
Joel Spolsky On Tech Hiring: Beware the Exploding Offer - kunle
http://www.betabeat.com/2011/11/23/joel-spolsky-on-techs-hiring-season-beware-the-exploding-offer/
======
cletus
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.

~~~
nupark2
_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.

~~~
cletus
> 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?

~~~
nupark2
> _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.

~~~
rdtsc
> You're mixing things up.

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.

~~~
nupark2
_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.

~~~
rdtsc
Ok so what is your suggestion for this young college graduates? I am guessing
to not accept the offer?

~~~
nupark2
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.

~~~
rdtsc
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.

------
podperson
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)

* authority

* liking

* scarcity (this offer is strictly limited)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Cialdini#6_key_principle...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Cialdini#6_key_principles_of_persuasion_by_Robert_Cialdini)

------
Peroni
_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.

~~~
keithpeter
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.

------
brown9-2
This article is a word-for-word repost of an article Joel posted on his site
in November 2008: <http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2008/11/26.html>

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?

~~~
spolsky
BetaBeat asked for permission to repost this, which I granted. They did not
pay me for it.

~~~
warwick
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?

------
the_one_smiley
<http://kuznets.harvard.edu/~aroth/jama.html>

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.

------
jackowayed
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.

~~~
dustingetz
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.

------
alex_c
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.

~~~
cperciva
Most such companies have far more than one position they're trying to fill.
Small startups generally aren't recruiting at college career fairs.

~~~
marshray
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.

------
rmc
_“So, when can you let us know?”

“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.

~~~
dedward
Definitely... And never reveal other information that isnot their concern.

~~~
rmc
Exactly, things like previous or desired salaries then give them a benchmark
to start the conversation. Let them put the first number on the table.

------
codeslush
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.

------
kd1221
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.

------
simulate
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.

~~~
thedufer
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).

~~~
spolsky
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

------
Swizec
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?

[1] or rather a reasonable amount of time sooner

~~~
rcfox
Ethics? Not wanting to burn bridges?

~~~
Swizec
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.

~~~
chubot
Uh yeah, ethics.

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.

~~~
jrockway
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.

If you don't play the game, you lose.

~~~
chubot
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.

------
DavidChouinard
> _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?

~~~
orijing
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.

------
refurb
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.

RF

------
impendia
> 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.

~~~
GiraffeNecktie
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.

------
thurn
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.

~~~
codeonfire
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.

~~~
jfpoole
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.

~~~
jrockway
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).

------
jrockway
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.

~~~
thedufer
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.

------
lionhearted
Very good article. 100% agree.

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.

------
cookiecaper
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.

------
jakejake
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.

------
jdietrich
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.

------
rcfox
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.

------
herf
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.

~~~
stuffeverything
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).

(I declined both MSFT's and Google's offers)

------
alphamale3000
Old news. It's 3 years old. I love when the media digs out seasonal stuff.
Sigh...

------
azth
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.

~~~
jrockway
Amazon did not give me a deadline on their offer. Theoretically, I could call
them up today and be working in Seattle on Monday.

~~~
azth
Interesting. Are you a fresh college grad?

~~~
jrockway
No, so perhaps my experience is not relevant to the discussion. But companies
are as anxious to hire "real people" as they are interns.

~~~
azth
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.

------
pace
"You’re going to spend several years of your life in some cold dark cubicle
with a crazy boss who couldn’t program a twenty out of an ATM,"

------
josephcooney
I loved the phrase "with a crazy boss who couldn’t program a twenty out of an
ATM"

------
funkah
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.

~~~
axiom
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.

~~~
orijing
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.

~~~
nupark2
If it's wrong, it's wrong, whether you do it to your best friend or your worst
enemy.

A big company can absorb the cost of a schedule slip or missing an opportunity
to hire a great alternative candidate.

That doesn't make it any more right to break your word.

~~~
einhverfr
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.

~~~
gameshot911
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.

------
wavephorm
Whatever iPad mobile theme is being used here, please DO NOT use it on your
own website.

It is not usable, the font is too small, and frequently crashes my iPad.

------
dsolomon
Now that Joel has covered how credible and ethical recruiters, and the
companies they support, should behave - when can we expect to see them?

~~~
tptacek
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).

