[ntomer]

Originally Posted by COUGAR

Notice time is Adequate time, MINIMUM and MAXIMUM time : this is what is written on your appointment letter. Not more, not less. When you sign up for a job, the minimum notice period is what has been agreed upon and you have to meet that. Whether the company accepts your buyout proposal is THEIR PREROGATIVE.

No buddy. You fail to understand the whole concept. There is no minimum or maximum time. Law is very clear on this, no ambiguity - it is either notice period or money in lieu of that. And it is not company's prerogative - if you are willing to pay money you can skip the notice period.

Originally Posted by COUGAR

Having people on bench doesnt mean that you can be replaced. If my former company is to be taken as a benchmark, then the people who are on bench are perhaps there for a reason! Why should the PM take just any pappu from bench just because a member on his team wants to leave early? The replacement should be SUITABLE and COMPETENT for the role in question.

Thats where we are going wrong. The mistake most people make is to treat the PM as an enemy rather than as someone who can help you. The PM is not being an a*** because he likes it: he is merely looking for the interests of his projects, because 30 other people are dependent on their success. If one person damages my project, then THIRTY people are at risk of loosing their jobs. And that is what the PM is seeking to avoid.

Ofcourse there is a limit to what the PM/company can do and honestly nobody WANTS to be nasty. But dont make the mistake of underestimating the amount of damage that a vengeful PM/HR can do to someones career.

What people SHOULD be taking your PM into confidence first rather than last and explain the situation. With enough lead time, he will be more than glad to help you out.

I honestly didn't want to say this but this seems like a typical case of - naye mulle jyada pyaaz khate hain. How long since you have been a PM?

Nitin

[Gandhi]

Originally Posted by COUGAR

he is merely looking for the interests of his projects, because 30 other people are dependent on their success. If one person damages my project, then THIRTY people are at risk of loosing their jobs. And that is what the PM is seeking to avoid.

If your 30 people project can crash just because 1 guy may leave than something is going wrong in project management. Just can't understand a project being so dependent on availability of a single resource.

Also in all your posts so far, not for a single time did you mention about employee's interests. If somebody so important is leaving the company, then he must not be happy about something - work culture, people around him, compensation, work-life balance. It's not always about money. He may not be happy with YOU and the way you are saying about writing this and that in relieving letter, HR of your company doesn't sound good either. If you can't keep your most important employee happy than you don't have any right to stop him going elsewhere.

BTW, just tell us which company you work for and I shall stay away from it.

[COUGAR]

Originally Posted by ntomer

No buddy. You fail to understand the whole concept. There is no minimum or maximum time. Law is very clear on this, no ambiguity - it is either notice period or money in lieu of that. And it is not company's prerogative - if you are willing to pay money you can skip the notice period.

Actually there is. And if you actually bothered to read your terms and conditions you would see it. The final call on when to relieve the employee remains that of the employer irrespective of the offer to buyout the notice period. The employee can buyout the notice period IF the company agrees to an earlier relieving date. but the call is of the company. And if you talk to a labour lawyer, he will tell you the same thing.

That being said: the company cannot keep an employee back for more than the period stipulated in the notice period which begins from the date of resignation. If the notice period is 2 months, then he HAS to be relieved by then. It is the job of the company to find a replacement and ensure KT BEFORE the end of this period.

I am surprised that a person claiming to have been a PM for 6 years isnt aware of something so basic.

Originally Posted by ntomer

How long since you have been a PM?

For longer than what you claimed in your post! And I hate to say this: but your statements on this thread have been mutually contradicting. Scroll up and see them for yourself!

You first say a man took his company to court to get his relieving letter and then say that it wasnt important to him, and then finally round off by saying that he didnt care what was on the letter as long as he got the letter! All very plausible!

Hate to say this: but i call B*S*!

If your 30 people project can crash just because 1 guy may leave than something is going wrong in project management. Just can't understand a project being so dependent on availability of a single resource.

You misunderstand.

Every member of the team is important for the success of a project and keep things running smoothly. We cannot loosen up on discipline because one fellow wants to break rules and do things his way. These rules are there for a reason: to keep things running smoothly. If i let one fellow break the notice rules, whats to stop the other 30 from following suit?

Also in all your posts so far, not for a single time did you mention about employee's interests.

The interests of the team members and the companies ar enot exclusive. the main problem is that people are thinking that it is! and no PM can allow this kind of rebellion. if one person chooses to jump ship midway he can do so ofcourse, but he will have to do so by the rules. No one should think that he can break notice periods etc at will and get away with it.

It's not always about money. He may not be happy with YOU and the way you are saying about writing this and that in relieving letter, HR of your company doesn't sound good either. If you can't keep your most important employee happy than you don't have any right to stop him going elsewhere.

If an employee leaves after completing his notice period then he will not just get a relieving letter but a glowing letter of recommendation complete with flowery phrases. But if anyone thinks that he can break rules and just walk out like that, he shouldnt expect niceties should he?

If someone wants to leave: Fair enough. Someone wants to switch for whatever reasons: go ahead! But you cant just skip and run! This is professional life and things run differently. Every game has its rules. And when you work for a professional company, you got to play by their rules. That all that we ask!

[ntomer]

Originally Posted by COUGAR

Actually there is. And if you actually bothered to read your terms and conditions you would see it. The final call on when to relieve the employee remains that of the employer irrespective of the offer to buyout the notice period. The employee can buyout the notice period IF the company agrees to an earlier relieving date. but the call is of the company. And if you talk to a labour lawyer, he will tell you the same thing.

You are WRONG. Go and talk to your HR; they will tell you exactly how it is.

Originally Posted by COUGAR

I am surprised that a person claiming to have been a PM for 6 years isnt aware of something so basic.

Well this is not only a claim. Fellow members maverick_atam and aburagohain have worked in my teams at different points of time. Atam is nowadays a PM in HCL Tech and Apratim in Samsung.

Originally Posted by COUGAR

And I hate to say this: but your statements on this thread have been mutually contradicting. Scroll up and see them for yourself!

You first say a man took his company to court to get his relieving letter and then say that it wasnt important to him, and then finally round off by saying that he didnt care what was on the letter as long as he got the letter! All very plausible!

Hate to say this: but i call B*S*!

Boss, there is an experience requirement in some US universities for MBA. For that he needed the experience certificate; theose univs don't care what is written in the certi as long as it mentions the work ex.

You can call it B*S* or whatever, but this only shows your ignorance.

Nitin

[StarVegabond]

This is an interesting subject / discussion. There are several point of views here

1. Employee's view
2. Company view (mentioned in the appointment letter)
3. Manager's interpretation of the employer's policy and situation
4. Manager's application of the policy (depends on the employee's approach as well)
5. Law
6. Interpretation of the Law as per the situation
7. Application of the law / judgement

It is understood that once the decision is made to leave, employee wants to leave immediately if possible. If one is a pathetic contributor or trouble maker, no manager / employer wants to keep him once the guy has made the decision to leave.

The probelm is how the policies get interpreted or applied to a particular situation. Mature and Stable companies (as well as Managers) apply the policies consistently, where as personal liking/disliking or emotions DOES NOT blurr the interpretation.

Notice period (in India) has been designed (by Law) to protect the employees. Sudden job losses will cause truma and probelms for the employees. Ideally, longer the notice period, better it is for the employees.

Even from Company's perspective Notice Period helps as it provides the managers and team to workout alternative scenarios in case a critical resource or talent or the manager leaves.

Longer notice periods make the closure of a company (or team or project) difficult and put pressure on the balance sheet as the company is required to make such an allocation for payouts. Hence the companies have made concious decision to lower the notice period and/or payout of cash in liu of notice period from either side.

Law is clear: There must be standard employement conditions including a notice period, there must be an agreement about the employement conditions between the employer and the company and it must be consistantly applied.

There is always something called Good Faith.
A company recruits an employee with a good faith that the business would grow and it would be in aposition to provide long term employment to a talented person and he would contribute to meet company's goals.

An Employee joins a comapny with a good faith that he will get to work in a better environment, better projects and better prospects.

Some times this good faith gets challenged, things indeed go wrong.
In such a situation, mature companies behave in a mature way.

Employer is always on a higher pedestal than the Employee which means Employer needs to behave in a way which is fair in all respects as well as flexible where possible. When this does not happen, Law will step in and most of the time, Employee wins, if not it consumes valuable time of the company which otherwise could have been put to better use.

When an employee leaves, he has to fulfill the employment contract i.e. if notice period and/or money, it is either/or. Most of the people want to leave with good feelings.

when an employee gets fired, company has to fulfill the employment contract i.e if notice period and/or money, it is either/or. Good and mature company's pay more than what is mentioned in the notice period. It also depends on employees tenure of work and his contributions.

[COUGAR]

To give my own example: when I decided it was time to quit, the first person i talked to was my Accounts Manager followed by the Director in the US. It was only after agreeing on a relieving date that I formally put down my papers.

In this case, HR was the LAST to know and by then the succession plan was in place. I had a clean exit and handover! Is there something fundamentally wrong with this approach of making a clean break?

In the interests of your own careers, it is best to keep old professional relations even as try to build new ones. You never know who you will end up need some day down the line!

Originally Posted by ntomer

You are WRONG. Go and talk to your HR; they will tell you exactly how it is.

Originally Posted by ntomer

Well this is not only a claim. Fellow members maverick_atam and aburagohain have worked in my teams at different points of time.

Nothing to worry! I am sure you didnt do any permanent damage!

Originally Posted by ntomer

Boss, there is an experience requirement in some US universities for MBA. For that he needed the experience certificate; theose univs don't care what is written in the certi as long as it mentions the work ex.

You can call it B*S* or whatever, but this only shows your ignorance.

What is B*S* is stating in one post that it wasnt important to him, then stating that he took the company to court (even though it wasn't important to him!), then turning around to say that it didnt matter what was on the letter as long as he got the letter!

I think this shows your arrogance when caught out hit-wicket!

[NetfreakBombay]

Originally Posted by COUGAR

Actually there is. And if you actually bothered to read your terms and conditions you would see it. The final call on when to relieve the employee remains that of the employer irrespective of the offer to buyout the notice period. The employee can buyout the notice period IF the company agrees to an earlier relieving date. but the call is of the company. And if you talk to a labour lawyer, he will tell you the same thing.

Employment agreements must have clear exit options for both company and employee. Either employee has to serve the notice period or has to buy it.

Of course, in real world it makes sense to not burn the bridges. Reference check is only one of the problems. Current boss might become your boss or colleague later as well. And "managing upwords" is a crucial skill. Hiring managers not look favorably towards candidates that have some gaps in terms of clean exits. You are supposed to manage your boss in a way that you objective of clean exit is met.

Regarding impact on projects, It is job of any manager to ensure that attrition risk is managed well. If project can get derailed due to a single employee jumping ship, cross training and risk management needs to be reviewed. The same employee can become unavailable for months due to health reasons as well.

[HellwratH]

Guys, Let's not get personal here. We're airing our views and let's not get into a clash of the designations .

As far as my view is concerned. I have always believed and will continue to believe that company is all about people. Yes, bottom line, top line etc. do matter but it's people first always.

The employee might have a lot of constraints (like someone already mentioned that what if the employee falls sick?) and if the company/PM will make sure that he/she gets a smooth exit, be assured that he'll always want to re-join your company. The point is, yes the project might suffer, there will lot of over heads but due to the pressure of the company/PM he/she might screw up more things in the project. It's only sensible to let the employee go and work on plan (b) to manage without that person. You may say KT is important and hold that person back, what if he/she imparts wrong knowledge about the whole thing? You'll have a lot of head ache later on. Yes, the employee has to be professional, but what about the PM? Like I can already see, some are ready to sc**w someone's career just because that person left the company mid way through. I'd never ever work with such a person even if it means being on the bench. I guess many people are personally attached with their projects and are ready to do anything to make it happen as their success is measured on the success of the project. Guys, I follow a simple rule that helps me a lot and let me state it here (at the risk of being ridiculed),
"When you have a choice between being kind and being right, choose the former".

Ah, enough of lecturing, have to get back to work .

EDIT: I am not a PM and just another software engineer. I don't intend to be a PM but get into my own business in near future. And these views are purely based on my observations of the corporate world.

[Spitfire]

Originally Posted by COUGAR

So the PM is supposed to be all professional and clean up the mess that some unprofessional fellow left behind?

Yes. It is his responsibility. You are responsible for the mess even if you havent created it. You are the Project Manager arent you? Who takes the blame?

And does one suddenly realise that a person is unprofessional only when he hands out his papers?

Eliminate such individuals when you can. If you dont have the power to do that change firms, you are dummy Project Manager with no powers whatsoever. Other then technical knowledge and a yes sir attitude.

Good PM is to avoid such fallouts. Do you interview the folks who join your team? Or are they are assigned to you by HR? If it is the later then something is majorly wrong with the way your firm is run. Then expect people to bail out from your firm without notice.

There are some staff who take their jobs entirely for granted: "working" purely from one appraisal to another.

Whats wrong in "working" from one appraisal to other? who sets the goals the PM or the employee?

If a employee thinks he is not being given a good appraisal even after doing the "work" then why would he stick around?

The kind who care two hoots about the project or the company that is putting grub on his table.

You know what, I can pick these employees out in one round of interview itself. I dont wait till the crap hits the fan.

For a critical project - a major petroleum firm for Big Blue, I witheld the position for 3 months just because I didnt get the right person for the job.

The kind who will jump without a second thought because there are unscrupulous HR people who introduce concepts like "buying notices". These kind deserve little sympathy.

The HR is being blamed here or the employee. And I see why you are coming across such employees. Hint: HR.

The whole concept of notice period was there to ensure stability and proper transition when employees shift jobs.

Agree. But I will mention again that bad Project Management is solely responsible for employees jumping ship midway or being affected by it.

As a project manager we should be good at picking up our team

Now unscruplous HR fellows with recruitment targets to fulfil just made our jobs tougher by introducing fundas like buying out notices etc.

So why heckle the employee who saw the crap going around in your firm and wants to leave?

[Rocky_Balboa]

I see the point, Cougar is trying to make.
I see the point, Nitin is trying to make.
I see the point, Gandhi is trying to make.
I see the point, Spitfire is trying to get out.
I see and understand everyone's vantage point.

And, the point of me making this post!? - Chill Guys, dont get personal please. I am starting to like this thread very much

Edit:
I strictly followed the two month notice, when I left HCL Tech after being associated with them for six years. The HR spoke to me only on the last day during the exit interview. And knowing my reasons, she had the audacity to say "Can you wait for 2 more weeks, I shall find and place You in our Bangalore's division". The exit interview was over when i posed this question "Thanks for the offer, but You are late by two months".

What goes around, comes around. (chanting Om Hari Om!)

[COUGAR]

Originally Posted by Spitfire

And does one suddenly realise that a person is unprofessional only when he hands out his papers?

Sometimes it does come out like that. I have had people who were the epitome of good behaviour and hard work. But one instance of getting passed over for promotion or something of that sort and its a whole different individual we are dealing with! You cant keep everyone happy all the time.

Originally Posted by Spitfire

Do you interview the folks who join your team?

Well not directly. We used to have a pool system, where recruited people would go into a pool from where PM's could pull out resources on project initiation. So not all of the resources on my team would have been directly interviewed by me.

Originally Posted by Spitfire

Whats wrong in "working" from one appraisal to other? who sets the goals the PM or the employee?

Who should be setting the goals?

Originally Posted by Spitfire

The HR is being blamed here or the employee. And I see why you are coming across such employees. Hint: HR.

Companies who have resorted to this unscruplous practice of "buying" notices have made it more difficult to enforce a smooth transition. Not impossible, but difficult.

Originally Posted by Spitfire

Agree. But I will mention again that bad Project Management is solely responsible for employees jumping ship midway or being affected by it.

Employees leave for many reasons: better salary being the primary driver that I have seen.

Originally Posted by Spitfire

If a employee thinks he is not being given a good appraisal even after doing the "work" then why would he stick around?

Originally Posted by Spitfire

So why heckle the employee who saw the crap going around in your firm and wants to leave?

Who said that? Anyone who wants to leave for whatever reason is free to leave!! But getting a clean exit is in his own hands. he can make a clean exit by fulfilling the notice terms and conditions and ensuring smooth transition before leaving. If he chooses to play difficult, its not the company's fault is it?

[ntomer]

Originally Posted by COUGAR

Sometimes it does come out like that. I have had people who were the epitome of good behaviour and hard work. But one instance of getting passed over for promotion or something of that sort and its a whole different individual we are dealing with! You cant keep everyone happy all the time.

Ever gave a thought to this change in behavior? People management is one integral part of project management. If you aren't able to keep your team happy and motivated, you aren't doing your job.

Originally Posted by COUGAR

Employees leave for many reasons: better salary being the primary driver that I have seen.

I have read this somewhere - People do not leave a job, they leave their boss. In my limited experience I have found that salary is not the primary reason for job changes - most of the time it is something else - un-challenging/mundane work, poor work environment, bad boss...

Originally Posted by COUGAR

Who said that? Anyone who wants to leave for whatever reason is free to leave!! But getting a clean exit is in his own hands. he can make a clean exit by fulfilling the notice terms and conditions and ensuring smooth transition before leaving. If he chooses to play difficult, its not the company's fault is it?

Everybody prefers a clean exit and that is why 99.9 % people do serve notice periods. My point is that if somebody chooses to pay the amount and skip the notice period, he can very well do so. Company/PM can not stop him.

Nitin

[COUGAR]

Originally Posted by ntomer

Everybody prefers a clean exit and that is why 99.9 % people do serve notice periods. My point is that if somebody chooses to pay the amount and skip the notice period, he can very well do so. Company/PM can not stop him.

Thats where we disagree. The Company can refuse to provide the relieving letter if the notice conditions are not met.

The Company/PM cannot PHYSICALLY stop him ofcourse. But as I said in my very first post on this thread, the Company can mention clearly on the Exit documents (if at all they chose to give the employee one) in no uncertain terms that the employee is leaving before completing his scheduled tasks.

The employee has to decide whether he wants a clean exit perhaps with a recomendation letter from his boss or a relieving letter that shows him to be an irresponsible fellow who chose to jinx his exit.

[Spitfire]

Originally Posted by COUGAR

You cant keep everyone happy all the time.

You can keep everyone satisfied all the time. Balance work and ambition. No one is happy anyways.

Well not directly. We used to have a pool system, where recruited people would go into a pool from where PM's could pull out resources on project initiation.

This pool system does not work. It restricts the quality that can be had otherwise. For every projet I was involved a new job offering was floated.

Who should be setting the goals?

It was a question for you.

Companies who have resorted to this unscruplous practice of "buying" notices have made it more difficult to enforce a smooth transition.

Its not legal and wont stand in court.

A firm can come up with "anything" on their terms and condition. Whether they can be enforced even after the employee has signed on it depends upon the law of the land. And in India such things will never be accepted once it goes to court.

Problem is revenge taking attitude of firms which goes beyond the professionalism and shortsightedness of their own doing and blaming the employee instead.

Employees leave for many reasons: better salary being the primary driver that I have seen.

Not really. Everything balances out. Today you might get what you want few years from now it will balance out. Those who know that dont jump only for money.

But getting a clean exit is in his own hands.

If he is within rules to leave. Why make it difficult? Desertions are a differnet thing all together.

There are very visible signs when a employee wants to leave. If one does not pick them up its again bad management.

he can make a clean exit by fulfilling the notice terms and conditions and ensuring smooth transition before leaving.

Yes, but does that happen? Why do we see such a scenario? Is an individual to be blamed or the processes of the firm that has no contingency planning in place?

If he chooses to play difficult, its not the company's fault is it?

Its the way you look at it. Company looks after its own selfish interest the employee after his. The PM takes the call.

Bottomline, whatever goes around comes around.

Today you as PM might make it difficult for the employee tomorrow the tables might change.

If you as a PM or HR make life difficult for the relieving employee be sure that you will get it back somewhere down the line and vice versa.

This line of business has very funny twists to it.

[ntomer]

Originally Posted by COUGAR

Thats where we disagree. The Company can refuse to provide the relieving letter if the notice conditions are not met.

I can't fathom why you are not able to understand this simple fact. I'll say is slowly one again - No....company.....can.....refuse.....to......relie ve......an......employee.....if.....he.....is..... .paying......the.....money.......in.......lieu.... ..of......notice......period.

If you have doubts regarding it, go and talk to your HR.

Originally Posted by COUGAR

The Company/PM cannot PHYSICALLY stop him ofcourse. But as I said in my very first post on this thread, the Company can mention clearly on the Exit documents (if at all they chose to give the employee one) in no uncertain terms that the employee is leaving before completing his scheduled tasks.

Yes, a company can do this but won't this make a company rather immature, seeking vendetta.

And I will have to mention again since you refuse to understand it. The employee isn't breaking any rules, he is only doing what was decided at the time of his joining i.e. either party can terminate employment at x months' notice or equivalent money.

Originally Posted by COUGAR

The employee has to decide whether he wants a clean exit perhaps with a recommendation letter from his boss or a relieving letter that shows him to be an irresponsible fellow who chose to jinx his exit.

This is the reason people serve notice period; not because company is forcing them to.

Nitin