managers tend to feel like mushrooms: kept in the dark and have manure flung on them.

One past employer had an entire legal department in order to dodge WARN Act notifications. While the parade of departing employees was constant, and the employees themselves knew about their own layoff more than a month ahead of time, it was not common for the layoff to be announced more than a couple days ahead of the departure. Many of them would have going away parties (frowned on by management), and many of them were identified as "Bob is the last guy who knows/does X". Morale was so bad that many people switched from working Fridays to working Saturdays in order to avoid facing the departures. You could tell larger than normal layoffs were scheduled when the main entrances had extra armed guards checking badges (rather than the old guy with a flashlight checking them) and the foreign staff were directed to work from home those days.

share|improve this answer

edited May 2 '12 at 19:32

Rarity

4,37643457

answered May 2 '12 at 19:15

Tangurena

5,0401936

share|improve this answer

share|improve this answer

edited May 2 '12 at 19:32

Rarity

4,37643457

edited May 2 '12 at 19:32

Rarity

4,37643457

edited May 2 '12 at 19:32

Rarity

4,37643457

4,37643457

answered May 2 '12 at 19:15

Tangurena

5,0401936

answered May 2 '12 at 19:15

Tangurena

5,0401936

answered May 2 '12 at 19:15

Tangurena

5,0401936

5,0401936

• 
  
  
  

  
  7
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Related to this is a sort of "sinking ship syndrome", where the employees with a mix of strong skills and political savvy walk out the door as soon as they see things going downhill. The "why?" part of "where are you going and why?" can expose this motivation, and cause other skilled employees with less political savvy to leave sooner than they might have otherwise. Skilled employees are most likely to decide to move on, because they will have the easiest time finding employment elsewhere - leaving only the least desirable employees behind.
  – Ethel Evans
  May 3 '12 at 20:54
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

• 
  
  
  

  
  7
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Related to this is a sort of "sinking ship syndrome", where the employees with a mix of strong skills and political savvy walk out the door as soon as they see things going downhill. The "why?" part of "where are you going and why?" can expose this motivation, and cause other skilled employees with less political savvy to leave sooner than they might have otherwise. Skilled employees are most likely to decide to move on, because they will have the easiest time finding employment elsewhere - leaving only the least desirable employees behind.
  – Ethel Evans
  May 3 '12 at 20:54
  

  
  
  
  

7

7

Related to this is a sort of "sinking ship syndrome", where the employees with a mix of strong skills and political savvy walk out the door as soon as they see things going downhill. The "why?" part of "where are you going and why?" can expose this motivation, and cause other skilled employees with less political savvy to leave sooner than they might have otherwise. Skilled employees are most likely to decide to move on, because they will have the easiest time finding employment elsewhere - leaving only the least desirable employees behind.
– Ethel Evans
May 3 '12 at 20:54

Related to this is a sort of "sinking ship syndrome", where the employees with a mix of strong skills and political savvy walk out the door as soon as they see things going downhill. The "why?" part of "where are you going and why?" can expose this motivation, and cause other skilled employees with less political savvy to leave sooner than they might have otherwise. Skilled employees are most likely to decide to move on, because they will have the easiest time finding employment elsewhere - leaving only the least desirable employees behind.
– Ethel Evans
May 3 '12 at 20:54

add a comment | 

up vote
8
down vote

The reason I ask my employees to not discuss they are leaving is because I know there is always a pack mentality and people have very strong social bonds who work together.

If one person wants a new job and has time to discuss it with other employees, the more time they have to plan and figure out leaving together. If it is sudden and not known, there is a much much less chance others will be able to leave with them.

Next, loosing multiple people with the knowledge is much more of a hit on productivity and money. If I can get people in to train others and cycle slowly there is not an impact, but if everyone or multiple key people leave at the same time, I'm screwed.

share|improve this answer

edited Apr 6 '14 at 23:25

Peter Mortensen

45547

answered Oct 5 '12 at 22:36

Greg McNulty

2,6701523

• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Usually the departee tells the other team members anyway, so cloak and dagger is not too successful. It might be viewed as a lack of trust, and thus will have a huge negative impact to employee morale.
  – Juha Untinen
  Oct 15 '14 at 11:20
  
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

up vote
8
down vote

The reason I ask my employees to not discuss they are leaving is because I know there is always a pack mentality and people have very strong social bonds who work together.

If one person wants a new job and has time to discuss it with other employees, the more time they have to plan and figure out leaving together. If it is sudden and not known, there is a much much less chance others will be able to leave with them.

Next, loosing multiple people with the knowledge is much more of a hit on productivity and money. If I can get people in to train others and cycle slowly there is not an impact, but if everyone or multiple key people leave at the same time, I'm screwed.

share|improve this answer

edited Apr 6 '14 at 23:25

Peter Mortensen

45547

answered Oct 5 '12 at 22:36

Greg McNulty

2,6701523

• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Usually the departee tells the other team members anyway, so cloak and dagger is not too successful. It might be viewed as a lack of trust, and thus will have a huge negative impact to employee morale.
  – Juha Untinen
  Oct 15 '14 at 11:20
  
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

up vote
8
down vote

up vote
8
down vote

The reason I ask my employees to not discuss they are leaving is because I know there is always a pack mentality and people have very strong social bonds who work together.

If one person wants a new job and has time to discuss it with other employees, the more time they have to plan and figure out leaving together. If it is sudden and not known, there is a much much less chance others will be able to leave with them.

Next, loosing multiple people with the knowledge is much more of a hit on productivity and money. If I can get people in to train others and cycle slowly there is not an impact, but if everyone or multiple key people leave at the same time, I'm screwed.

share|improve this answer

edited Apr 6 '14 at 23:25

Peter Mortensen

45547

answered Oct 5 '12 at 22:36

Greg McNulty

2,6701523

The reason I ask my employees to not discuss they are leaving is because I know there is always a pack mentality and people have very strong social bonds who work together.

If one person wants a new job and has time to discuss it with other employees, the more time they have to plan and figure out leaving together. If it is sudden and not known, there is a much much less chance others will be able to leave with them.

Next, loosing multiple people with the knowledge is much more of a hit on productivity and money. If I can get people in to train others and cycle slowly there is not an impact, but if everyone or multiple key people leave at the same time, I'm screwed.

share|improve this answer

edited Apr 6 '14 at 23:25

Peter Mortensen

45547

answered Oct 5 '12 at 22:36

Greg McNulty

2,6701523

share|improve this answer

share|improve this answer

edited Apr 6 '14 at 23:25

Peter Mortensen

45547

edited Apr 6 '14 at 23:25

Peter Mortensen

45547

edited Apr 6 '14 at 23:25

Peter Mortensen

45547

45547

answered Oct 5 '12 at 22:36

Greg McNulty

2,6701523

answered Oct 5 '12 at 22:36

Greg McNulty

2,6701523

answered Oct 5 '12 at 22:36

Greg McNulty

2,6701523

2,6701523

• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Usually the departee tells the other team members anyway, so cloak and dagger is not too successful. It might be viewed as a lack of trust, and thus will have a huge negative impact to employee morale.
  – Juha Untinen
  Oct 15 '14 at 11:20
  
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Usually the departee tells the other team members anyway, so cloak and dagger is not too successful. It might be viewed as a lack of trust, and thus will have a huge negative impact to employee morale.
  – Juha Untinen
  Oct 15 '14 at 11:20
  
  

  
  
  
  

1

1

Usually the departee tells the other team members anyway, so cloak and dagger is not too successful. It might be viewed as a lack of trust, and thus will have a huge negative impact to employee morale.
– Juha Untinen
Oct 15 '14 at 11:20

Usually the departee tells the other team members anyway, so cloak and dagger is not too successful. It might be viewed as a lack of trust, and thus will have a huge negative impact to employee morale.
– Juha Untinen
Oct 15 '14 at 11:20

add a comment | 

up vote
4
down vote

This is VERY painful. I've found that silence can be caused by many reasons, some malignant, some behind.

1. The manager is waiting for the right time to tell customers.


2. The manager wants a coordinated message.


3. The manager is looking for a replacement, and doesn't want to inform people without it. (This can take a while, as then they have to find the replacement for the replacement...)


4. The manager is conflict-averse.

Every company has a rumor mill, and in the absence of a formal announcement, the rumor mill generates it's own reasons.

share|improve this answer

answered Aug 14 '12 at 3:20

MathAttack

2,3061220

add a comment | 

up vote
4
down vote

This is VERY painful. I've found that silence can be caused by many reasons, some malignant, some behind.

1. The manager is waiting for the right time to tell customers.


2. The manager wants a coordinated message.


3. The manager is looking for a replacement, and doesn't want to inform people without it. (This can take a while, as then they have to find the replacement for the replacement...)


4. The manager is conflict-averse.

Every company has a rumor mill, and in the absence of a formal announcement, the rumor mill generates it's own reasons.

share|improve this answer

answered Aug 14 '12 at 3:20

MathAttack

2,3061220

add a comment | 

up vote
4
down vote

up vote
4
down vote

This is VERY painful. I've found that silence can be caused by many reasons, some malignant, some behind.

1. The manager is waiting for the right time to tell customers.


2. The manager wants a coordinated message.


3. The manager is looking for a replacement, and doesn't want to inform people without it. (This can take a while, as then they have to find the replacement for the replacement...)


4. The manager is conflict-averse.

Every company has a rumor mill, and in the absence of a formal announcement, the rumor mill generates it's own reasons.

share|improve this answer

answered Aug 14 '12 at 3:20

MathAttack

2,3061220

This is VERY painful. I've found that silence can be caused by many reasons, some malignant, some behind.

1. The manager is waiting for the right time to tell customers.


2. The manager wants a coordinated message.


3. The manager is looking for a replacement, and doesn't want to inform people without it. (This can take a while, as then they have to find the replacement for the replacement...)


4. The manager is conflict-averse.

Every company has a rumor mill, and in the absence of a formal announcement, the rumor mill generates it's own reasons.

share|improve this answer

answered Aug 14 '12 at 3:20

MathAttack

2,3061220

share|improve this answer

share|improve this answer

answered Aug 14 '12 at 3:20

MathAttack

2,3061220

answered Aug 14 '12 at 3:20

MathAttack

2,3061220

answered Aug 14 '12 at 3:20

MathAttack

2,3061220

2,3061220

add a comment | 

add a comment | 

up vote
2
down vote

A separate point is that 45 days of notice doesn't neccessarily mean 45 days between announcing and leaving. You can give 45 days of notice and get escorted out the same day. That person may easily had negotiated different exit terms at the time of notice.

share|improve this answer

answered Apr 5 '14 at 14:04

Peteris

617814

add a comment | 

up vote
2
down vote

A separate point is that 45 days of notice doesn't neccessarily mean 45 days between announcing and leaving. You can give 45 days of notice and get escorted out the same day. That person may easily had negotiated different exit terms at the time of notice.

share|improve this answer

answered Apr 5 '14 at 14:04

Peteris

617814

add a comment | 

up vote
2
down vote

up vote
2
down vote

A separate point is that 45 days of notice doesn't neccessarily mean 45 days between announcing and leaving. You can give 45 days of notice and get escorted out the same day. That person may easily had negotiated different exit terms at the time of notice.

share|improve this answer

answered Apr 5 '14 at 14:04

Peteris

617814

A separate point is that 45 days of notice doesn't neccessarily mean 45 days between announcing and leaving. You can give 45 days of notice and get escorted out the same day. That person may easily had negotiated different exit terms at the time of notice.

share|improve this answer

answered Apr 5 '14 at 14:04

Peteris

617814

share|improve this answer

share|improve this answer

answered Apr 5 '14 at 14:04

Peteris

617814

answered Apr 5 '14 at 14:04

Peteris

617814

answered Apr 5 '14 at 14:04

Peteris

617814

617814

add a comment | 

add a comment | 

up vote
2
down vote

I don't think anyone has mentioned this yet, apologies if I missed it:

Many companies wish to maintain the appearance (and it might even be mostly true) that all employees are fully committed to the company and believe in what it's doing.

Someone who's leaving is clearly an exception to that rule. As a matter of presentation both to clients and to other employees, the company might choose to take steps to conceal facts that don't fit the narrative.

The most direct way to have everyone carry on as normal, is to restrict the information only to those who absolutely must know (the employee leaving, their boss, anyone in management above that to whom this single person is significant, someone in HR, anyone involved in replacing the exiting employee).

Naturally some people think this is sensible PR, while others think it's dishonest dealing with both clients and other employees. It might even be both.

share|improve this answer

answered Jan 6 '15 at 10:06

Steve Jessop

8,9081941

add a comment | 

up vote
2
down vote

I don't think anyone has mentioned this yet, apologies if I missed it:

Many companies wish to maintain the appearance (and it might even be mostly true) that all employees are fully committed to the company and believe in what it's doing.

Someone who's leaving is clearly an exception to that rule. As a matter of presentation both to clients and to other employees, the company might choose to take steps to conceal facts that don't fit the narrative.

The most direct way to have everyone carry on as normal, is to restrict the information only to those who absolutely must know (the employee leaving, their boss, anyone in management above that to whom this single person is significant, someone in HR, anyone involved in replacing the exiting employee).

Naturally some people think this is sensible PR, while others think it's dishonest dealing with both clients and other employees. It might even be both.

share|improve this answer

answered Jan 6 '15 at 10:06

Steve Jessop

8,9081941

add a comment | 

up vote
2
down vote

up vote
2
down vote

I don't think anyone has mentioned this yet, apologies if I missed it:

Many companies wish to maintain the appearance (and it might even be mostly true) that all employees are fully committed to the company and believe in what it's doing.

Someone who's leaving is clearly an exception to that rule. As a matter of presentation both to clients and to other employees, the company might choose to take steps to conceal facts that don't fit the narrative.

The most direct way to have everyone carry on as normal, is to restrict the information only to those who absolutely must know (the employee leaving, their boss, anyone in management above that to whom this single person is significant, someone in HR, anyone involved in replacing the exiting employee).

Naturally some people think this is sensible PR, while others think it's dishonest dealing with both clients and other employees. It might even be both.

share|improve this answer

answered Jan 6 '15 at 10:06

Steve Jessop

8,9081941

I don't think anyone has mentioned this yet, apologies if I missed it:

Many companies wish to maintain the appearance (and it might even be mostly true) that all employees are fully committed to the company and believe in what it's doing.

Someone who's leaving is clearly an exception to that rule. As a matter of presentation both to clients and to other employees, the company might choose to take steps to conceal facts that don't fit the narrative.

The most direct way to have everyone carry on as normal, is to restrict the information only to those who absolutely must know (the employee leaving, their boss, anyone in management above that to whom this single person is significant, someone in HR, anyone involved in replacing the exiting employee).

Naturally some people think this is sensible PR, while others think it's dishonest dealing with both clients and other employees. It might even be both.

share|improve this answer

answered Jan 6 '15 at 10:06

Steve Jessop

8,9081941

share|improve this answer

share|improve this answer

answered Jan 6 '15 at 10:06

Steve Jessop

8,9081941

answered Jan 6 '15 at 10:06

Steve Jessop

8,9081941

answered Jan 6 '15 at 10:06

Steve Jessop

8,9081941

8,9081941

add a comment | 

add a comment | 

up vote
0
down vote

I found out that they were strictly instructed by their managers not
to disclose the information that they were leaving until they were
permitted to do so.

It is possible that the manager was responding to concerns of the employee. The employee may not have felt comfortable sharing with you that they were leaving and did not want the distraction of being asked about the new position, or people asking them to take them with. Blaming management is an easy way to sidestep these issues with out looking like the bad guy. So this could have been suggested as the solution.

I find when I am about to leave a position that people tend to vent their frustrations with the company to me like I hated the company and that was the reason I was leaving. Most often I am moving on to something else. I try to explain this to people which then turns them into trying to convert me to their opinion. For this reason I only broadcast my departure to those people whom my departure will impact. And I only do so to help facilitate hand off of my responsibilities.

In all of my positions in the past 20 years of IT work I have never been asked not to share the news of my imminent departure with my coworkers. I have been asked by the company I was actually employed by to allow them to tell the company I was contracted to that I would be leaving to allow them to bring some one in to back fill the position I would be vacating.

share|improve this answer

edited May 3 '12 at 16:43

answered May 3 '12 at 13:14

IDrinkandIKnowThings

43.9k1398188

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  +1 - although this answer does not answer the question directly, it does give some options as to why it is good to let certain colleagues aware of the departure.
  – tehnyit
  May 3 '12 at 15:03
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  So, you're saying that the employees that were departing were simply lying to him? If it were only one employee and not what appears to the poster as a policy decision by management, your answer might be useful, but just because you've never worked for this kind of manager doesn't mean they don't exist.
  – David Navarre
  Aug 13 '12 at 18:25
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

up vote
0
down vote

I found out that they were strictly instructed by their managers not
to disclose the information that they were leaving until they were
permitted to do so.

It is possible that the manager was responding to concerns of the employee. The employee may not have felt comfortable sharing with you that they were leaving and did not want the distraction of being asked about the new position, or people asking them to take them with. Blaming management is an easy way to sidestep these issues with out looking like the bad guy. So this could have been suggested as the solution.

I find when I am about to leave a position that people tend to vent their frustrations with the company to me like I hated the company and that was the reason I was leaving. Most often I am moving on to something else. I try to explain this to people which then turns them into trying to convert me to their opinion. For this reason I only broadcast my departure to those people whom my departure will impact. And I only do so to help facilitate hand off of my responsibilities.

In all of my positions in the past 20 years of IT work I have never been asked not to share the news of my imminent departure with my coworkers. I have been asked by the company I was actually employed by to allow them to tell the company I was contracted to that I would be leaving to allow them to bring some one in to back fill the position I would be vacating.

share|improve this answer

edited May 3 '12 at 16:43

answered May 3 '12 at 13:14

IDrinkandIKnowThings

43.9k1398188

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  +1 - although this answer does not answer the question directly, it does give some options as to why it is good to let certain colleagues aware of the departure.
  – tehnyit
  May 3 '12 at 15:03
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  So, you're saying that the employees that were departing were simply lying to him? If it were only one employee and not what appears to the poster as a policy decision by management, your answer might be useful, but just because you've never worked for this kind of manager doesn't mean they don't exist.
  – David Navarre
  Aug 13 '12 at 18:25
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

up vote
0
down vote

up vote
0
down vote

I found out that they were strictly instructed by their managers not
to disclose the information that they were leaving until they were
permitted to do so.

It is possible that the manager was responding to concerns of the employee. The employee may not have felt comfortable sharing with you that they were leaving and did not want the distraction of being asked about the new position, or people asking them to take them with. Blaming management is an easy way to sidestep these issues with out looking like the bad guy. So this could have been suggested as the solution.

I find when I am about to leave a position that people tend to vent their frustrations with the company to me like I hated the company and that was the reason I was leaving. Most often I am moving on to something else. I try to explain this to people which then turns them into trying to convert me to their opinion. For this reason I only broadcast my departure to those people whom my departure will impact. And I only do so to help facilitate hand off of my responsibilities.

In all of my positions in the past 20 years of IT work I have never been asked not to share the news of my imminent departure with my coworkers. I have been asked by the company I was actually employed by to allow them to tell the company I was contracted to that I would be leaving to allow them to bring some one in to back fill the position I would be vacating.

share|improve this answer

edited May 3 '12 at 16:43

answered May 3 '12 at 13:14

IDrinkandIKnowThings

43.9k1398188

I found out that they were strictly instructed by their managers not
to disclose the information that they were leaving until they were
permitted to do so.

It is possible that the manager was responding to concerns of the employee. The employee may not have felt comfortable sharing with you that they were leaving and did not want the distraction of being asked about the new position, or people asking them to take them with. Blaming management is an easy way to sidestep these issues with out looking like the bad guy. So this could have been suggested as the solution.

I find when I am about to leave a position that people tend to vent their frustrations with the company to me like I hated the company and that was the reason I was leaving. Most often I am moving on to something else. I try to explain this to people which then turns them into trying to convert me to their opinion. For this reason I only broadcast my departure to those people whom my departure will impact. And I only do so to help facilitate hand off of my responsibilities.

In all of my positions in the past 20 years of IT work I have never been asked not to share the news of my imminent departure with my coworkers. I have been asked by the company I was actually employed by to allow them to tell the company I was contracted to that I would be leaving to allow them to bring some one in to back fill the position I would be vacating.

share|improve this answer

edited May 3 '12 at 16:43

answered May 3 '12 at 13:14

IDrinkandIKnowThings

43.9k1398188

share|improve this answer

share|improve this answer

edited May 3 '12 at 16:43

edited May 3 '12 at 16:43

edited May 3 '12 at 16:43

answered May 3 '12 at 13:14

IDrinkandIKnowThings

43.9k1398188

answered May 3 '12 at 13:14

IDrinkandIKnowThings

43.9k1398188

answered May 3 '12 at 13:14

IDrinkandIKnowThings

43.9k1398188

43.9k1398188

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  +1 - although this answer does not answer the question directly, it does give some options as to why it is good to let certain colleagues aware of the departure.
  – tehnyit
  May 3 '12 at 15:03
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  So, you're saying that the employees that were departing were simply lying to him? If it were only one employee and not what appears to the poster as a policy decision by management, your answer might be useful, but just because you've never worked for this kind of manager doesn't mean they don't exist.
  – David Navarre
  Aug 13 '12 at 18:25
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  +1 - although this answer does not answer the question directly, it does give some options as to why it is good to let certain colleagues aware of the departure.
  – tehnyit
  May 3 '12 at 15:03
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  So, you're saying that the employees that were departing were simply lying to him? If it were only one employee and not what appears to the poster as a policy decision by management, your answer might be useful, but just because you've never worked for this kind of manager doesn't mean they don't exist.
  – David Navarre
  Aug 13 '12 at 18:25
  

  
  
  
  

+1 - although this answer does not answer the question directly, it does give some options as to why it is good to let certain colleagues aware of the departure.
– tehnyit
May 3 '12 at 15:03

+1 - although this answer does not answer the question directly, it does give some options as to why it is good to let certain colleagues aware of the departure.
– tehnyit
May 3 '12 at 15:03

So, you're saying that the employees that were departing were simply lying to him? If it were only one employee and not what appears to the poster as a policy decision by management, your answer might be useful, but just because you've never worked for this kind of manager doesn't mean they don't exist.
– David Navarre
Aug 13 '12 at 18:25

So, you're saying that the employees that were departing were simply lying to him? If it were only one employee and not what appears to the poster as a policy decision by management, your answer might be useful, but just because you've never worked for this kind of manager doesn't mean they don't exist.
– David Navarre
Aug 13 '12 at 18:25

add a comment | 

 

draft saved

draft discarded

 

draft saved

draft discarded

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);

Sign up using Google

Sign up using Facebook

Sign up using Email and Password

Post as a guest

Name Email

StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworkplace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f1138%2fwhy-would-managers-want-to-keep-it-top-secret-that-an-employee-is-leaving%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest

Name Email

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);

Sign up using Google

Sign up using Facebook

Sign up using Email and Password

Post as a guest

Name Email

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);

Sign up using Google

Sign up using Facebook

Sign up using Email and Password

Post as a guest

Name Email

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);

Sign up using Google

Sign up using Facebook

Sign up using Email and Password

Sign up using Google

Sign up using Facebook

Sign up using Email and Password

Post as a guest

Name Email

Name Email

Name

Email

Name Email

Name

Email