It’s not always a matter of loyalty. Her boss encourages people in her department to get other offers, which he can use as additional leverage to get them bigger raises than otherwise. Or, if he isn’t happy with them anyway, to let them go rather painlessly.
Your concept of loyalty is rather quaint. I’d say it was appropriate up until maybe 1960 or 70. Not anymore.
I agree with this, however, I don’t think it actually happens. You can’t just call any mismatched ideas of somebodies worth to be “not wanting the job”. Are you saying you’ve gotten candidates that would not take the job no matter what you offered them? Double their current salary? Triple?
Well, a good way to assure that nobody is job hunting is to make sure the idea that they could get better compensation, better work environment, higher position or a better job anywhere else does not enter their mind. The way to assure this, of course, is to offer a better work environment and to compensate better than anybody else in the industry. Unless you are doing that you can’t complain somebody is job shopping – if they are valuable to you as an employee you will fight to keep them, if not, they shouldn’t be working for you anyway.
I find it odd that so many managers treat employment more like a marriage or a friendship than a contract. Company loyalty has to be earned – if you don’t get it, you didn’t earn it with that person. You cannot have an expectation of loyalty simply by giving somebody a job – there is no implicit benefit in having a job with you over somebody else, so loyalty has to be built through comparative explicit benefits. Remember, employers will always be more of a commodity than employees, even if the job market is tough.
You’re right - that was sloppy writing on my part. I did in fact accept the one job before declining the other.
You’re right, and that was sloppy writing on my part. I did in fact accept the one offer before removing myself from consideration with the other company.
I do not understand - at all - the attitude displayed by some that applying for a position carries some implicit agreement to accept it if it’s offered. That’s pretty serious hubris on the part of the company.
Salary is generally not mentioned, except in general terms, until the moment the offer is actually made in my industry (and it’s fairly typical, I believe). Unless your position is that the applicant should not care how much he makes, I fail to see how you can expect him to have made up his mind or discussed things fully with his spouse beforehand.
I think it’s disrespectful to the employer apply for a job you don’t want, and astonishingly condescending to expect to be given time to mull over an offer that you specifically ASKED for. That attitude seems dangerously self-absorbed to me, but the sense of entitlement in this latest generation never stops surprising me.
How would you know you don’t want the job until after the interview? You don’t even know what the salary and benefits are.
That’s crazy talk. Time to consider an offer is SOP for almost any level of job above retail clerk, or maybe some farm or factory jobs. As you might note from most of the posts to this thread, to NOT be given time is pretty majorly abnormal, to the point where many, including me, would refuse an offer like it out of hand.
Well, it certain happens the other way around. I’ve been on search committees where we’ve reopened searches because we didn’t get enough resumes the first time. We didn’t even proceed with interviewing the candidates - who well may have been perfectly competent and great.
Interviews are two-way. The candidate is checking out the organization, and vice-versa. It’s also likely that most people are interviewing for more than one job, so it’s not simply a matter of “a or b?” It’s probably “a, b, c, d, e, or f?”
Just like some candidates initially appear to be at the bottom of the pile, something can happen in the search process that changes the calculus. I know tons of people who took jobs after originally just testing the waters, and then were so impressed with the new position they ended up taking it. At-will employment also means that it’s not all wine and roses for employees, either. I would think a good interview process and screening would eliminate those candidates who aren’t serious about the position, and people who are good candidates are always going to be in demand.
I thought I would supply some links to back up the position that it is unusual to be put in a position to refuse or accept a position on the spot. I found several other sites along the same lines as those below, and none at all that suggest accepting an offer within seconds of receiving it is ever reasonable.
Dio, if you can find a single cite that advocates your position, I would like to see it.
From the U.S. Department of Labor
Monster.com doesn’t specificly address accepting an offer on the spot, but the section Evaluating a Job Offer certainly implies it’s a bad idea.
Ask the Headhunter.com suggests you should not accept any job without a written offer.
When we make offers, it’s pretty much a given that the applicants are going to think it over for at least one night. They may be interviewing with other companies. Plus, the offer call is usually the first time the applicant hears the entire salary/benefit package. That adds new information to their decision that they should have time to consider. There are a thousand other possible reasons why someone may need to consider an offer, even though they truly wanted the job up to that point.
Frankly, we want people who want the job and have considered it carefully–not those who took it just because they were worried the offer would evaporate if they didn’t accept it on the spot.
We’ve never had someone wait to receive their offer letter before giving us a verbal acceptance. Usually they accept contingent on getting a letter with that same offer written out. However, most people wait do until they get that letter before giving notice to any current employer.
Dio, honest question: Do you really mean to advocate that once one has begun an interview process it’s immoral to continue looking for other positions? That’s certainly how I read the implications of your position here.
Maybe not, but I do read in the implication that one must accept virtually any offer that is made, because it is made. It also suggests you must reject the job DURING the interview, because forcing the employer to actually make an offer is somehow unfair to the employer.
The job I have now – I rejected the first offer and made a somewhat vague counter offer during that first post-interview phone call. They offered me a pay rate near the bottom of the published range for the job, and I said no. Then I asked how they came up with that amount, and was told that it was mainly based on my relevant experience in the field. When I asked how much of my work history they considered relevant, I was told 5 years. I told her (the HR rep) that at least 15 years of my experience was relevant, and explained why, that if they would reconsider the amount and make a better offer – in the upper third of the range, I would still consider accepting the job. They called within 24 hours, and offered nearly 25% more. I accepted (after thinking about it overnight) and me and my company have both been very happy with it for six years now.
Was that disrespectful and self-absorbed? Maybe the latter, but after all, quitting one job and starting another is a major life change, with implications far into the future. I think I’m entitled to be a bit self-absorbed when considering my personal future.
BTW, I’m pushing 50, and IMO, the older you are the more carefully you need to consider career decisions. If it is a generational thing, it’s quite the opposite of your suggestion that this is an issue only for self-indulgent youth.
I’m saying don’t apply for a job if you aren’t willing to take it. If you’re taking a scattershot approach and an offer comes in while you still think something better might come up, just say no to the offer. Don’t expect a prospective employer to accomodate your own personal agenda. I have no problem with saying no to an offer. Saying “let me wait around for a while and see if anybody better comes along” is insulting to the employer and self-destructive in its self-importance.
No. You we’re negotiating. That’s not the same thing.
I don’t think anyone is suggesting that, except possibly for newly minted college graduates. What’s wrong with “Give me 24 or 48 hours to think about it?” In fact, most of the web sites I found suggest a week is a reasonable amount of time to consider.
Not accept, necessarily, but be willing to give an answer one way or the other. Don’t act like you’re more important than the employer.
Sure, if the employer is willing to give that time, then take it. I just don’t think the employer is obligated to give that time and in that case, you should be ready with an answer. It’s something you should have already thought about anyway.
Needing a few days to think about it isn’t acting like you are more important than the employer. Jobs almost never turn out to be exactly what you thought they would be when you first applied/interviewed. As new information comes in, it’s normal to want to think things over.
I suspect you are like me, Dio, and tend to make decisions quickly. Since I do, any time I say “let me think about it”, I am posturing or waiting on a better offer. However, there are many people out there that really do take a long time to make a decision. It isn’t a game, it’s just the way they approach things. And, to be fair, I’ve made some rotten choices because I do chose quickly. I am suggesting that perhaps you don’t believe people are really in earnest when they say “I need to think about it”, but many people honestly do.