> No, but if I know that you don't have another option, I'm not going to be as willing to give up more.
That doesn't really make sense. The candidate has at least this much in their favor:
1. A recruiter has had probably 2-3 phone calls with them, a technical person (or two) has done a phone screen, and they've taken up the time of, say, 4-6 people for in-person interviews. The company has already spent a not-insignificant amount of time (aka money) evaluating this person, and losing them over a (reasonable) salary increase would be foolish.
2. Having evaluated the candidate, the company has decided they want this person to work for them. Assuming the candidate is great for the position, but the only sticking point is salary, why would the company go back to square 1 to save a little money? Hiring is hard.
Available comp for a particular position is usually a range, and the initial offer will rarely (if ever) quote the top of that range. If the budget is available, and the candidate is good, whether or not they have a competing offer isn't relevant, unless you know that they'll be forced to take your offer even if you don't budge (which in tech, at least, is pretty rare, I'd think).
The company has already spent a not-insignificant amount of time (aka money) evaluating this person, and losing them over a (reasonable) salary increase would be foolish.
Any company worth anything has an a, b, and c candidate (plus, often the option to wait) already in their pocket. While what you say is true, the assumption that your demands are "reasonable" is one you simply cannot make. Only the other party can define that. The cost of hiring is not assigned to you, it is a sunk cost that the company will absorb regardless of who they hire. It's pretty insignificant to keep an already posted position open.
Assuming the candidate is great for the position, but the only sticking point is salary, why would the company go back to square 1 to save a little money?
Budgets. Existing pay scales. Their evaluation of your value. There are numerous reasons. The idea is that you want to work there too, for the most they are willing to pay. That means pushing to the limit but not going past it. The easiest way to do this is to force their hand.
One of the best ways to force their hand is to generate a call to action that is time-based. It's a pretty basic marketing principle that I'm really surprised a lot of people don't seem to understand. This is just like saying "Act fast, quantities are limited!"
> Any company worth anything has an a, b, and c candidate (plus, often the option to wait) already in their pocket. While what you say is true, the assumption that your demands are "reasonable" is one you simply cannot make. Only the other party can define that. The cost of hiring is not assigned to you, it is a sunk cost that the company will absorb regardless of who they hire. It's pretty insignificant to keep an already posted position open.
That hasn't been my experience (on both sides of the hiring table). From what I've seen, only 1 offer goes out at a time. Otherwise, both might say yes, and you can't retract it. Only if the offer doesn't work out does option b get an offer (if he's still looking by the time all of this is done).
For every day that a job goes unfilled, it's costing them lost market opportunity and delaying their launch.
That doesn't really make sense. The candidate has at least this much in their favor:
1. A recruiter has had probably 2-3 phone calls with them, a technical person (or two) has done a phone screen, and they've taken up the time of, say, 4-6 people for in-person interviews. The company has already spent a not-insignificant amount of time (aka money) evaluating this person, and losing them over a (reasonable) salary increase would be foolish.
2. Having evaluated the candidate, the company has decided they want this person to work for them. Assuming the candidate is great for the position, but the only sticking point is salary, why would the company go back to square 1 to save a little money? Hiring is hard.
Available comp for a particular position is usually a range, and the initial offer will rarely (if ever) quote the top of that range. If the budget is available, and the candidate is good, whether or not they have a competing offer isn't relevant, unless you know that they'll be forced to take your offer even if you don't budge (which in tech, at least, is pretty rare, I'd think).