162

Background:

I work at a small company where I am the currently the sole developer. I am planning to leave on a certain date in the near future, and do not wish to reveal this information to my management until absolutely necessary.

I approached my boss about hiring a junior developer, who I planned would grow to replace me when I leave, but due to budgetary restrictions the company is unable to provide more than a below-average salary for the junior position. Because of this, we are not able to find a candidate who would be able to quickly take on my responsibilities.

I am also the only person in the company that would be qualified to interview a potential candidate.

To further complicate things, our company's clients rely on my work to meet their own deadlines and goals. I will thus be putting many people in a bad position if I suddenly depart without first training somebody on my project.

Given the circumstances, is it reasonable for me to leave without finding a replacement for my position?

user99151
  • 1,097
  • 2
  • 7
  • 4
  • 28
    @BenBarden Revealing that he intends to leave soon means that he could be let go before he has a job offer in hand, which is quite unnecessary. – Jonast92 Feb 04 '19 at 17:17
  • 25
    @Jonast92 especially if he is in the USA. You don't have an official notice period, unless dictated by a contract. My ex wife was let go on the day of her notice for her last job, it happens often. – Old_Lamplighter Feb 04 '19 at 17:19
  • 17
    I recognize that it is not mandatory, but some people do prefer to go above and beyond what is mandatory. From the tenor of the question, it seemed that the OP might be one of them. At this point, pretty much all of the viable ways to soften the blow for the company he's leaving involve letting them know early... so I ask. That's especially the case because if they've somehow made it hard for him to tell them early, that's another reason for the OP to feel justified in just letting them deal with it. – Ben Barden Feb 04 '19 at 17:24
  • 68
    @BenBarden OP can stress the importance of not being the sole link of the operation. He can help them understand that (almost) no one works for the same company forever and if he were to suffer an accidents of some sort, or get sick, they'd be screwed. This way he can get them to take action and if they ignore his reasonings, they don't deserve the heads up in the first place. Putting yourself at risk as a way to implement damage control for a company is absurd. Sure, help them understand the importance and help with with the process while employed by them, but don't put paychecks on the line. – Jonast92 Feb 04 '19 at 17:26
  • 1
  • 8
  • 39
    Yup "I feel bad about leaving" is a common duplicate on this site. The answer is always "Don't be silly." – Fattie Feb 04 '19 at 17:39
  • You are for sure not responsible for anything after you have left, and while you are contracted they might ask you typical tasks related to your job. But then again why would you not tell them you are leaving if you care about them so much? – eckes Feb 04 '19 at 21:07
  • 2
    I think this is a highly relevant reading worth checking... in fact, it could even be a dupe :) How can I prepare for getting hit by a bus? – DarkCygnus Feb 05 '19 at 00:26
  • 1
    What's your share of ownership in the firm? Not to make you disclose or anything, but would your stake reasonably justify a Board of Directors seat? – Harper - Reinstate Monica Feb 05 '19 at 17:40
  • 2
  • 1
    As clarification, did you talk to your boss about the "bus problem"? (ie, if you don't have a competent Jr developer, and you are run over by a bus tomorrow, the company is in trouble). "Bus problem" is one way to talk to them about "what if I quit tomorrow" without opening up discussion about "am I going to quit tomorrow?". – Yakk Feb 06 '19 at 16:30
  • You are not responsible for it at this stage, but it may be a tasked assigned to you once you resign. However if you do not manage to complete that task, it has no consequence for you leaving the company unless you would desire so yourself. – Eleshar Feb 06 '19 at 22:36
  • What does your contract say? That is what your employer is counting on - if that is not up to your standard, that does not make it your problem. – Thorbjørn Ravn Andersen Feb 08 '19 at 12:22
  • Very related: https://freelancing.stackexchange.com/q/126/14461 and https://workplace.stackexchange.com/q/9128/1578 – Martin Schröder Feb 09 '19 at 20:07
  • @DarkCygnus it can't be a duplicate. They are not asking about being hit by a bus. – user64742 Feb 09 '19 at 20:08
  • Lol, but being hit by a bus is actually what OP is describing here, thus it's relevant. Only cause it is not written exactly doesn't mean they are not related – DarkCygnus Feb 09 '19 at 22:22

16 Answers16

357

Yes it is reasonable to leave without finding a replacement. The fact that the company has not properly planned for the case of an employee leaving for whatever reason is not your concern. Also, somebody at the company hired you so they certainly can hire your replacement.

Especially if you give notice, if the company will not start to search for a replacement it's a problem for them. Besides you can't negotiate the pay of the new employee: if their offers are too low even if you endorse someone and personally write a reference this doesn't mean the candidate will accept.

520 says Reinstate Monica
  • 14,872
  • 3
  • 29
  • 60
sf02
  • 78,950
  • 39
  • 179
  • 252
  • 1
    It may be a good idea to adjust the first sentence slightly, due to a mismatch between the phrasing of the question body ("is it reasonable for me to leave without finding a replacement") and the title ("Am I responsible for finding my own replacement"). Just expanding the sentence ("It is reasonable to leave without finding a replacement") would be helpful imo. – Kamil Drakari Feb 04 '19 at 17:55
  • 73
    This is the answer I would have given. After all, you could die or be severely injured and unable to work, which produces the same situation. – GOATNine Feb 04 '19 at 19:25
  • 60
    @GOATNine: This is the right answer, but I don't entirely agree with your reasoning. Sometimes we have no choice but to do X, but that doesn't automatically make it OK to do X when we do have a choice. (Example #1: it's not usually OK to give zero notice when quitting, even though the impact is similar to a death or severe injury that can happen with zero notice. Example #2: it's not usually OK to take a sudden vacation without notice, even though the impact is similar to being out sick without notice.) – ruakh Feb 04 '19 at 20:19
  • 12
    This question truly reminds me of a similar question, where the best answer was something in the line of: "Bus factor; if they can't plan the fact that you can disappear anywhere anytime, it's their problem, not yours." – Clockwork Feb 04 '19 at 23:17
  • I'd add that the employer could require an extended notice period as part of the employment contract, if they wanted. If they've not done that, they must think the standard notice period (two weeks or a month or whatever) is enough, right? – BittermanAndy Feb 05 '19 at 11:53
  • 9
    @ruakh The question isn't about right or wrong, it's about responsibility. The company is responsible for replacing lost competencies, not the employee leaving. As an employee in this very position last March, I left with the standard 2 week notice, and made every effort to train a replacement before I left. From what I understand, the program I was a part of collapsed after I left. I'm not responsible for the shortcomings of the company, or for the program failing after I left. – GOATNine Feb 05 '19 at 12:36
  • @user99151, if you feel that you are leaving the company in a pinch, you can give more than 2 weeks notice. An extra week may allow the company to find and you to train your replacement sufficiently. – B540Glenn Feb 05 '19 at 14:05
  • @ruakh Both those examples are entirely irrelevant to what the OP's asking. They may violate your legal contract with the company, and that's what makes them "not OK". That isn't even slightly related to the OP's concerns about implicit moral responsibilities for letting down colleagues or the company's clients. – Graham Feb 05 '19 at 16:17
  • "whatever reason" is just begging for a bus factor reference. – jpmc26 Feb 05 '19 at 21:11
  • @Graham: Your comment is wrong, but it also makes no sense as a response to mine, so whatever, have a nice day! – ruakh Feb 06 '19 at 03:21
  • 7
    You are a developer, not a company principle. You are hired and fired at will. You are free to leave, without constraints. If you are really concerned about the gap you leave, you could offer contract availability, say 4 to 6 hours on several Saturdays to help transition. – mongo Feb 06 '19 at 15:19
  • To add on sf02 great answer, the company is guilty of not paying attention to Bus factor. If you were hit by a bus, OP, what would your company do? I'm sure they'd survive. It's not your job to find the replacement. It is your company's job to make sure their operations/project have enough people and will continue if one person leaves. – Silviu Burcea Feb 07 '19 at 08:25
129

Employees tend to see themselves as productive and a integral part of any organization. Should they leave, they feel as if their departure will spell doom for the past employer.

Such statement is false. Despite our desire to feel important, we're not. A company can go on without us and we shouldn't feel obligated to "help." They will do fine without you, as painful as that is to swallow. You should do as you shall do to do what you need to do to get where you need to go.

If you feel you must, go ahead and ask your manager if there's anything he/she would like you to do before you leave. My advice is leave behind a nice doc for the next person with any sort of gotcha's, username/password, or whatnot.

Dan
  • 21,133
  • 4
  • 33
  • 71
  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. –  Feb 06 '19 at 16:11
  • 9
    This isn't necessarily true. If the business is small enough an employee leaving unexpectedly could kill the company. It's not the employee's fault of course, but it doesn't change the fact that they employee was crucial to the business' success. But with the exception of very small companies (or perhaps extremely poorly run larger companies?) this is good advice. – Clonkex Feb 07 '19 at 03:58
  • 4
    This was described to be thusly; 1) stick your hand in a bucket of water, 2) pull your hand out of the water, 3) see how long the void you leave lasts. Just about anybody is replaceable, but the mechanism doesn't kick-in and make itself visible until the need arises. – uhoh Feb 07 '19 at 16:03
  • 3
    @uhoh now do the same with the bucked of snow. Or honey. It's really not uncommon when some important knowledge is focused in a few individuals those leave may have a significant business impact. Especially in development where more often than not a new hire, even a genius one and with a good mentor, can't become productive until he spends enough time familiarizing themselves with the existing processes. – Dan M. Feb 07 '19 at 17:19
  • 1
    @uhoh So according to your waterproof analogy, QuadrigaCX will be just fine, because everybody is replaceable, including the person with the single key to cold storage? (assuming the official story, but hey since you claim this holds in every situation, it must work for this one too, right?) – Voo Feb 07 '19 at 20:31
  • This answer is true and false at the same time. We all often tend to overestimate our own importance to a project we are part of. At the same time I have now seen first hand what happens when truly crucial employees leave, so such a departure can absolutely spell disaster for an unprepared employer. Nevertheless, this is not for OP to worry about. – Koenigsberg Sep 24 '21 at 20:37
48

You're never responsible for your company being unprepared for your leaving. Don't let guilt stop you from advancing your career.

Your company will figure something out.

42

I'm going to go against everyone here who just says a flat-out "no, you are not responsible."

You mentioned that it's a small company and many startups have crumbled from this type of thing.

It isn't right for the company to put you in this sort of situation, so you can probably leave them to their fate, guilt-free.

However, if they expressed in advance that you would have such a crucial position, then the ethical thing to do would be to be upfront about intending to leave (you don't need to give too much detail), and hopefully you can work together to smooth the transition in a way that works out for everyone. If you signed up for a critical role and bail, then yes, you probably should feel bad about possibly ruining multiple businesses.

In an ideal world, every company has room to increase their "bus-factor", but in reality, contrary to most of the other answers, that can't always be accomplished (or may have been considered during risk-management and found to be the less optimal route).

※bus-factor: Number of people that can be hit by a bus before your company/project is completely screwed.

EDIT
I figured out what the key themes seem to be here.
Answers and commenters don't seem to think that OP has any influence on the world or those around them.

Yes, I acknowledge that there is also a false sense of importance that many people fall into, despite the fact that they could quit on Friday and be replaced by Monday.
But this is a small business,
with clients who depend on OP for their OWN deadlines. OP has significance. OP matters. Some of you might matter too.
Fun exercise, think about what might actually happen if you quit tomorrow.

Another key theme seems to be that people here suggest that OP lookout only for their own personal interests.
It IS possible to act in the interest of someone other than yourself. Really.

Mars
  • 6,050
  • 2
  • 16
  • 36
  • 5
    Employee's responsibility is to provide the best work according to their knowledge and standards. It's not to save the company. The company responsibility is to ensure their business continuity. Being a start-up doesn't change a bit in that responsibility. – Ister Feb 05 '19 at 10:46
  • 7
    @Ister Employees are supposed to act, in the execution of their job, in the best interest of the business. Not just "provide the best work". No business is going to keep template replacements on standby in case X, Y, Z person leaves at a moment's notice, nor would we expect them to. That's why notice periods exist. It's completely normal to help with a transition. – Lightness Races in Orbit Feb 05 '19 at 11:00
  • 2
    @LightnessRacesinOrbit "Employees are supposed to act, in the execution of their job, in the best interest of the business". Corollary: Employees can act, outside the execution of their job, in their own best interest. – kubanczyk Feb 05 '19 at 12:27
  • @kubanczyk Absolutely! (Note the key word "outside") – Lightness Races in Orbit Feb 05 '19 at 12:31
  • @Mars The transaction needs to be understood and agreed by both parties. To give your time in exchange for company's expression of sincere feelings, wow, that would be a foolish decision. So I would rather opt to give notice, quit, feel guilty, and thus complete the whole unfortunate social transaction. It seems it's allowed by the "ethics" that you mention, no? – kubanczyk Feb 05 '19 at 12:33
  • @Ister If it's a startup, theres a good chance that that "startup" whose responsibility to ensure the business continuity is actually a PERSON. Probably one who was in the trenches with OP (if it was a startup). Small businesses aren't some corporate machine--people's livelihoods can and often DO depend on just one person. Since the OP said that the company's CLIENTS depends on OP's work, OP could quite possibly ruin many companies/lives – Mars Feb 05 '19 at 13:34
  • @kubanczyk I never said that OP should give their time in expression for sincere feelings. OP never said why they are leaving--the money could be great! The workplace could be awesome! But if you were told in advance that you would have a position where quitting would equal the failure of multiple businesses, then the transaction HAS been understood and agreed to by both parties. OP gave no indication that they are leaving because they felt tricked. – Mars Feb 05 '19 at 13:38
  • 1
    @Mars Transaction is an exchange. One was the written one: work exchanged for money. The second implicit transaction was: company supplied some opinions or feelings. Company vaguely hoped OP would on their side of exchange deliver "work here until successfully replaced", but OP can as well now supply "feeling guilty after leaving", as well as some opinions ("Nah, I think customers have other options in their sleeves" and whatnot). That will clear it too. To me it seems a better outcome in terms of both economy and ethics. – kubanczyk Feb 05 '19 at 14:11
  • 1
    There may well be many people's livelihoods on the line. If that's the case, it's the company's obligation to ensure their livelihoods by hiring additional people or providing some financial security. If that didn't happen, its clients are responsible for having accepted the risk of depending upon it.

    If OP had a contract stating that their employment was mission critical and requiring XYZ notice, OP wouldn't be asking the question. In the absence of such a contract, OP is not bound by whatever terms we might imagine for it.

    Insurance and contract law exist for a reason.

    – Tiercelet Feb 05 '19 at 17:14
  • I'm with this answer. As long as you're not leaving on bad terms, it's nice to help as much as you can with the transition. If nothing else, you'll get karma points from it. – Barmar Feb 05 '19 at 20:28
  • @Tiercelet OP isn't asking about their contract, OP is asking about ethics. I'm sure there are thousands of employees out there who have mission critical positions that SHOULD require XYZ notice (that they were aware of when taking the job), but their actual contract is some template the company (again, probably a person, or just a few people) found online – Mars Feb 06 '19 at 00:06
  • 1
    @Mars , start-up like all small companies have two types of people involved: owners and employees. The only difference is that at early stage often there are only owners or owners take all critical roles. Owners are bound by an agreement between them, employees are bound by their contract with the company. It's solely owners' risk if they loose an employee (even a key one) and it's up to them to create conditions that keep their employees. If they had made employee non-replaceable and neither gave them their weight in gold nor redundancy it's only their fault they loose him. Not employee's. – Ister Feb 06 '19 at 07:26
  • 1
    @Ister Whether or not the employer is irresponsible isn't the question. The question is basically "should I knowingly screw over a lot of people when I have a chance to do otherwise?" Sure, the employer will also be responsible (and probably legally be responsible) for the damage that ensues, but that doesn't mean it is RIGHT to do the damage in the first place – Mars Feb 06 '19 at 10:11
  • @Mars and that's the point though. The employer is responsible. Within the world of business there is no meaningful distinction between legal and ethical responsibility, and the solution to a breach of either is money. The employer is the one who will, and should, pay--either in salary to ensure their obligations are fulfilled, or in damages to make their shafted clients whole when they aren't. That said, clients are also expected to be mature adults. If non-fulfillment creates an unacceptable risk, they need to hire someone else or buy insurance, or else accept responsibility. – Tiercelet Feb 07 '19 at 01:51
  • Think about it this way. Suppose we were talking about a sub-vendor instead of an employee. My costs increase, so I raise the price of gears at my factory, which means you can't make your deliverables to your clients. It's obvious that I would have no legal or ethical responsibility to go broke making you sub-market-price gears just because your poor planning would negatively impact your business or even your clients. There is zero reason to imagine an ethical obligation on the part of a non-equity employee which you would not also apply to an out-of-house vendor. – Tiercelet Feb 07 '19 at 01:54
  • @Tiercelet I think you're right. Everyone should act in an optimal, risk-appropriate manner that ensures that nothing bad ever happens. That sounds like a great fantasy world that is sadly the opposite of most small businesses (and from the sound of it, it's not the reality of all those involved in the OP's situation). – Mars Feb 07 '19 at 01:55
  • 1
    Unfortunately, this question is most likely not about dreamland. The OP already recognized that their leaving will have an adverse affect on the company and, more importantly, the companies clients. It's not crazy to consider that this may cause a chain collapse of small businesses. But we know nothing of the clients, so maybe they are responsible companies who ARE prepared for such a failure of deliverables! – Mars Feb 07 '19 at 02:01
27

Yes, it is completely reasonable for you to leave without having found them a replacement. You acted in good faith, you tried, they have rejected your attempts, the results are on them.

You might however try again in the vein of "what if I got run over by a bus/won the lottery?". Say you feel queasy about being such a company bottleneck, the lone resource in an important area. And that you need help, because you probably do. But don't even hint that you're thinking of leaving, since management already sounds a bit short-sighted, they could easily march you out the door in a snit.

Something else you can do to soothe your conscience is to work hard on documentation before you quit. See if you can clarify the code with some well-placed explanatory comments. If they end up hiring someone who even has no overlap with you at all, they will be utterly grateful. And it might be even more useful than any oral instructions you can impart since the effects will be more long-term.

  • You didn't help in finding a replacement. You asked for a junior assistant. You leave - they're stuck with a trainee with no-one to train him. Either come clean, or stop interfering. – Laurence Feb 06 '19 at 12:37
  • I would change that vein to offering to trade an increased notice period on both sides. The basic reason not to give notice before you must is that the company could make you leave before you want to; this way you can give notice earlier and give them more time to find a replacement without that risk. – Phil H Feb 07 '19 at 10:59
  • but any talk of notice period means you're thinking of leaving.. –  Feb 07 '19 at 17:57