A lot of people are viewing this from the employer, which I guess makes a certain amount of sense, but as a potential employee that's not your problem.
The simple fact is that as an employee you should be looking out for yourself. Period. That means pushing back on a hard deadline that will exclude you from trying to get your dream (or simply preferred) job.
If the company won't budge and you're unsure of your prospects then yes by all means accept it, go to the other interview and, if you get it, bail on the other one.
For those that object to this on ethical grounds, consider this scenario: the company has their preferred employee who passes on the job and then they offer it to you. If that first guy comes back and changes his mind, will the company say "oh sorry, we've offered it to someone else". They might. Or they might not (and I've had it happen where they haven't).
If your "safety employer" is a large company don't even give it a second thought. Microsoft or Yahoo will offer hundreds of jobs. Not everyone is going to show. It's factored in and the companies won't die if you don't show up.
Be more careful when it comes to small companies but, as others have noted, smaller companies may be in a situation between getting 0 employees and getting 1. That's a big difference from getting 199 or 200.
Ultimately though, the company's problems aren't your problems, particularly if they exploit your inexperience and relative lack of negotiating power to force you into making a premature decision. That company will have interviewed other people. It will simply extend an offer to the next person on the list.
If they can't get someone to join them they're either not offering enough compensation or they're simply not desirable employers. Neither of which is your problem.
A lot of people are viewing this from the employer ...
I view this as simple ethics. You keep your word, period.
For those that object to this on ethical grounds, consider this scenario: the company has their preferred employee who passes on the job and then they offer it to you. If that first guy comes back and changes his mind, will the company say "oh sorry, we've offered it to someone else". They might. Or they might not (and I've had it happen where they haven't).
If a company rescinds their offer due to no fault of your own (e.g, misrepresentation), then it's just as unethical as you rescinding your acceptance of the offer.
If you're not sure, then simply do not accept the offer. They'll either wait (or they won't), but it's the only ethically sound decision available, and you will avoid the possibility of making a bad name for yourself.
I'd certainly remember someone that accepted an offer and then backed out without cause. Nobody responsible does this.
> I view this as simple ethics. You keep your word, period.
I keep my word when I'm dealing with people. With people my word is bond.
With a company, all that matters from an ethical and legal point of view is what's written down on paper and signed by both parties.
If you sign a contract promising to begin work on a certain date and there's no penalty for changing your mind, then it's OK to change your mind. If they wanted a firmer commitment than that then they could write in a penalty clause to cover that circumstance. Of course, you'd be entitled to ask for more from them in return for this commitment (e.g. increased signing bonus).
You may let down a few people at the first company if you change your mind and take another offer, but if you're a manager at a company then you should be well versed in dealing with the mild disappointment arising from an individual choosing to act in their own interest rather than the interest of the company.
>With a company, all that matters from an ethical and legal point of view is what's written down on paper and signed by both parties.
Exactly, companies of all kinds can and do legally lie to your face, and write something entirely different down. It's not ethics, it's business. Every buy a car? Nothing the salesperson says has any legal bearing at all.
A company is made up of people. If you treat a company unethically the consequences are suffered by people, not by some imaginary entity that only exists on paper. The only difference is that you may not always know who they are.
Yes, companies and salespeople can lie legally - but not ethically, and that's what we're talking about here.
With a company, all that matters from an ethical and legal point of view is what's written down on paper and signed by both parties.
Companies are comprised of people. If you break your word and cost the company money, you're costing those people (and the investors) money.
As a business owner, I find it very frustrating how some people's morals seem to not apply to their dealings with corporations. I wonder if it's a lack of familiarity with how businesses are run, and the ease of treating the company as a faceless entity.
You may let down a few people at the first company if you change your mind and take another offer, but if you're a manager at a company then you should be well versed in dealing with the mild disappointment arising from an individual choosing to act in their own interest rather than the interest of the company.
Acting in your own interest is fine. Acting in your own interest contrary to your word is not.
If working for the company is not in your interest, don't accept the offer. It's as simple as that -- nobody's feelings will be hurt. If you need more time, say so. If the company won't offer you more time, don't accept the offer.
However, if you accept the offer and then renege, the people involved are likely going to have a validly poor opinion of your professionalism, ethics, and maturity.
By reneging on an offer you may cost the company time but you almost certainly won't cost them money.
More than likely they'll go to the next candidate on the list that they've already interviewed. If there are no other candidates... sorry but that's not the employee's problem.
Personally I'd be more concerned with people who start, work a few months and then up and leave because something better came along. By that point they really have cost you time and money. You've invested in them.
But before they even start? The investment (and thus the commitment) is minimal.
If you've applied for a visa on their behalf, you may be out of pocket (which I'd have a problem with). Relocation expenses? You can pursue recovery of those. If you used a recruiter, a candidate who reneges won't cost you (typically the recruiter must given partial refunds on commissions should the employee leave in the first three months).
As for not accepting in the offer in the first place, this is fine in theory and certainly fine for someone who has experience and is in demand. A new graduate is at a severe disadvantage and may think it's either accept this or get nothing.
If someone reneges on working for you it's typically a minor inconvenience.
If an employer reneges on an employment contract it can often be devastating (personally, professionally and financially) for the candidate, particularly if the typical recruiting season is over and they've declined other offers.
This is not a meeting of equals. When one party is dealing with survival and the other with inconvenience, sorry but you're just going to have to suck it up that some people will accept offers and then renege on them later.
> By reneging on an offer you may cost the company time but you almost certainly won't cost them money.
Where do you think the time comes from?
> But before they even start? The investment (and thus the commitment) is minimal.
That's not your decision to make with their money.
> This is not a meeting of equals. When one party is dealing with survival and the other with inconvenience, sorry but you're just going to have to suck it up that some people will accept offers and then renege on them later.
I don't think ethical conduct differs based on the degree of harm: Stealing $20 from Bill Gates would still be stealing.
I do agree with a lot of what you say. But an individual is very much at the mercy of a corporation, which has vastly more resources and more experience of this kind of thing.
Also, a company isn't the same thing as the individual shareholders. They can have the company enforce stricter employment contracts and offer bonuses on signing if they wanted/voted to.
In my view, I don't think you are reneging on an agreement to commence work for a company if you change your mind before that date. Perhaps someone with some legal experience in this area could clear this up.
What I am absolutely certain about is that no individual should feel obliged to go through with what would be a comparatively "onerous contract" willingly.
If a contract does not specify a penalty for changing your mind then you are not only free to do so but, IMHO, obliged as a free human being to take up any better offer in the interim.
> If you break your word and cost the company money, you're costing those people (and the investors) money.
There is nothing even remotely immoral about costing a company (and their investors) money. If there were it would immoral to launch a competing company.
Sure, there's nothing wrong with costing a company money. There's also nothing wrong with costing a person money - for example: if I make a bid at an auction it causes another bidder to pay more.
The point is that you should treat others like you want to be treated. Do you want people to break their word to you? If not, don't break your word to them, even if they have formed a group which is legally recognised as a company.
Also consider that it is possible for a single person to form a 'company' to run his business - is it OK to break your word to this person? Or only when he takes on a business partner?
Its true that if I put a gun to your child's head and tell you that I'm going to kill her unless you agree to take my job, and you agree, then you gave me your word. Its also true that you genuinely had the choice of saying yes or no. It just that if you had said "no" there would be pretty negative consequences. Would you argue that in this case, had you said "yes", that you should be required to keep your word? Or that you are morally obligated to keep your word? Some fierce word-keepers argue "yes you should". In which case you may stop reading, but probably stop posting too.
Otherwise, let us agree that "I gave my word" is not a moral absolute and we are now debating about degree.
> I'd certainly remember someone that accepted an offer and then backed out without cause. Nobody responsible does this.
Except when the cause is "they pressured me and didn't want to give me time to compare offers, so I trust my instincts, delayed, and what do you know? Indeed their offer was much worse, no wonder they resorted to those tactics, good thing I didn't actually sign anything yet and I could still go for the other job" in which case it sounds like a very responsible person.
Of course some companies prefer employees with a little bit less backbone, which is exactly what they would have gotten away with if it weren't for that meddling Spolksy! ;-)
> I view this as simple ethics. You keep your word, period.
How far does your word go though? You can (in general) quit a job anytime you want right? So, you could go to work for them for a single day and then quit and that would be fine? But you can't decide a day before you start that you want to go work somewhere else?
I don't think these things are as cut and dried as you might think.
> I view this as simple ethics. You keep your word, period.
Certainly in the US in most states, employment is "at will", meaning the company can fire you for pretty much any reason at any time (ignoring protected classes and so on). Likewise, the employee can leave at any time.
If you accept the offer and then renege you've actually fulfilled your contractual obligation.
If the company wants more than that, they need to pay for it. They can lock you up for a period with a golden handshake. They can keep you with golden handcuffs.
You have a misguided view of ethics here. The employment contract exists to give both parties an out.
This reminds me tangentially of the ethics debate around foreclosure. Some smart people realized would do things like:
- deliberately not pay the mortgage to trigger foreclosure as they were underwater and presumably they lived in a "no recourse" state (meaning the bank could take the house and that was the end of it);
- they might do this simply to force a better rate or get the bank to settle on the owed debt at a level where they were no longer underwater.
Some argued it was your ethical responsibility to pay if you can. I disagree. The contract that exists between the lender and the borrower exists to lay out the rights and responsibilities of both parties, including a mechanism for terminating the contract.
From a purely ethical (and completely irrelevant) point of view I see this as holding banks accountable for shady lending practices. After all, it was banks and the lack of due diligence in lending practices that led to this situation.
You are under no obligation to spend several years working for your second or third choice employer just because you said you would.
Think about it this way. Imagine you said to your spouse "I said I'd marry you but that's because someone else said 'no' so I'm going to stick with it because I said I would". What would happen? Would your spouse thank you? Almost certainly not. Nobody wants to be a second choice.
An employer wants people who are excited to be working for them and enthused about what they're working on. It makes a happier employee and a better place to work. If you feel like you're trapped you'll simply mope around thinking about the other chance you gave up, helping nobody, including the employer.
Oh and as for the idea that you've crossed the employer, in my experience most people don't take this personally and, for those that do, you probably don't want to work for them anyway. Fact is, they'll probably forget who you are in a few days or less.
It might hurt your chances at working for that same company in the future but it probably won't. And if it does, considering you turned them down once, do you really want to work for them?
While I agree with almost everything you say here, I disagree with your view of the ethics involved. Just because something is allowed, it doesn't automatically become ethical.
If you accept multiple job offers with the intention of waiting for the best possible offer, you are actively lying to the other companies. Sure, it might be im(ex?)plicitly allowed by the contracts you sign, but that doesn't change the fact that you are acting unethically.
> Sure, it might be im(ex?)plicitly allowed by the contracts you sign, but that doesn't change the fact that you are acting unethically.
But why does that matter? The point is that it should be irrelevant. Ethical considerations are obviously not deterring these companies from exercising their offer strategies. Why should young graduates be made to feel guilty by also playing a counter-strategy?
Because it's about personal ethics. Simple as that. The fact that companies, or someone else, are not acting in accordance to ethics should not influence anyone's decision in that matter. If one wants to be a honest person, one should be that person regardless of what everyone else is doing.
You seem to be confusing "ethics" with "legal obligation". They are very different. Just because I can take an action that is legal does not make it ethical (see Wall St. for example). Conversely, there are cases where the "right" or ethical action may not be legal (e.g, peaceful protest).
> Certainly in the US in most states, employment is "at will", meaning the company can fire you for pretty much any reason at any time (ignoring protected classes and so on). Likewise, the employee can leave at any time.
You're mixing things up. Ethically speaking, if the company winds up having _cause_ to fire them later, that's a separate matter, and there's no ethic quandary.
Likewise, if the employee makes an effort to work there and decides to leave, there is no ethical issue.
If a company must engage in layoffs, a responsible company incorporates a severance as a means compensating the employee for the failure of the company to hold to their end of the bargain due to unforeseen circumstances or failure.
> If you accept the offer and then renege you've actually fulfilled your contractual obligation. If the company wants more than that, they need to pay for it.
One shouldn't have to pay for people to do what they say they'll do: if they accept the offer, barring some act of god, they should start work for the company.
You bring up mortgages as an example -- it's a poor one. In buying a house, you're stating the intention to pay for it. Ethically, you're on the hook -- if you fail to make payments, someone else will be left holding the bag.
The contract is merely a legal (not ethical) enforcement mechanism by which the bank may attempt to recoup their loss, in a country where we (rightly) have the 13th amendment that forbids slavery and/or debtors prisons.
> From a purely ethical (and completely irrelevant) point of view I see this as holding banks accountable for shady lending practices. After all, it was banks and the lack of due diligence in lending practices that led to this situation.
The bank is ethically culpable for shady lending practices, but _so are the people who accepted shady mortgages_.
What's more, is that those people drove up housing prices and made it that much harder for responsible buyers to own a home.
I actually agree with him. The point of "at will" employment is that usually firing happens if the employee has done something terribly wrong. Usually they are "let go" for "no reason." It avoids a potential legal mess. Well a reason is given but it is a safe reason "we are restructuring" and such. The real reason could be anything, heck it could be race or gender, as long as nobody puts that in writing it doesn't matter. It would take a long established pattern of lay-offs to prove that a certain group is targeted. But that's besides the point. The point is that the law is presented a "wonderful feature" to new college graduates -- "amazing, you have the freedom to leave anytime". I would guess that most often than not, it is used by companies to get rid of employees. BUT in this one instance, that law can (and should) be applied by the employee.
I really don't like how all of the sudden "morality" starts playing into in. Morality in such instances (mortgage payments and employment) is what is used by the more powerful entity to (company or bank) to keep in check those that are in a less powerful position ("it is immoral to stop paying your mortgage", "it is immoral to quit after 3 days").
The point is that morality doesn't and shouldn't play into it. Usually companies don't follow moral principle but rather legal principle. Smart individual should do the same thing. Otherwise they are and will be abused and taken advantage of.
The point is that morality doesn't and shouldn't play into it. Usually companies don't follow moral principle but rather legal principle. Smart individual should do the same thing. Otherwise they are and will be abused and taken advantage of.
I've made a long and rewarding career out of following moral principals, and my reputation has been invaluable in the ongoing growth of my career and (now) my own business.
It's simple to avoid being abused and taken advantage of without behaving unethically: don't make agreements you can't (or won't) keep, and make a genuine effort to help correct any situation you find abusive or untenable.
If you behave in the manner you're describing, don't be surprised when you find yourself primarily interacting with other people who do try to take advantage of you -- you'll attract them through your behavior, and will repel individuals who expect to trust the word of the people they work with.
Yes -- ask for more time. If they say no, then just don't accept the offer.
Honestly, nobody you want to work for is going to say "no" if you ask for a little more time, unless business constraints dictate that they truly can't afford to wait on the hiring decision -- which is, in itself either:
- A sign of either poor planning on their part.
or
- A demonstration of their low assessment of your value to their organization.
I agree. Basically if it they are establishing an adversarial environment right off the start, maybe they are not a good company to work at to begin with. I think the school recruiting office could at inform the students about such strategies and tell them to beware.
The point is that morality doesn't and shouldn't play into it. Usually companies don't follow moral principle but rather legal principle. Smart individual should do the same thing. Otherwise they are and will be abused and taken advantage of.
There is a middle ground of course. Not unbending personal morality above all else but rather a good faith effort to both stand up for yourself in safe ways and to stand by the interests of those who you want to stand by yours.
This is why I am not opposed to withdrawing acceptance of an exploding offer at the last minute. It's better for the employer and yourself if you quit then rather than two weeks into the job.
>One shouldn't have to pay for people to do what they say they'll do: if they accept the offer, barring some act of god, they should start work for the company.
You are missing the point nupark. What they said they would do is "I will work for you, and I will give you two weeks notice if I choose not to."
By your own criteria, they have fulfilled their obligation. Move on.
You will see a contract that says "Employee to start July 1st. Employment is at will. Either party may terminate with two weeks notice". You will think the first is the most important. The student might find the last clause most important.
When the student calls in January to give several months notice that they wont be accepting the offer, you have a fucking tantrum and say that the student is unethical and unprofessional. You will imagine in your head that the contract meant "Notice cannot be given until after employment has commenced". That this clause is not there will not bother you. Thats what you thought it meant, and by golly you are a man of your word, whereas this student is clearly a liar and a cheat, weaseling out of a contract with word tricks.
I have met many moral absolutists, and their primary attribute is that everyone else is a liar and a cheat. They then use that excuse to break any deal they chose.
"I have met many moral absolutists, and their primary attribute is that everyone else is a liar and a cheat."
In my experience, people who have very low opinions of everyone else (and those include the absolutists on both sides of this debate) are usually the least trustworthy people I have met.
> I view this as simple ethics. You keep your word, period.
It gets tricky. If you're a publicly traded company, do you prioritize keeping your implicit word to your stockholders, or to the guy who might or might not come work for you, maybe?
"I view this as simple ethics. You keep your word, period."
In general I agree. But what is the limitation? "I will work for you" is filled if you quit half way through your first day on the job and that's far worse for the employer than if you bailed out in advance.
"If a company rescinds their offer due to no fault of your own (e.g, misrepresentation), then it's just as unethical as you rescinding your acceptance of the offer."
I am going to say here that someone giving an exploding offer based on when you say your other interviews are is at least guilty here. I would argue that if someone does this, they entirely deserve what they get.
Using pressure tactics on a new grad doesn't sound too ethical to me. The only person gaining if the new grad accepts is the recruiter. The company will gain a disgruntled employee and the employee will have lost a better offer.
Backing out could certainly spike your chances of getting a job with the jilted company in the future, but unless your in a tiny field where everyone knows everyone, no one else will know. Just don't list that company on you're resume.
On the ethics debate, all I'll say is it reminds me of 'The Shining' where Jack, as he's working himself up to kill his wife, argues that her suggestion to leave the hotel is an ethical no-no because his employers have placed their trust in him.
"Do you have any idea what a moral or ethical principal is?" -- Jack Torrance
It would be like the a professional basketball player refusing to intentionally foul Shaq because they feel that hitting someone is simply immoral. I respect your desire to "Keep your word, period" and I also respect someone who refuses to hit someone in a sport. But you are simply putting yourself at a disadvantage to the team you are playing against.
In general, one should be aware of the six principles of persuasion as outlined by Cialdini in Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion of which the "exploding" part is an example of "scarcity". These principles are just as relevant to buying a house or car as negotiating for a job.
For the record, the six principles are:
* reciprocity (hey, they flew you out there, right?)
* commitment and consistency (they get you to agree in principle to working for them before they make a concrete offer)
* social proof (look at the great people who already work here)
Campus recruiters count on student’s high ethical standards.
This goes far beyond campus recruiters. Most companies, at least here in the UK apply the same mentality to job offers.
The key factor is absolute honesty & transparency. As Joel alludes to in the article, be open and tell them you are considering all of your options before making a decision. If pushed, turn the tables and ask them if they would offer a job to the first person they interviewed even if they were a good fit for the role? How do they know the next person they meet won't be a better fit. Pressure tactics are common place and this is an excellent example of one of the first times you will be faced with it and it will benefit you down the line when you start working for them and they press you for project deadlines and so on.
I work as a teacher in the UK. Until quite recently, it was normal practice to interview for jobs in teaching, choose the candidate, and then have the candidate sign the contract that day. All the candidates were kept in a room onsite until the committee decided who to appoint.
This system meant no one applied unless they wanted that specific job.
Teaching has become more like other occupations over the last 10 years or so, but the expectation is still that you decide within a few days of being offered the job. Must be a UK thing.
How does something like this work - does Betabeat ask Joel for permission to repost his content under their name/banner/ads? Do they work out a cut of ad revenue? Or do they just copy-and-paste the content without permission, figuring most writers won't complain?
As a writer, were there any benefits to you to grant that permission? Or was it more along the lines of there being no downside and it's nice to be asked?
Offers with an acceptance deadline simplify life for the employer, so they do that. Refusing to accept the deadlines or reneging on acceptances simplifies life for the applicants, so they do that. Employers can respond by rescinding offers when someone better comes along, which applicants can counter by accepting and holding as many offers as possible. Employers then realize they must make multiple offers for each position with the intention of rescinding those made to applicants worse than the best one which accepted. Applicants likewise renege on every acceptance except the one from their most favored employer amongst the employers that extended them offers. The time scales on which this all happens compress until it is essentially one big chaotic race condition. When everyone is predictably acting in support of their own interests, the outcome is also somewhat predictable.
It's interesting to observe the tech intern labor market retrace the path that other candidate / organization matching processes, ranging from sorority rush to medical residency applications, have gone down. The amusing bit is that the apparent endgame, where both sides submit ranklists to a central clearinghouse that uses some form of the stable marriage algorithm, sounds like something a tech company came up with.
Several people are looking at this from the employer side and claiming that this should be acceptable because it's hard when you have one position to fill and someone has a lock on it for a long time.
While that is valid, especially for smaller companies, many companies definitely use this when that reasoning doesn't hold. I'm about to receive an offer for the summer from [very big company] that employs ~1000 interns in the location where I'd be. I would guess that the team I'll be on has several other intern slots. Despite that, and despite the fact that I wouldn't start my internship for 7 months, from what I hear they will definitely give me a short deadline to decide.
This is purely a matter of them trying to get me to commit while my visit to them is fresh in my mind and before I can apply and consider too broadly.
And while, from an ethical standpoint, you can make the claim that it's "hard" for employers and they "need" this, hiring people is also hard for employers. You can try to shift your burdens on to potential employees, but that's going to hurt you in the competition for talent. Any time that you are less employee-friendly than other companies, even with legitimate reason, you might lose out.
date people "in your league". you can try to get with someone out of your league, but they're (much) more likely to string you along until something better comes along, or cheat on you. if you can't get hot enough people to date you, maybe you should work on yourself, and your social proof.
There's no mention of the flip side of this. I only have one position, and I interview multiple candidates, several of which are good. If I make you an offer, I can't afford to sit around waiting for weeks for you to make up your mind: if you turn it down, chances are my other candidates are already gone, and now I have to start the whole process again from scratch.
Edit: fair enough, I missed that Joel was talking about the specific context of internships.
There's no flip side to this. Spolsky is writing about college recruitment, where the idea is to interview at a bunch of companies and then pick one many weeks later. You are talking about a totally different kind of hiring, where exploding offers aren't (as much of) a problem.
It depends on the size of the town. In smaller "university towns", often there are a few companies that are hiring specialized tech locally. They get the students who want to stay in town for whatever reason.
I've been at a smaller company where we would typically get 0 or 1 new developers out of the local university each year.
But if one of them verbally accepted and then didn't work out for whatever reason, it might be a disappointment, but it wasn't a crisis.
Now that I think about it, it's probably that we would not realistically expect a new hire right out of school to be able to help with a short term deadline. Our products were complex and low-level, and the sense was that a new junior developer would probably not represent a net gain for about 6 months.
In the context of student interns, you're in the wrong place to fill that position. Either that one position is important enough for hiring a Real Professional, or you'll survive not having an intern for a few more months.
Having a single position that's critical to your company but attempting to fill it with an intern is disingenuous and perhaps even unethical (you're underpaying the intern based on the position's value to the company; you're not giving your shareholders actual value by hiring someone inexperienced; etc.)
Then make sure you all do the interviews reasonably close to each other.
Seriously I made so many mistakes getting my first job that the next time I am going to assume every company is out to rape me, at least financially, properly emotionally.
Fair point, but this article is aimed at students looking for full-time jobs or co-ops, most of which become available at roughly the same time, many months from January.
“Well,” you tell them, “I have another interview coming up in January. So I’ll let you know right after that.”
“Oh,” they say. “That might be a problem. We really have to know by December 31st. Can you let us know by December 31st?”
What you could do is answer the "When can you let us know?" question with another question "Well, when do you need to know?". Dec 31st might sound like they have some sensible end of year thing, but I predict scummy companies/recruiters will pick a date just before you said you had another interview. Try to see what they say first.
I would seriously disagree with verbally accepting an offer and then reneging. It's unprofessional and although unlikely when you're just coming out college, it can follow you through your career.
I've been in this situation before and what's worked for me is to play the same game they do. If they tell you that they need an answer by a certain date, you tell them you're very interested in their offer, but you have already setup other interviews that you want to see through, because it's the right thing to do. Leave it at that.
Don't try and get the date changed, just be non-committal, and tell them you'll do your best. Job offers are very rarely yanked because you didn't met the first deadline for an offer.
When they call you 2 days before the deadline and ask if you have an answer, tell them you need "X" amount of time and then you'll give them a decision. Don't say "Can I have two more weeks", say "If you can wait until Jan 15th, I will give you an answer then". Recruiters have been jerked around before and if you provide your own deadline (and hold yourself to it) they'll often go along with it.
This seems a little short-sighted to me. It's noted that the company doesn't make the offer until they've had the candidate go through on-site interviews. It's not like they are making an offer on initial meeting. If both parties are interested, this should be acceptable.
Look at it from another perspective. The hiring manager has an open position to fill. They want to fill it with someone who wants to work with them. They can't leave a job offer on the table for a long period of time, just to have the candidate say no. Having that offer outstanding prevents them from making an offer to other potentially qualified (and more eager) candidates. An interested candidate should have no problem with a decision at this point in the interview process.
If the job offer is pulled because it is expired, and the candidate is really interested in the job, they should be able to get another offer if the position hasn't been filled by the time they got off the fence.
I graduated right before the peak of the 2000 dotcom bust, and I got a two exploding offers that I didn't accept. The offer I ended up taking was the opposite of an exploding offer: the nebulous offer.
I was told I was being tendered an offer. Great! I was ecstatic because the company was a "leader" in the industry I wanted to work in. Ten days and several phone calls later, my offer was still being "worked on." At that point I got impatient and continued interviewing. I had two more offers come in during the formation of the nebulous offer: one of the exploding type and one without conditions. I informed my dream company of the exploding offer and magically the paperwork appeared for their offer the next day. I took it.
6 months later I got laid off along with 20% of the staff.
Lesson learned: a company that treats you poorly when you're in recruitment will treat you poorly when you're working for them.
I'm surprised this is coming from Spolsky. Spolsky's companies must be getting big.
Small companies can often only hire one person at a time and therefore need short acceptance windows. Small companies (< 50 people) often have only one specific position open. It is unethical to make more than one offer if you hiring for a single position. Therefore small companies often need short acceptance windows so they can make an offer to someone else who might want the position and fill the job.
2. We're "small" by any reasonable definition and have structured ourselves so that we don't need to make expiring offers. It can be done.
3. Spolsky is talking about a very specific kind of hiring that bigger companies do, where the schedule is explicitly "interview in Q3-Q4, choose in Q4-Q1, start in Q2-3". It's this environment where exploding offers make sense.
I've been sitting on a Fog Creek offer since late August and there's been no pressure whatsoever to respond. They seem to take more of the approach of giving out offers to anyone they like, on the assumption that they'll be able to find something for them to do if they all take it. Joel definitely sticks to his guns on this one, but I wouldn't call either of his companies big (pretty sure they both fall in the < 50 people category).
Right, no pressure. That said, we are really running low on 30" monitors, and you might have to use an old 13" SVGA monitor if you don't accept by midnight tonight
He’s discussing the kind of company that recruits using mass-interviews of college students. Some are small companies, but most are BigCos with cubicle farms to fill.
Spolsky's companies are getting big, but this article was written a long time ago.
He worked for Microsoft, so he has some experience with a big company, and he has definitely spent a lot of time thinking and reading about big companies.
I think he wants to get the right number of employees but he'd rather have people genuinely interested in his companies than play the game. I think he also notices that some of the most promising candidates stop looking due to accepting one of these exploding offers, so he isn't able to conduct a thorough search.
IME Small companies usually have a hard time hiring people, and sometimes it's months between "Hey we should hire someone" and when that person starts. Hence they have already waited a few months from when they started looking to your interview, and as such a few more weeks isn't going to kill them.
Is it odd that the most surprising thing about this article, for me, was that people start looking for summer jobs in November?
Also, why aren't people accepting every offer they get, then at the start of summer[1] send an email about changing their minds to everyone who isn't the best offer? Or even play offers against each other?
I don't know about ethics, wouldn't everyone understand if a person's situation changes in 6 months? That's a lot of time.
Say I accept an offer in December, then get a better one in May. Wouldn't the December offer be understanding of the fact that hey, I'm gonna have to change my mind here.
You can treat life like a big exercise in game theory. But you're going to have this thing called a "reputation". Maybe you can get away with it on your campus interviews, but if you consistently lie to get the best of a situation, it will catch up to you. (Lying in this case being accepting an offer without the intention of taking it. As opposed to saying you need time to consider other offers.)
Joel is right -- this is a tactic used by second-rate companies. First-rate companies don't pull bullshit like this. Same with first-rate employees. Accepting every offer and then reneging on all but one marks you as a second-rate employee. It's the behavior of the desperate.
Personally I have always just applied for 1 or 2 jobs at a time so it's never been an issue.
All I'm saying is that life changes in 6 months. It can actually change a lot. Especially when you're young.
Think of it like this:
In December you verbally accept an offer to intern at, say, Adobe. It's a pretty cool offer and you have all intention on taking it.
Then in May you get a chance to intern at Google.
Would your mind process really be: "You know what, screw Google, I already promised to Adobe that I'd work for them over the summer"?
I never consider a job offer finalized until I am actually doing work for the company. When I start actually being given tasks and completing them, that's when I start declining other offers. Until then my time is fair game. Those who move quicker will get it.
Read what was suggested 2 posts up: "Also, why aren't people accepting every offer they get, then at the start of summer[1] send an email about changing their minds to everyone who isn't the best offer?"
That's lying. It's also a pretty cavalier attitude toward it which I think bothered several people.
If I accepted an offer from Adobe then I wouldn't continue applying for jobs. Accepting an offer usually involves signing something.
If you are really lukewarm about Adobe in December, I would just say: "I have multiple offers and am waiting for results toward the end of the year." They might move on or retract the offer, but you can always call them back in May and try to get the job again. It's not that big a deal. Joel's advice is good: try to schedule your interviews near each other.
Personally I don't apply for jobs which I'm not excited about... so I have only applied for 1 or 2 at a time ever. I definitely wouldn't be excited about a job with Adobe :)
Maybe the difference in attitude comes from the fact that I probably wouldn't be willing to sign anything 6 months in advance anyway.
Obviously when you sign something that means certain obligations, but in my opinion signing something also means a paycheck at most a month from the time of signing and actual tasks to work on at most a week from the time of signing.
Without any of that there's no point in signing anything and binding yourself down with noncompetes if you have several months of opportunity to work on other projects without worrying about legal issues.
I doubt this. By what mechanism will recruiters at company A use to communicate your failure to accept their offer to company B?
Accepting every offer and then reneging on all but one marks you as a second-rate employee. It's the behavior of the desperate.
No it's not. I can see why you might think it's shady, but it's not desperate. It's the behavior of someone afraid to push back, which probably happens more to college students than to people that have been working for a few years.
Read the comment -- I said that all likelihood you could get away with it. But as your career progresses, don't underestimate how small the industry is -- especially Silicon Valley.
All I'm saying is that if your first instinct in every situation is to say "How can I lie and get the best of this?" you're not going to be as successful as you think. People aren't dumb.
Also, with that attitude, you'll tend to attract others looking to take shortcuts and rip you off as well. Those people will also be smarter than you.
Software is a great field because it's not a zero-sum game. You don't have to rip someone else off to get ahead. These days software people are tripping over jobs on the way to work, so I'm not sure where the desire to micro-optimize comes from. Just apply to jobs that seem interesting, and accept only the offers where you would actually want to work.
Life is unpredictable so sometimes you might have to back out. But I wouldn't make a habit of it.
The original article is good reminder to push back when you see shady behavior. And it will actually work out in your favor because you will appear more desirable.
How will they find out? In the long run, because we dont live in a vacuum. Ive been called by colleagues to get my opinion on someone they want to hire because they have some reason to suspect i migh have dealt with them inthe past.
Which is enforced by what? Suing a college student for their future wages? Good luck recovering your legal expenses or getting anyone to ever work for you again.
> Thanksgiving marks the start of tech’s most intense hiring season, as promising computer science students start looking for summer jobs and internships.
I'm a student. Legitimate question, is this true? Should I be starting to get my act together for summer internships?
Yes. Google starts around this time, and Facebook starts even earlier. When I was in my Junior year I interviewed and got my offer from Facebook when it was still September. In contrast, Google didn't get back to me until November or so.
If you want them to hurry it up, you just need to mention your existing offers. In my Senior year, I was able to get Google to complete the entire interview-interview-offer process within a week and half, before the first week of October, because I had a Facebook deadline.
So the best bet is to interview early so you can use that as a negotiating stick for getting other companies.
At my co-op job (just graduated in May) we hired for summer starting in spring semester. If you start prepping now you can start applying day 1. Companies who know the internship schedule will post at the beginning because they want the most time to screen applications, even if that means doing 2-3 interview days on campus. The other upside is that you're not crunched for interview schedules. It's not unheard of for Google to get back to you a few weeks after you applied, or even after you past round 1.
If you start applying in spring, you also have the option of starting in fall if that's your initiative. This would probably fall more in the co-op category than internship. This lets companies overlap you with another graduating co-op. If their schedule is summer, spring, fall, you could want fall to overlap. Or if they do 4 terms it's summer, spring, fall, summer.
From experience, our interview pool sucked in beginning of fall, so don't apply for spring term if you can help it. We would interview in fall for the upcoming summer sometimes, but most of the time we were trying to hire to replace the students who stayed 5 or 6 terms. We found that it was mostly (though not entirely) rejects from spring hiring that couldn't find a job in summer and didn't go to school over that past summer. As a result of this happening for several years in a row, we stopped having on campus interviews in Fall, though if you applied to us directly we would interview you.
Yes, particularly in December. Better to get started before companies have had to make decisions on many other applicants already, and this is about when some companies will start considering them in my experience. Other companies will start later so you're not screwed if you don start now, but you will be passing up some opportunities probably.
It was true for me when I was in that spot. For the internship I had after my junior year, my on-site interview was the reason I skipped out on class and came home a day early for Thanksgiving break, and I was on the phone with them several weeks prior. IIRC, I think I got the actual acceptance in mid-January.
> Trust me on this one: there’s not a single hiring manager in the world who wants to hire you but would get mad just because you’re considering other offers.
Although Joel Spolsky certainly knows more than me, I'll ask anyway: Is that really true? Perhaps it is, but I would guess that this is a pretty big overstatement.
However, I think it can safely be said (and this is maybe not obvious to many prospective interns) that if the hiring manager does get mad, then that's a big red flag, and if you got rejected for this reason then you dodged a bullet.
He's just stating the obvious. If they think you're a desirable employee, they're not going to be offended if you are considering multiple offers. Or if they are, they are so unprofessional and petty, that you're better off staying away. This is business, not dating.
This is a really good point. I've worked for a company that had a great team, but HR were beyond words. Even where I to choose a word that would get me modded down, even here, it would fail to convey my animosity towards them. HR is usually pretty mellow about such things. Managers, on the other hand, can often be ego-maniacal fuckwads. But you don't (usually) want to work for those guys anyway.
There ought to be a database of companies that give offers with very short expirations. Not necessarily condemning the practice, but it would be good to know. Yelp, for example, routinely gives offers with a 5-day acceptance window.
This is every company. I've never heard of any company giving more than 3-5 days. If you work for a big corp, you know how unbelievably insecure management is, any delay at all would make them look very bad politically. When a hiring manager's whole career is based on appearances, which it usually is, a week is an eternity.
I totally agree with you for most job offers. This article, though, is directed toward college students looking for summer jobs and internships. For a position that starts 7 months from now I would expect a longer window to be acceptable.
A large Seattle company gives at least two weeks to graduating students. The new graduate market is fairly specific, though, with lots of fairly interchangeable people coming on market at the same time.
Sometimes the insecurity is justified. I've seen former managers extend offers only to retract them two days later when the staff requisition was retracted by upper management. If you're on a project and you need people this encourages you to hire as quickly as possible.
We did this to several candidates we wanted to hire and they all stopped responding to us. Good people do not like to be fucked with, and now we have a bunch of idiots working in our department (who do not mind being fucked with, because getting paid to do nothing is better than not getting paid to do nothing).
The career office at my school requires 2 weeks for students, including internships. Most of them play by the rules but I did have an internship offer that wanted a decision in 24 hours.
Does this ever work on anyone? I got an offer from Google that "expires in 5 days". I said, "I'm not going to decide that quickly, so I'll just re-apply when I'm sure I want to work there." Suddenly, the deadline was gone.
I've seen the same thing happen to 2 friends who applied to Microsoft, if you replace "gone" with "extended 2-3 months", which basically amounts to the same.
One thing to keep in mind also is that pushing back against this negotiation tactic is good, but sometimes people do just have to move fast. I had five interviews two Fridays ago, and I offered the second candidate the job - starting on Monday, 20% higher pay than she asked for in her resume, and interesting roles. But I had to know right away, because I had to know what to do with the next set of candidates.
Also worth noting is that she didn't have a job currently - her previous company pulled out of China, so there was no risk to her of joining. I was more careful when I recruited a woman who was working at the U.S. Embassy, which was a fantastic stable position with solid pay - I asked her to start here part time for a week or two to make sure there was a fit before quitting a very good job.
Anyways, point is, people want decisions fast for many reasons. Look to see if it's in your best interest to decide fast, and decide fast if so. If it's not, push back. Not all fast paces are petty bargaining moves though.
I think the real answer to this is as simple as disclosure. If you accept the "exploding offer", you should be explicit and clear that you are still considering other positions, and your acceptance is tentative. The company is fully informed of the possibility that you may leave in the near future and it is then their choice if they decide to continue with you or not.
If you don't want to provide that level of disclosure, you should inform the recruiter that you won't have a decision by x date, only by y date, and they'll have to live with that. They may continue to pursue or they may forgo your candidacy, but either way you were honest. There are plenty of gigs out there that you can get legitimately, even if a would-be ill-gotten gig is presented first. You shouldn't give in.
I don't think it's acceptable to accept an offer with the intent to leave in short order without providing disclosure of that possibility. Justifications like "Microsoft will survive" don't make your actions any more correct or honorable and should not be used. Man up and be honest with your potential employers.
This article seems very specific to cattle-call hiring of summer interns. The work doesn't begin for several months after the offer is made and this is a somewhat unique situation to students and internships at large companies.
When an offer is made for full-time, permanent employment a response is normally expected pretty quickly - within a few days. The interview process may take weeks or months but once the offer is made, it's expected that all parties are fairly serious and you are ready to turn in your 2-weeks notice if you are already employed, or possibly start right away if not.
The rules may be different for these two situations. In the latter, I definitely would not suggest accepting an offer and then backing out as a strategy. If you do, at least be aware that you may be burning bridges along the way.
General principle: Avoid doing business with people who use the same techniques as telemarketers.
An exploding offer is just as low and dirty as "Call within the next 20 minutes and you'll get a bonus set of steak knives, absolutely free!". It's an attempt to take advantage of a basic cognitive bias, loss aversion, in order to coerce you into acting irrationally.
If a company really does have a legitimate business reason to take on people in a hurry, they will negotiate. If I need a rush job from my printers, I pay extra. If I need a package sending next day, I pay extra. If I truly, desperately needed an extra employee to work on an urgent project, why on earth wouldn't I pay more to get the best possible candidate?
You have no ethical obligations to someone who is trying to deceive and exploit you.
I've noticed several comments about small companies not hiring at colleges. In my experience, this is not the case. It could just be that I went to university in Waterloo, Ontario (AKA Silicon Valley North) but many of the companies recruiting were quite small. One company I interviewed with remarked on how their previous intern wrote their entire Bluetooth stack.
If anything, this is the perfect place for small companies to recruit. If the candidate turns out to be bad, you know their contract is up in a few months (it's probably possible to fire them early, but I imagine that that is a lot more effort). If the candidate is good, you can offer a full-time position. You skip the expensive hiring process and they can hit the ground running when they come back.
This was a really common tactic at Microsoft back in the 90s, which is probably why Joel is familiar with it. It worked on me--I took an internship with MSFT instead of Apple, because Microsoft gave me under a week to respond, and the recruiting manager at Apple was on a week's vacation.
Microsoft is still very notorious for this. It's a shame, because out of the top five (Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google, and Microsoft), I felt that they otherwise have the most pleasant and effective recruitment policies (Google being the polar opposite here).
They use the same tactics at Amazon. Joel is spot on in this case, Amazon is just another mediocre company -- had to find out the hard way unfortunately.
True, but I was just wondering if they'd play the same trick on 'real people' :) Since it's not uncommon for fresh grads to be interviewing with several companies at the same time.
So accept the initial offer, do the interview with the #1 choice anyway, and if it works out, drop the runner-up. They don't need to be on your resume. The first choice doesn't need to know about any of this, though you might have to get creative with the interview scheduling.
I have no doubt that the scenario Joel describes is real, but anyone who gets screwed this way needs a bit more of the "dog eat dog" mindset. It's unfortunate the world works this way sometimes, but it's all in the game. I sympathize with any young kid in this position though, the unemployment rate alone has to make the prospect of turning down an offer, any offer, seem insane.
What would you think of a company that made someone an offer and a few weeks before the start of the internship said "you know, we actually found someone better so we won't be hiring you after all."
Both the company and the employee should be honest. Period. Anything else and you're being an asshole who's screwing people over.
Exploding offers are there 95% of the time because a company has a schedule to follow and can't just wait for someone to make up their mind for a month (especially for a 4 month internship which follows a tight schedule) - they need to be able to issue the offer to their second choice if the first choice isn't interested because otherwise they lose both.
It's so easy to rationalize being dishonest by projecting bad motives on others.
I understand that we (on Hacker News) tend to come from a startup perspective, so it makes sense where you're coming from. But in the context that Joel was describing, that's not a valid comparison. Surely Joel isn't recommending dropping a startup of one founder using this tactic (it would be better to say no early). He specifically mentioned Microsoft as an example.
If you as an individual got your offer rescinded at the last minute, that's a detriment to your career because you don't have time to make it up. If on the other hand you had 1/1000th of your offer rescinded at the last minute because you didn't give the other party a chance to consider other candidates ("give me an offer now" after the interview), well, sucks to be you but it's not so bad.
Similarly, if a startup that NEEDED one extra employee to fill a critical role suddenly lost that employee, that's an unfortunate tragedy. If on the other hand, Microsoft lost one college grad, that's just a rounding error.
I hope my explanation makes sense for why context is extremely important.
If a startup needed that one extra employee, they wouldn't have made the starting date months in advance and the decision period three days.
For that matter, I would not advocate signing for a job starting months away at a company that can be made or broken by one junior level employee unless your risk tolerance is extremely high.
I like Cicero's answer to the question of when it is OK to break your word. Updating for the modern world... Suppose someone gives you a gun and you promise to give it back when requested. Then the individual goes insane and then comes back to request the gun back. In that case (Cicero uses a sword but same story) Cicero says you have a moral obligation to break your word. I can't imagine you'd disagree with that and give back the gun to someone not mentally fit to handle one. So there are cases where it is morally right to break one's word.
Now, two points I would make:
1) I think it is always better to assume good intentions than bad, but I have been scammed by others in this regard in the past, though fortunately for not a huge amount of money. So keep your eyes about you when you enter.* This means among other things looking at the people who work in a specific environment and actively look for trouble signs.
* Keep your eyes about you when you enter
Be watchful always, be wary always
For you never know when need will be
To fight the hidden foe in the hall
-- Havamal, 12th century Icelandic poem
2) In the event where someone is patently dishonest, (and there are signs to watch for here, for example anyone who accuses everyone else of being dishonest....), then I see no moral obligation to treat them better. I am not a Christian. I feel that it is perfectly acceptable to pay back lie for lie.
3) Key question during an interview: Ask the hiring manager when they'd need a decision by. If the recruiter moves up the date, you know the recruiter is lying.
Your Cicero example is quite interesting. On one hand I too feel that it is not moral to break your word, but in the given example I would break my word and not give the gun back.
In an effort to reconcile these positions, I would argue that my agreement with the original gun-owner contained the unstated understanding that it would only be returned if he was mentally fit.
These sort of 'clauses' if you will are inherent in any agreement we make. It is understood that "I'll return the book to you on Tuesday." also contains the qualifier "assuming, of course, that: a meteor doesn't impact the earth, my car doesn't break down, the US doesn't enter nuclear war....etc."
Still, I don't feel that agreeing to work for a company does not include the understanding that I'll work for them "as long as I don't get a better offer elsewhere."
However, you may argue that it does, and I guess I'd have to give it to you in that case. It's just that...my own agreement wouldn't. By making this proposition I'm basically allowing anyone to break any contact by saying "well, my agreement contained this unstated understanding which lets me do ____". I think that most times the agreement is fully understood between both parties though. There are definitely examples where the line gets fuzzy though, which is why it's so important to communicate so that everyone is on the same page.
Usually each situation is unique and people tend to analyze the situation by themselves and take the best course of action on a case by case basis: people are free to judge if the recruiter represents a small company trying to juggle their single hire position or if they try to bait you in accepting a lower number by making the offer time-restricted.
You don't do to your worst enemy things you do to your friend. It's your (and everyone's) choice to do otherwise if you prefer a simple and implicit option every time. But "morality is people’s privacy, whenever you use morality in an agreement to bind other people should do something, you first of all, is immoral, you’re just a sanctimonious hypocrite." (Linus Torvalds - http://www.netxt.com/an-interview-with-linus-torvalds-despis... )
Everytime, I would rather have a potential hire be upfront and honest rather than 1. accept a position, 2. we stop looking, and 3. they drop out. That's just not professional. And as Joel says, by them telling us they have other options we're going to work on getting them interested in coming to work for us. I once lost a really great intern who was headhunted over a weekend, left me a voicemail on a Sunday morning to tell me he was being offered a position and took it on Monday first thing because I didn't get back to him immediately - I guess he was being pressured the same way as we had a great working relationship. It was really a shame as we didn't even get a chance to fight back for him.
You can't expect to see them, any more than a major car manufacturer can decide to enforce ethics in "their" sales rooms and remain competitive in the market place. The market dynamics for recruitment are dominated by adverse selection. The best recruiters can pick the best employers to work with and have little incentive to work in lesser-known companies. The (considerably larger) remainder of the market is run by sleazebag recruiters; that's all most companies will ever get to work with (internally or outsourced).
The simple fact is that as an employee you should be looking out for yourself. Period. That means pushing back on a hard deadline that will exclude you from trying to get your dream (or simply preferred) job.
If the company won't budge and you're unsure of your prospects then yes by all means accept it, go to the other interview and, if you get it, bail on the other one.
For those that object to this on ethical grounds, consider this scenario: the company has their preferred employee who passes on the job and then they offer it to you. If that first guy comes back and changes his mind, will the company say "oh sorry, we've offered it to someone else". They might. Or they might not (and I've had it happen where they haven't).
If your "safety employer" is a large company don't even give it a second thought. Microsoft or Yahoo will offer hundreds of jobs. Not everyone is going to show. It's factored in and the companies won't die if you don't show up.
Be more careful when it comes to small companies but, as others have noted, smaller companies may be in a situation between getting 0 employees and getting 1. That's a big difference from getting 199 or 200.
Ultimately though, the company's problems aren't your problems, particularly if they exploit your inexperience and relative lack of negotiating power to force you into making a premature decision. That company will have interviewed other people. It will simply extend an offer to the next person on the list.
If they can't get someone to join them they're either not offering enough compensation or they're simply not desirable employers. Neither of which is your problem.