Great Irrelevant Debate: Right Notice Period After The Resignation
If examined closely, most often, the style of enforcing lengthy notice periods often appears to be more about control rather than practicality
The Great Resignation, a global phenomenon, has also affected India, where many people have chosen to leave their jobs in large numbers. It has ignited debate, with attention paid to its underlying causes. However, in the Indian market, a crucial factor remains largely unaddressed – the disconnect between human resource policies and the expectations of both employees and employers. At the core of this dissonance lies the question: *What is a reasonable resignation-to-exit notice period? More importantly, does the traditional forced stay between 30 to 180 days serve a meaningful purpose, or is it merely an expression of corporate muscle?
Long notice periods (ranging from one to six months) are sought in the employment contract (particularly in IT/ITES and services sectors) from the employer's side to ensure seamless transitions and knowledge transfer. Yet, in an era where top talent is more mobile than ever, many question whether such policies are outmoded and counterproductive. Once an employee has mentally moved on, compelling them to stay often leads to disengagement, subpar performance, and even the risk of poisoning team morale.
Could a more expedited exit benefit both parties? There’s an argument that immediately relieving an employee who has resigned or reducing the long notice period to a more reasonable one month could stimulate companies to adopt better succession planning. When organisations know they can’t rely on drawn-out notice periods as a stopgap, they will focus on talent pipelines, leadership development, and real-time knowledge-sharing processes, ensuring smoother transitions.
If examined closely, most often, the style of enforcing lengthy notice periods often appears to be more about control rather than practicality. Many organisations enforce these policies as a display of power, particularly when their market leverage allows them to retain talent by restricting exit mobility. The threat of litigation or the forfeiture of dues, holding back full and final settlement, and delay in handing out exit clearance letters also play into the hands of employers who wish to exert corporate muscle over departing employees. Such practices can generate a climate of fear, resulting in a disengaged workforce.
Employees today are more informed, have more opportunities, and seek environments that support flexibility and mutual respect. Locking someone in a position after they have decided to leave risks tarnishing the employer’s brand. It creates a scenario where the departing employee feels trapped, possibly leading them to underperform during their notice period, undermining any supposed benefits of a long handover.
However, if employees are permitted to leave promptly after resigning, organisations will need to innovate. Succession planning, often delayed or inadequately implemented, must become a priority at all levels. This would encourage companies to continuously groom talent, ensuring replacements are ready to step in without disrupting operations. Early career transitions would cease being viewed as risks and become opportunities for fresh leadership and innovation.
A shift in thinking is required for Indian businesses to match the realities of a rapidly changing workforce. While some sectors may argue that long notice periods are necessary for operational stability, this argument often falls flat when we examine the employee’s perspective. Flexibility and goodwill can go a long way in securing an organisation’s reputation as a preferred employer. The future of work in India will increasingly demand agile HR policies that don’t rely on enforcing obsolete norms but instead foster a culture of resilience, mutual respect, and trust. There is absolutely no robust case for long notice periods!
There’s no value in comparing how past generations worked and lived – the future belongs to the present generation, and their evolving values and vision will shape what lies ahead. When companies cling to prolonged notice periods as a show of strength, they forfeit the opportunity to build resilience through innovation and agile succession planning. True strength lies in letting go and preparing for what comes next.
Ultimately, the Great Resignation has exposed flaws in the employer-employee relationship. While seemingly practical for some businesses, prolonged notice periods should be re-evaluated. Organisations that want to thrive in a competitive, fast-moving talent market must innovate toward better succession planning, invest in developing leadership pipelines, and allow for the natural turnover of talent without punitive, muscle-flexing policies. If they don’t, they risk losing more than just the employees who resign – they risk losing the best and brightest to competitors who are more willing to adapt.
Long notice periods provide a smooth transition for companies by allowing sufficient time for knowledge transfer and the training of successors, ensuring business continuity and minimising disruptions. They help employee retention by providing a buffer period for renegotiations and planning while enabling the company to organise and adjust workloads effectively. This time also facilitates building professional relationships, as employees can depart on good terms, maintaining valuable networks.
However, long notice periods can demotivate employees, who may become disengaged, reducing their productivity and efficiency. There is also an increased risk of information leaks, especially for those with access to sensitive data. Prolonged periods can cause interpersonal tension among colleagues and delay hiring processes, impacting team dynamics and efficiency.
In closure, notice periods are like bridges meant to transition from one chapter to the next smoothly. But if stretched too long, they can become roads of disengagement rather than paths of productivity.
