That said, as a candidate, there is no real cost to pushing back against the exploding offer, i.e., "Well, I am interviewing with X as well, and don't feel it would be fair to make a decision without speaking with them". If the company sticks to their guns, you will have to make a decision, but if it's a bluff, they may back off (and you can make of that what you will).
So a lot of it is made up by HR folks who want hiring to appear in their reports to be more predictable than it is.
Having a 2 people added to a blacklist is fine. I've done far worse things to my career.
edit: ok, you don't need to be as rude as I am, but I'm a known asshole, so ymmv.
When I called the other company, they asked me to sign with them even though I'd already signed a different offer. Because this is tech and people do it all the time.
It just felt dirty. I had already made my choice, and would not have changed my mind. But I've got an older mentality where it feels like I am burning bridges if I reneg after signing an offer.
It's one thing if someone says they are debating between a couple offers (as you did); at that point I'll fight hard for the candidate that I want. But the instant someone commits to an offer somewhere else they're entirely off limits and I wouldn't ever counter-offer at that point even if they would take it.
If you ask, they say no, and then you reneg on the offer, it's kinda shitty but somewhat understandable. If you don't ask about the exploding offer in the first place, that's 100% you being a passive-agressive dick.
The exploding offer is a psychological manipulation designed to give the company leverage in negotiations, how is that not passive-aggressive?
I don't fault with the recruiter's pressure move at all. I mean the company probably has taken the job listing off and preparing for your orientation.
I understand the sentiment about at-will employment and companies can fire you at any time... but whenever there is a question of "Can I do this in a non-bridge-burning way?" you should take that path.
Of course the people exist (and that's why there's contracts to begin with... though it's also to clarify what's being agreed upon), but a lot of society is predicated on 99% of people not being jerks.
Maybe thats why the 1% are so successful then.
- 1789 French Revolution (Aristocracy rounded up and killed)
- 1911 Chinese Revolution (Ruling class rounded up and killed)
- 1917 Russian Revolution (Ruling class rounded up and killed)
- 1966 Chinese Cultural Revolution (Landholders rounded up and killed)
- 2003 Iraq War (Ruling class killed)
- 2011 Libyan War (Ruling class rounded up and killed)
 Buy short volatility with SVXY https://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSEARCA:SVXY
Give people time to consider their options, and they 'll be less likely to change their mind.
In particular, one tentative but reneged new hire was on a visa from India. I'm not sure what happens there. Though I'm not sure if the visa was sponsored by my place or not.
Still, it's shitty, and I don't engage in shitty behaviour just because someone else does it.
Avoid like the plague any company that only tells you about the explosion as the grenade already has the pin out.
Exploding offers are much more acceptable in the real world. If I have 3 top candidates for a specialized position, and the one I offer takes 2 weeks, I will probably lose the others. They will know thus aren't number 1, and might get offers elsewhere. So allowing the candidate to shop the offer may cost me 6-8 weeks to restart the process.
I got burned by this a few days ago.
Exloding offers are BS for college hires but not experienced hires.
On the other hand, exploding offers are absolutely a BS tactic to the extent that a student can accept at one school and then, if they get a later offer from a school they like better, reneg on the acceptance with relatively few consequences. They'll probably be out a tuition deposit, though, which may or may not be a significant burden depending on how wealthy the student's family is. That worries me because it becomes a serious abuse of non-privileged students' relatively vulnerable situations. And even without that, it's certainly still a craven exercise in shaking students down for pocket change.
I recall EDS having a "take it or leave it" policy that scared me away.
Nonetheless, a very famous tech company that was once very prolific, but by 2012, most people considered as their "second choice" company routinely issued exploding offers to CS students in late August/early September before anybody had a chance to interview elsewhere.
To this day, they still recruit on our campus, and while one of my best friends reneged on them to work at Google (which actually in retrospect turned out to be a very wise choice), I wasted a full year of my life at this second tier company; the actual employment experience proved to be as shady as their recruiting experience.
Needless to say, I was extremely unhappy there.
The recruiting staff had told me a week or two beforehand that this was their process. I didn't know the details of the offer until the day, though.
I like to ask, "When would you like to get back to us?" and then have a very reasonable conversation about any expectations or constraints.
if a company says, 'you have until next tuesday to respond to this offer', if it makes sense for me i agree, and if it doesn't i ask for more time (i.e i have another interview scheduled tuesday).
i also never take negotiating or career advice from a recruiter :)
Exploding offers are a bad "job smell."
Exploding offers are often BS all around, but candidates are inherently exploding due to the nature of the job market. You can't sit around unemployed waiting for an offer. And many startups can't sit around waiting for candidates to shop around either.
The second time I looked for a job, I asking for another couple of weeks. And they let me have it. That was a good sign. If they hadn't, I would have worried about them a bit.
Just like all of the other stories of "needing to hire someone immediately" and having an open head count go unfilled for months and months. It's not a credible story, I'm afraid. I've seen what it's like to hire people in tech, I've been on both sides of it. And frankly the issue of timeliness is so far down the list from being able to find someone experience and competent who you can trust as to barely be an issue. If you think you need someone in role RIGHT GODDAMN NOW, you're probably mistaken and need to readjust your expectations and values. Good people are insanely more valuable than random "butts in seats", it's worth it to make sure you're not alienating them or driving them away with silly hard sell tactics.
A great way to test the waters, is to reply saying:
something to the effect of "<This is a great offer and I strongly believe I'll choose this>" and then add "I have a two more interviews in the last stages and will be hearing back from them by end of next week. To be fair to everyone who has put in the effort, including me, I'd like to finalize by end of next week. Please let me know if this can be accommodated".
Once I even mentioned that it's in a company's best interest that I choose the offers after I heard from all, instead of agreeing now and then taking up on a better offer.
All this is possible if you are in a commanding position in your career (and financially stable). Otherwise, it takes a lot of confidence to call their bluff.
I have interview with about 20 companies in the last 10 yrs, only one has refused to budge from its initial exploding offer (and I'm glad I didn't go for that one)
I took the job despite blaring klaxons in my head because I was desperate for income. Didn't stay long though.
It's very simply a tactic to decrease the chances of you going elsewhere. Like many agency tactics, it's all about the commission.
If they expire in 24/48 hours I agree they're bull.
I'm a coder who has never actively recruited, yet still over the course of my career have given out maybe 20ish offers, and been in the interviewing process for countless others. I'm questioning the deep expertise implied here.