The “Two Weeks’ Notice” Approach to Changing Jobs Is Bad for Companies and Employees | A Response

Heck yes. The “two weeks’ notice” approach needs some serious scrutiny. I applaud Robert Glazer and his team for identifying an antiquated process that does nothing to proactively prevent top talent (and the institutional knowledge they possess) from walking out the door after two weeks of disengaged work (or, let’s be honest, no work at all).


It’s high time for companies with open door communication policies to truly HAVE OPEN DOOR COMMUNICATION POLICIES. Not just about issues of sexual harassment or office politics, but for career coaching, issues of mental health, and personal issues that may affect work.


The most rewarding jobs for me have included a mentor (sometimes my direct manager, sometimes not) that took an interest in me and enjoyed talking frequently and frankly about my career path — even if it meant they’d ultimately “coach me” out of the company. I did better work at these institutions and I gave longer notices. Plus, I just felt like a person instead of a cog in the machine.


Call me crazy, but I always prefer person to cog.


However, many companies do not have the culture or the strong development-minded managers to support a program like this. I’m not sure leaders of companies like that really even read these types of articles, to tell you the truth. An existing company culture that does not foster trust, or that lacks buy-in at any level of the organization, will not successfully prevent talent from walking out the door and doing so FAST when they are ready to leave. An agile and smart company will not only put in the effort to understand what part they played in a departure, but do what it takes to close the gap.


Gina Foshage
Senior Consultant, Montani Consulting


I'd like to receive free HR advice to my inbox each month!