Two weeks or two months notice?

May 18, 2006 12:42 PM

Job ethics: I have decided to leave my job two months from now. Do I let them know now so they have more time to find a good replacement, or do I wait and just give my two weeks notice?

In my personal experience, it is better all around to just keep it professional, keep your cards close to your chest and go the two weeks route... but I know how long it takes for them to find someone and I want to spare the guy who is going to have to cover all my work (a friend) any undue stress.

Also, to make it a little more interesting: I'm leaving to go traveling and actually asked my boss for a leave of absence. But he can't give me the time I need... so if I wait, I'm afraid there will be hard feelings because, (due to the timing), they'll know I was planning on leaving ever since I was turned down for the time off.

That, plus I feel deceitful being in meetings where we are planning for the down the road... like I should offer "good luck finishing that by then, cuz i'll be out of here".

And last, I can't quit now because the trip isn't till August and I need to pay rent ;-)

Thanks for your advice-
cgs

posted by cgs to work & money (35 comments total)

If you can't quit now, then wait and give 2 weeks. If you're worried about the ethics of it, as you rightly should be, then do not work like a lame duck.

If you have a spectacularly good rapport with your management, you could probably tell them now and promise them you will work hard until it's time to leave, which would be ideal for them as far as finding a suitable replacement, but honestly the risk probably isn't worth the potential reward.

2 weeks, as it is, is not a law or anything. It's a courtesy.
posted by twiggy at 12:55 PM on May 18, 2006

the risk probably isn't worth the potential reward.

I agree. Unless you love your boss like a brother and are very, very confident the sentiment is returned, don't take the risk. In my experience, bosses have no compunction giving you minimum notice (and, in general, the shaft, if it suits their immediate needs, no matter how much they like you), and I don't see any reason you should be more generous. But then, I have a Bad Attitude when it comes to employment.
posted by languagehat at 1:00 PM on May 18, 2006

I think it really depends on your company, your job, your coworkers, your boss, etc. Do you have other examples to go by? People who have left in the past?

In my last job, I gave about a month's notice and that seemed to work well. The person who had quit before I did gave something like six weeks' notice, another person gave two months', but another person who left before that gave two weeks' and I knew that our boss and some of my coworkers thought that was too little (though technically perfectly acceptable). (jeez, that sounds like a high turnover rate)

I too felt slightly duplicitious in planning my quit date in my head, but also having to go to meetings and going over things that I was supposed to handle many months from then (knowing I'd be gone by the time they rolled around). I think this just comes with the territory of terminating your employment. No one will hold it against you or think back to those meetings and think, "cgs was such a liar!"

You don't have to worry about the leave of absence thing, I don't think, because they have no way of knowing whether you thought things over long and hard for a month or so before finally coming to a decision that you do want to leave.
posted by Uncle Glendinning at 1:00 PM on May 18, 2006

It would depend on your relationship with the management. In my last job I gave 3 weeks and a co-worker who had been there substantially longer than I gave 3 months! I think if you have a relationship of trust with your management then you should give them very courtesy you would want in their position. My motivation for giving three weeks was also to save a friend the trouble of working understaffed as I knew they would not find a replacement in two weeks. It's your call, like the twiggy said above there's no law saying you have to do anything...
posted by rooftop secrets at 1:00 PM on May 18, 2006

Two weeks' notice is standard and fine.

As Sonny Corleone was heard to observe in the first Godfather movie, "This isn't personal... it's just business."
posted by enrevanche at 1:08 PM on May 18, 2006

Split the difference, it you're quitting in 2 months, wait one month and give them a months notice. That will give them time to find someone new, and you some time to do whatever.
posted by blue_beetle at 1:13 PM on May 18, 2006

I second giving them one month's notice. It's good karma and you won't necessarily be burning bridges. Something similar happened to me in my last career. I quit on good terms, and was hired back shortly upon my return to the states.
posted by kimdog at 1:24 PM on May 18, 2006

Here's a question: would they give you two months' notice if they were planning on axing you?

If it's a tiny, family business, they might.

If it's like 99% of U.S. businesses, not a chance. If your company is doing poorly, your manager is walking around right now with the knowledge that some of his staff are the walking dead, and he ain't telling you. You need to make business decisions based on what is best for you, not what is best for the company.
posted by jellicle at 1:27 PM on May 18, 2006

It's hard to feel like that at work, with a big secret and nobody to tell. But that's the cost of leaving. You've just got to buck up and do it. Now, it's sometimes possible to give an off the record "hint" to your boss a week or two before your official two week mark. But doing things can and does backfire regularly. Like "Oh, I see you're thinking about leaving, but I'll just save you the trouble -- you're gone!1!!LOL" This can happen if you feel like your boss is great guy / gal and that he'd / she'd stick up for you.

Many states are "right to work" states so that one can be fired with or without cause, without any notice. In these states, one can just walk out on their last thursday and say at 5 PM, "See you later sukkkers, I'm going to Aruba!!" But if you're a professional-type worker, this is, um bad. But it's perfectly legal and the two week thing is just a custom.
posted by zpousman at 1:40 PM on May 18, 2006

Echoing the "it depends" advice.

I've always told my bosses when I was even looking for a new job, and used them as references, but I've been lucky in my jobs, too.
posted by small_ruminant at 1:47 PM on May 18, 2006

Seems to me the question is, if you give 2 months and they show you the door in 2 weeks, how fucked are you? I'm not certain what the legal issues revolving around unemployment compensation would be in that circumstance so you may or may not be without 6 weeks of salary if that happens.

Look out for #1 and after that, do your best to be fair to them. If the person who will pick up your slack is a friend to the point where you can trust them with this news perhaps you discuss it with them before you break it to management so you can strategize ways to hand stuff off in the least painful way.
posted by phearlez at 2:02 PM on May 18, 2006

I've worked places where policy is to walk you out the door the minute you give notice. Don't risk it just laugh behind your hand at all the suckers who are going to be around cleaning up the messes you leave when you go travelling.
posted by Megafly at 2:15 PM on May 18, 2006

Is the guy who will take over for you a close enough friend that you could tell him without any repercussions? If you can trust him, tell only him that you are leaving. Share as much as you can about the details of your projects now, ongoing, so that he is as up-to-speed as possible on the background before you are no longer available to ask questions.

But if this isn't possible, I say it's fine to give only two weeks. A professional courtesy is to leave as detailed notes on your work as possible for the ones who are left behind. I went into one new job where the guy before me had written a "Job X Bible" that totally saved my butt in those first few weeks.
posted by SuperSquirrel at 2:28 PM on May 18, 2006

This happened to me a few years ago. I gave 2 mos notice. It was a mistake. I thought I was giving them an opportunity to interview more candidates and get someone in so that I could give them the best training I could. However, they didn't bother interviewing (or even posting the job availability) until 2 weeks before my end date.

Give them two weeks, or 2.5 or whatever, when the time comes.
posted by dobbs at 2:31 PM on May 18, 2006

The thing is, if they really really loved you, they would have given you the leave.

And since they don't really really love you, and typically people resent when an employee quits, they will quite possibly fire you either on the spot when you give notice or for some small transgression before you're scheduled to leave.

Two weeks is plenty of notice. Just tell them you finally decided that you really need to take make this journey.
posted by GIRLesq at 2:50 PM on May 18, 2006

Last time I gave long advance notice I was leaving, they had me out the door before the end of the week.
posted by Ken McE at 2:52 PM on May 18, 2006

I agree with the other posters. If you're not on intimate terms with your boss/HR person/anyone who might be in charge of firing you, don't tell them you're leaving until the two week period comes. It sounds thoughtless, but if you tell them now and they decide to get rid of you because you're leaving anyway, you're fucked. Consider your own wellbeing first and foremost.
posted by i feel possessed at 2:56 PM on May 18, 2006

On two occasions I've had a wonderful boss and immediate group, but didn't entirely trust the organization as a whole. So I told my own group what was up, informally, but didn't actually write a resignation letter till the last two weeks.
posted by tangerine at 3:04 PM on May 18, 2006

Consider how long it would likely take for them to conduct a job search, interview, and hire your replacement. Ideally, that is the amount of time you should give them. Any more and you risk losing out when they new person is ready to start before you're ready to leave. Any less and it's bad karma on your part. I'm no lover of The Man but I do believe in bridges and karma, and not cornholing your current employer is just good lookin' out. Then again, if your current employer is an active cornholer, then you are free to be the righteous hand of karma yourself.
posted by Fezboy! at 3:07 PM on May 18, 2006

I've been through this two times, and each time I have given my boss MONTHS of notice. In fact, I usually tell them before I've even started seriously searching for the next job, because I'm just kind of uncomfortable sneaking around looking for the next job. Of course, this only works if you're very very employable and don'thave much doubt that you will actually find something. In my career so far (15 years), I've just always had it pretty well planned out when I was going to move on, and then I'd just do it when the time came.

Obviously, you have to have a pretty good relationship with your employer to take that risk, and it's worked out for me in the past. I think it's because I was so valuable to the organization that there was no way they were going to push me out early. Also, I'm generally in technical roles where objective productivity is valued, not in sales/marketing roles where knowledge and politics is power. Finally, I don't job hop so I'd been there for several years and they knew me well and trusted me to do the right thing.

I will say this: last time, I waited until my options had vested before giving them notice. Just to protect those significant assets in case I'd read my employers wrong.

As implied by some above, how long you've been there is a factor. Only 2 years? Fine, give them 2 weeks, or maybe 4. But if you've been there a lot longer then the change is pretty disruptive and I'd want to give them a lot more notice. And I have.
posted by intermod at 3:13 PM on May 18, 2006

I think if you have to ask this question, the answer is probably 'no'. Give them the standard two weeks; they can't fault you for it and it minimizes your risk.

There are situations where more notice would probably be better, but if you were in one, you wouldn't have had to ask.
posted by ikkyu2 at 3:18 PM on May 18, 2006

if you give them two months notice, they may find someone i a week or so and decide to let you go then....sooner then you had planned....

id hold off, and be safe...a month is very generous...
posted by TwilightKid at 3:49 PM on May 18, 2006

Two weeks. They've been paying you. You owe them nothing.
posted by Ironmouth at 4:41 PM on May 18, 2006

I think it partially depends on how firm your plans are. Don't give notice or mention anything if there's even the slightest chance you won't be leaving, because they'll hold you to it. It also depends on how easy it is for them to fire you. Here in NZ we have employment contracts and a boss can't just fire someone for no reason. (it goes both ways actually, there are minimum notice periods in there for the worker leaving also). Lastly it depends on how necessary you are to the company and on your relationship with them. If they really need you over the next few months they aren't going to screw you over.

When I went back to University this year I had a guaranteed stipend and no chance of me not becoming a student, I couldn't be arbitrarily fired, I had a good relationship with my boss and they needed me to not only continue my work as long as possible but also to train my replacement, so I gave over three months notice. This way they could hire someone else and I could get him fully up to speed before I left, which meant I still got the three months of income and the project continued at full speed. This is good for me as my continued good relationship with them will be useful when networking for my post doc position in the future.

However, if any of those factors weren't there they would have had the three weeks notice in my contract. If I didn't know for sure they couldn't fire me I definitely would have kept my mouth shut. You really do need to look after yourself first.
posted by shelleycat at 5:17 PM on May 18, 2006

I think another important consideration should be whether you want to work in that same field when you return from your travels. Will your two week notice / travel plans be spread throughout your industry, or does no one care? In my industry, everyone is very close-knit, and if I were in your position I would be completely up front with my supervisor simply because I wouldn't want to burn any bridges.
posted by MeetMegan at 5:42 PM on May 18, 2006

If its IT, they could well march you right out of the door. seems to be a common practice in the field.
posted by devilsbrigade at 7:36 PM on May 18, 2006

To add another data point:

I've seen situations in which people have given substantial notice and management was very keen on hurrying them out the door as fast as possible. In this particular situation, the person in question was moving to a sort-of-maybe competitor, which might have affected it. This guy was sort of surprised when it happened, so even if you're confident they wouldn't do this to you, I'd think twice.
posted by heresiarch at 8:55 PM on May 18, 2006

I would be black-balled in my industry if I gave only two weeks notice. If you are a hard to replace employee, you should consider a month or more. Esp. if they have been good to you.

And I would never, repeat, never tell a boss I was looking for a new job unless I was 1000% sure I was going to leave. Example: Employee at my work often talks about moving out of state. He is now deadlocked in his current position, no one is willing to promote him--Who wants to invest in a flight risk?
posted by vaportrail at 9:41 PM on May 18, 2006

In my experience, the only thing you can do with more than 2 weeks' notice is reconsider whether or not you want to refill the position.

If the company definitely does want to replace you, there's not much they can do with lots of notice. The reason is: once you start looking for people in earnest, you need to be able to offer them a position right away. You can't solicit resumes and then tell people "we can hire you in 2 months."

Perhaps your company will hire someone and give you 2 months to train them, but I doubt it. Jobs that require onsite training rarely take 2 months to train for. And other jobs that require prior experience don't necessarily call for person-to-person "training" at all.

This is just my experience. All I can offer.
posted by scarabic at 10:17 PM on May 18, 2006

Ditto on the "it depends"--I just gave six weeks' notice at my job. I know absolutely that there will be no problems with them terminating me early or cutting back my schedule, and they'll need more than two weeks to find and train someone for some of my administrative work without putting a very heavy load on the couple others who do it. Also, one of the administrative schedules is made a month or so in advance, and two weeks' notice would make a botch of the July schedules. Every situation is different--if you know you won't be cut back or laid off before you go, give them a heads'-up. If you're uncertain on any level of that, wait and give a couple weeks.
posted by Cricket at 10:41 PM on May 18, 2006

Agree, every situation is different. Both times I've quit jobs (career-type gigs, I mean) I've given lots of notice. The first time, I gave four weeks and they freaked out, and asked me to do a ton of work -- essentially two months of work in a single month. I stayed until midnight for weeks because, well, that's the way I am. Two days before I was to leave, I finished, and they said, hey, why don't you start on the next month? Lesson learned from this is: While I still believe in working hard right up to the very end -- and even going the extra mile, if it feels right -- not to burn bridges, some folks will try to take advantage.

The second time was somewhat different, my employers had known for months that I was going back to school for my graduate degree (hell, one of them even wrote a letter of recommendation for me). My boss knew for about five months that I was applying for my masters', and for about two months that I'd been accepted, before I gave my six weeks' notice. My department was such that we brought in freelancers for one week every month to help us through our busy period, and she appreciated having two of those busy cycles to seriously evaluate these freelancers as potential replacements for me. She hired one who is, to my knowledge, still there three years later. I maintained a good relationship with her and was able to go back while in school to do freelance work (on my own terms and timetable, and making fuckin' bank per hour) when I needed money.

That said, she didn't even come to my goodbye party, so whatev.

All in all, in the future I plan to give generous notice, and beware of giving in to outrageous demands.
posted by donpedro at 10:58 PM on May 18, 2006

Uncle Glendinning: I think it really depends on your company, your job, your coworkers, your boss, etc.

ikkyu2: I think if you have to ask this question, the answer is probably 'no'. Give them the standard two weeks; they can't fault you for it and it minimizes your risk.

There are situations where more notice would probably be better, but if you were in one, you wouldn't have had to ask.

Yes, both times!

What is your level of responsibility, are you on a professional track (in the license to practice sense), etc.
posted by Chuckles at 1:14 AM on May 19, 2006

If you're worried about leaving your employers in the lurch or being unfair to whoever come in to replace you, but don't want to risk being let go before you actually want to leave, then perhaps it might be worth becoming over-anal about documenting everything that you do, so that even if you're not there to train your replacement and no-one else knows what you do, someone could in theory read your documentation and pick up where you left off. As the secretary, I am the only person in my company for whom they hire a temp to replace me when I go on holiday. I try to leave my desk every evening knowing that if I get knocked over by a bus and never make it back to work the following morning, whichever luckless temp gets called in without no knowledge of company procedures will still be able keep the job going without dropping any balls, and the company wont fall over or look stupid in front of customers. It's just a case of keeping detailed to do lists, making sure that every procedure I undertake is documented in the 'how to' manual for my job that I wrote last year (including a record of all the passwords I use on my computer), and that there is also a paper record in a logical place for everything that is also in my head.

I picked up this ethic after I came into this job two months after my predecessor had left without leaving any documentation whatsoever. There were so many things that only she had known and no-one else had any idea about. I don't want to put anyone else through the same experience I had.
posted by talitha_kumi at 3:25 AM on May 19, 2006

My attitude toward giving notice has drastically changed over the years. Back in the day (when I first entered the market) the whole employer/employee dynamic was very much a mutual-enrichment arrangement. Believe it or not, there was actually a strong sense of loyalty and responsibility between the two ( I know...unbelievable, huh?) Employers actually viewed employees as valued assets. And employees returned the trust with hard work and loyalty.
Today though, it's completely different. It's the rare employer (usually the smallest ones) that views the employee as anything more than a necessary inconvenience. In return, employees have developed a very jaundiced and cynical attitude toward their work. Very much an "every man for himself" environment. YMMV.
Anyway, in this environment, I'm not sure you owe them even so much as 2 weeks notice. Sure, there's the whole "never burn bridges" thing. You really need to evaluate how important your current employer my be to your future. Personally, I think you can still keep things professional and still give them the absolute minimum amount of notice. Something along the lines of "I've been offered an incredible career opportunity and my last day will be tomorrow."
posted by Thorzdad at 5:24 AM on May 19, 2006

I've been in a similar situation twice. Both times, I thought the relationship between myself and my employer was so strong that I could give them advance notice of my intention to leave, so they would have plenty of time to find a replacement. The first time, they fired me on the spot. The second time, they let me finish a big ugly project I was working and then fired me.


Never again. I'll be surprised if I even give two weeks notice next time...
posted by daveleck at 5:27 AM on May 19, 2006