BullzI Rebuttal #4 – Which Job Offer should you accept?
Chances are at some point of time in your career you have been at one end of it.
New job negotiated, accepted, joining date fixed, team members met. Out of the blue comes this other opportunity. It is more enticing, either much more money, bigger responsibility, better employer brand, chance to work with dream team, better career path…whatever.
As an employer you might have been left fuming at the employee for the last minute ditch. As an employee, it was gut wrenching but you did not want to take the wrong decision.
{democracy:5}
Please vote your choice and leave us your reasons in the comments box.
D5 Creation
A couple of points needs to be considered
a) One should always look at what is in stake by not keeping up the commitment and vice versa.
b) The stage in work life when this event is taking place is critical.
c) Beyond the material gains of the new offer there is something called conscience….. and only the person encountering this scene can decide best (assuming the person has that maturity)
Firstly I believe that you owe it to yourself to find the best opportunity, and take it. Everybody, including the man who interviewed you, would do the same. The question is, how do you handle the situation without burning bridges.
In my mind, if you think the second, newer path offers a better alternative, take it.
Talk to the guys you were to join, preferably in person or on the phone, and then in writing, about your reasons. I would NEVER tell them about it, and then see if they can match it, because i would never be comfortable doing it. It may seem logical, and the done thing, but there is a very thin line between recognising opportunity and being opportunistic. I’m a professional, not a mercenary, and there’s somethinmg about it that doesn’t feel right. The new offer must be a better opportunity to progress your career, not to use as a bargaining chip. You might gain a few rupees more, but you’ll lose the respect of your new employers, whichever of the two it may be. That’s my take. And I’m comfortable with it, both as an employee and as an employer.
I am always a bit skeptical of multi-actor multi-parameter scenarios. What is the duration being considered for judging right? Now – or over a period of time? And inevitably – who is the judge – the actor or the reader? What are we voting on – what we BELIEVE should be the right decision or what we KNOW is the right decision?
Keeping the commitment is the easiest decision. Delve deep into your value systems – erect the windscreens – plug your ears and that is it. After a few years, invoke the “I have NEVER regretted…” clause. Boring. Exactly what a guy like me would do. It is only when you look before and after, and start pining for what is not – that the debate enlivens.
The second option creates a grand entry path for that old bugbear – conscience. Countless crimes have been committed in the name of conscience. Show me a conscientious man and I will show you a sinner etc..etc… Why is negotiating the options wrong? After all – that is what you are taught to do all the time – negotiate with parents, with friends, with the boss, with the team, with the vendors and with god (or Higgs – whichever you prefer). So you are a hero when you successfully negotiate a deal – but somehow not so much a hero when you do it for yourself eh? Why shouldn’t one negotiate? Why shouldn’t one make an effort to get the best out of the one and only life one has to make a mark (rebirth is no guarantee – it may take quite a few of them if you take the circuitous route)? In fact the other side is also doing the same – people are put on hold, contacts are kept warm countless decisions are made after the first net is cast. In fact, an open trade policy is the probably the fairest in giving all parties an even chance. Reverse auctions are ruling commerce – why not the job market?
The third and fourth are the same. Both are a waste of time. All that is required is a notification – AT THE EARLIEST. That has nothing to do with values or conscience – it is simply professional. Not all trade deals are consummated..if they aren’t it is simply prudent to acknowledge and move on. Not knowing hurts – as much as an RSVP that is not honoured. It simply makes the other company less productive. Who wants to know why? Who cares to tell the truth? How important is the database of reject reasons to the company at the moment of growth? What is the rejected candidate going to tell you that you already do not know from your existing employees?
So where do that leave me? Where I started from – nowhere. I don’t believe there is one right decision in this case, simply because neither are wrong.Show me the man who knows the right decision and I will show you a delusional….damn – I repeated myself..arrrgghhh
Humans are rationalising rather than rational…it is important to sell the thought to self first. If that has been achieved conviction will drive the other selling. And one should never burn bridges…for senior managers it is not difficult to see through the bluff or lack of conviction. So one must come out in the open and state the right reasons for not taking up the first job.And then chase your dream.
Sanjeev,
In the trite words of Herrick:
“Gather ye rosebuds while ye may,
Old Time is still a-flying;
And this same flower that smiles today
Tomorrow will be dying.”
Employer and employee should be happy with each other right from the beginning. Getting into anything with a regret sitting on your shoulder, is a mistake.
It is important to know that you are not the only bright spark in the world, companies will survive not getting you on board. And vice versa.
Needless to say, it is critical to be transparent with all the people that matter.
Vinay
Hah!
Feel that the voting patterns reflects some of Dipan’s words. We always live in hope and think we can negotiate with our own conscience. Bottomline is that Job #2 is better — brand, opportunity, whatever whatever and therefore Job #1 cannot provide it. So negotiating with Job #1 really does not work here.
Just hope the dilemma arrives at all our doorsteps soon. Should be okay if you are not the placement person. Right Sonjeeb 🙂
Really! Job 2 >> Job 1. Only hassle is the hiring manager who will be “left in the lurch”. S/he will get over it. And you should have the B _ _ _ S to be able to stare at that person’s face and say it. Kindly, gently but with total honesty.
Been in such situations twice. Took Job 1 in the first instance and Job 2 in the second instance. Neat and symmetrical. Wrote mails and then called up an hour later. Different cities, that is why.
Cheers
From the point of view of the search partner, talent ditching last minute is an embarrassing but regular feature. My point of view is the person must weigh both options very very carefully and consider the second option only when the gain from it is very significant. More money should never really be the reason (unless it is more than a 40%+ difference).
Face this as an employer all the time, unfortunately.
BUT last when I faced the desirable problem as an employee kis kis ko kiss karoon, kis miss ko kiss karoon),
I chose “none of the above” & launched my own company!!!
No regrets!
[…] The difficult decision […]
I feel one needs to be fair to the first organisation by informing them of the new development. As organisations keep their options open and meet multiple candidates, the candidates too exercise the shopping option. One needs to be constructive about it and create a solution (2 way give & take) rather than create a loud cry. It’s important to understand who’ll be the immediate team you’ll work with as that defines the quasi organisation to you rather than just basing the decision on money.