Man of Honour
Some companies will let you go earlier if there is a replacement available. But 3 months is fairly common for middle management. Exec/director level 6 months is quite common too.
Does a long notice period harm applying for new jobs
- Thread starter KiNgPiN83
- Start date
I'd be a bit wary of the way you put this message across. It's fine to highlight that you consider yourself undervalued and put forward evidence of why you believe you warrant a better package, but if you phrase it that way it could get people's backs up.
Also bear in mind that whether you are dispensable or not, decision makers who hold the purse strings often don't fully understand that. I've seen people with huge swathes of tacit knowledge with no adequate replacement be given notice of redundancy before despite earning a pittance. Temp comes in, quits after a week due to finding it too stressful. Expensive contractor comes along, still can't perform as well as someone earning below average wage and relies on help from others in the org with a bit more knowledge. It made no sense at all to threaten the original person with redundancy, they were a bargain in terms of what they were getting paid, but it still happened.
Soldato
@HangTime thanks for the advice.
Of course I would never work it like that. My main ace is that I am genuinely starting to look elsewhere.
Not sure if that's not a good idea to mention too? If they know I'm looking at other jobs, then they must know I'm not happy currently and would want to change it if they want to keep me on?
Of course I would never work it like that. My main ace is that I am genuinely starting to look elsewhere.
Not sure if that's not a good idea to mention too? If they know I'm looking at other jobs, then they must know I'm not happy currently and would want to change it if they want to keep me on?
Put yourselves in the shoes of the manager. If they know you are looking elsewhere, what's the first thing they will do?
Hint: It won't be throwing a chest of gold at you. It will be transferring as much tacit knowledge out of you to reduce your importance so that when you do hand your notice in they will be in a better position than they would otherwise.0
Hint: It won't be throwing a chest of gold at you. It will be transferring as much tacit knowledge out of you to reduce your importance so that when you do hand your notice in they will be in a better position than they would otherwise.0
If you're not happy with your role then why not just talk to them about it?
If it's pay perhaps set up a meeting and ask for more money - do this constructively, it should be positive stuff about the value you add rather than "if I leave you guys will be screwed" if that is the case they're well aware of that anyway.
Don't tell people you're interviewing, it's not very constructive + you'll look like a bit of a chump if you don't actually get an offer.
Soldato
You can very often negotiate as they know you'll be trying to leave mentally anyway. I am on 3 but the likelihood is I could get it down to 1 if I tried.
I feel very strongly about this as I've been in a role with 3 month's notice and promised myself i'd never let that happen again. I would actively look to work it down to two on any new roles that would want to make it 3 and I would negotiate to try to get that down. 3 months takes the absolute ****. I don't care how senior the role is.
It definitely is limiting in getting new roles. I say that as someone that has been the recruitER where we have been put off ourselves by people with 3 month's notice. Yes it tends to be negotiable but in my experience people are kept for as long as that time as possible for handover. I had to serve every day of my 3 months, and train up a replacement in that time. I hated it. It jepordized getting my new role and I had no break whatsoever between them. I had a lack of motivation to do anything decent in the last 3 months as was leaving anyway, so just did handover and documentation stuff for 3 months solid. Was ****.
It definitely is limiting in getting new roles. I say that as someone that has been the recruitER where we have been put off ourselves by people with 3 month's notice. Yes it tends to be negotiable but in my experience people are kept for as long as that time as possible for handover. I had to serve every day of my 3 months, and train up a replacement in that time. I hated it. It jepordized getting my new role and I had no break whatsoever between them. I had a lack of motivation to do anything decent in the last 3 months as was leaving anyway, so just did handover and documentation stuff for 3 months solid. Was ****.
What industry was that in?
Whilst not always 3 months from the start, a lot of places extend to 3 months with longer service. My starting contract was only a month, but after 3 years I think it increases 2 weeks for every year upto 3 months. So I think I'm about 3 months now as well.
IT.
If I am recruiting for someone then the need is 99% of the time already there and therefore time is of the essence. If I am interviewing two similar candidates and one can start in a month and the other 3 months wait, guess who's getting the offer?
For very important roles or senior ones, then yes, obviously waiting 3 months for the right person is fine. Our current CEO I believe was on 6 months notice and they had a major transition program to get them in phased, but that's because the more senior roles tend to come with better planning and expectation as to when someone is going to leave, as exit packages are put in place and talks happen much earlier so it's on the radar. For more technical roles in IT, having senior in your title seems to make everywhere think they can put you on 3 months notice. As said, not always immediately. Often it starts with two months then rises. Even roles without "senior" or "lead" you often find 3 months notice in a lot of places. I completely understand why places do it to protect themselves if someone leaves, but I think people need to stand up to it more as when the time inevitably comes where you need/want to leave, trying to market yourself as employable to companies then having to tell them your notice period is 3 months, instantly puts you down the list behind other people that can start immediately, or at least much sooner. If you're worth waiting for then yeah, you'll still get roles, but it's extra pressure and does definitely hinder chances in my personal experience.
Admittedly it's rare that I ever had two equal candidates for the same role but notice period never came into it with hiring. I mean, there was always some other criteria I'd use to determine the best hire. The sort of roles I was hiring for didn't have a huge long queue of candidates, so anyone good enough would get an offer, it wasn't like I could reject someone with a 3 month period in the knowledge there was a conveyor belt of talent to choose from. Where we really needed people very quickly we'd go to vendor suppliers or occasionally contractors. One person I was actually suspicious of because they could start so soon (like 8 days after the job offer or something), although they turned out to be my best hire in the end.
Maybe for a genuinely junior role it might be a factor in the sense that you expect them to bring little in the way of tacit skills and want to start training them sooner rather than waiting months, but generally people of that calibre aren't on long notice periods to begin with.
Maybe for a genuinely junior role it might be a factor in the sense that you expect them to bring little in the way of tacit skills and want to start training them sooner rather than waiting months, but generally people of that calibre aren't on long notice periods to begin with.
Just IT in general? It seems common enough to have 3 months' notice in finance and indeed in IT jobs related to finance/banking.
If an employer needs someone ASAP then, as above, they can get a contractor.
I consider notice period as part of the offer. If my employer wants me to commit to a longer notice period, they need to compensate me for it because it does take away flexibility on my end. And when I'm the one hiring I do consider this. This is less important when hiring and more important when asking an employee to extend their notice period from 1 to 3 months, I've seen employers not willing to offer anything and expect employees to just say yes, which is absurd.
I've seen it done where it has been mandatory and by not agreeing, you are basically out of a job. This can't be legal? The people it happened to bent over and took it, but I would have sought legal advice personally. I think a lot of the contracts signed today have clauses which basically "allow" them to change the terms. It's all very crafty but then if you truly peruse a contract upon considering a job offer and tear it to pieces and query everything on it, it massively puts off employers, who tend to come back with words to the effect of "well do you want the job or not?". You have to be bold and stand up for yourself wherever possible.
Permabanned
Wife has 6 months notice and 12 months of restrictions! Last time she moved that resulted in 6 months garden leave (which has its pros and cons). Just a lowly month for me. 
Well they can always say "accept or we'll give you notice" and that's completely legal. But this is usually a bluff, if they want you bad enough to want to increase your notice, they're not gonna let you go for merely negotiating.
Companies often take existing employees for granted and act tough, but once you don't cave they know it's far more expensive for them to replace you than to give you what you want. So they eventually cave. That's why I always advise people to interview for new roles regularly to be aware of their market value and be confident that they can easily find another job, so they'll be confident if/when these negotiations come up with their employers.
Good advice. Agree.
A previous employer sent people of my 'level' a letter to state change of notice period that we were supposed to sign and send back. I compared notes with a couple of peers and none of us signed the letter to my knowledge. They didn't really follow it up that aggressively although when I was promoted I was given an extended notice period as part of the new contract (I used this in part to negotiate a higher salary on the basis that a 12 week notice period would limit my options, and hence whilst I was very keen to stay with the organisation, I wouldn't want to be in a position where I felt I was unpaid if I was making that commitment).
