am I being exploited as a volunteer?

A reader writes:

I moved to a new city back in August to be with my fiance. I knew I was taking a chance moving to a new city with few contacts in a down economy; however, I am a very resourceful and driven person and cannot abide sitting around and doing nothing.

In September, after conducting several informational interviews, I began volunteering/interning for a non-profit organization while still looking for full-time employment. My thinking behind this was that I would gain additional skills, have something to put on my resume to help establish myself here, cover employment gaps, give me a sense of purpose, and keep me from falling into potential unemployment depression.

Fast forward to early November, the Executive Director is lobbying the Chairman to hire me because they desperately need my skill set at the organization. So, on November 5 I met with the Chairman regarding working for the organization. He instructed me not to accept other offers and that he would need to speak with the rest of the board, but that he would like me to work for the organization in a development type role (which I want).

Two weeks go by and no news, so the ED and I meet with the Chairman again on November 18 about working here and that I will not be able to provide my services for free much longer. Again, I was told not accept other offers and that I had a job at the organization, but that he had to check with one source about how much they could offer me.

Another two weeks go by (one week was Thanksgiving week) and nothing. I have not accepted any other offers (unfortunately, there haven't been any either) and my financial situation is rapidly deteriorating. Now I have no idea what to do. I can't continue to work for free not knowing whether or not I have an official offer. Should I email the Chairman and let him know that I have appreciated my time here and that I will see the projects I am currently working on to fruition, but my financial situation is such that after December 17 I will need to devote 100% of my time to finding a paid position and will no longer be able to offer my services to the organization? I'm so confused and frustrated right now, and I am beginning to think I am being exploited by the Chairman.

I'm writing this when I'm really tired so it may be less coherent than usual, but: I think you're giving the chairman too much power. I also think you're letting your frustration with the timeline blur your thinking.

On the first point: Just because the chairman told you not to accept other offers doesn't mean you need to obey that request. To the contrary, it would be silly not to accept an offer you wanted just because someone told you that he might hire you but hasn't come through.  (Plus, "don't accept other offers" generally means something closer to "if you get another offer, come talk to me so that I have a final chance to make you an offer myself.")

And on the second point:  It's hard for me to see this as them exploiting you, since you willingly entered into the volunteer work, and it doesn't sound like you did so in the belief that it would lead to paid work there.  Keep in mind, this is what you said about why you started volunteering there: "I would gain additional skills, have something to put on my resume to help establish myself here, cover employment gaps, give me a sense of purpose, and keep me from falling into potential unemployment depression."

If that's no longer true, or if it it no longer makes financial sense for you to volunteer there -- or if you just don't want to anymore -- then you should stop volunteering, absolutely. But you did sign up as a volunteer, so I don't think it's fair to now see them as exploiting you.

So, how to move forward?  It sounds a bit like you're considering ending your volunteer work as a pressure tactic. I would rather see you make your decision about whether or not to continue volunteering there based on whether you yourself still want to volunteer, not on an attempt to generate pressure.

If you don't want to keep volunteering, then of course you should stop. But if it's more about your frustration with how long it's taking so long to get an official offer, you're better off just telling the chairman that you need to pursue other opportunities aggressively, that you intend to do so, and that if an official offer from them materializes at some point you'd be glad to consider it, but that you're moving your job search into high gear.

Then, assume their offer isn't going to happen so that the prospect of it doesn't get in the way of you conducting a full-fledged job search. If it does end up materializing, great. But meanwhile, you need to act as if it doesn't exist, because so far, it doesn't.

And for nonprofits that work with volunteers, there's an important reminder here about how they can lose volunteers when these situations are mishandled. In this case, you were happy to work for free -- until the prospect of being hired was floated in the way that it was. When they did that, it changed your expectations and lessened your pleasure in volunteering. So now, if they don't come through with the offer, they're likely to lose you as a volunteer and even leave you with a bad feeling about the organization itself. It's a good illustration of why groups that utilize volunteers need to be really thoughtful about how they manage this stuff and not approach it cavalierly.

can I accept a job knowing I plan to leave it in a few months?

A reader writes:

I have recently been offered a job with a company locally and have accepted it. However the hiring process a extensive background investigation is needed and will not be able to start this position until the January of 2011. I have more recently been offered a another job a couple of hours away. I would prefer to accept the position locally but I need an income that I could get from the other job a couple hours away. Is it acceptable to use this job until the other job and background investigation on done?

I get versions of this question all the time, all ultimately wanting to know:  When is it okay to take a job knowing you're likely to leave it quickly as soon as something better comes along?

First, two situations where I'll give you an immediate pass:  (1) If you're being honest with the first employer about your intent and they hire you knowing that, go for it, and (2) if this is a job or industry where high turnover is typical and routine, such as retail, call centers, and so forth, fine.

But aside from that, here are some principles that you should apply to any question along these lines:

* If you're not being candid with the employer, what will the impact be on them? In many businesses, an employee leaving after just a few months means that time, money, and other resources were wasted on training; they have to go through the time and expense of a new hiring process; and often the area your role was responsible for suffers setbacks, either minor or major. Is this a large business that can more easily absorb the impact, or a small business that will feel it much more? Is it a nonprofit that will have to divert resources away from a valuable mission to respond? Different organizations are impacted to different degrees by this, and you want to think about what the impact will be in your case.

* Are you willing to accept a possible hit to your own reputation?  It's likely that you will always be "the guy who left after we spent two months training him." You won't just burn bridges with the first organization; it may impact you other places too, because the world is fairly small. Are you willing to accept the possibility that you might be going after a job you really want some day and find that your interviewer was the co-worker who picked up the slack after you disappeared -- or knows one of those co-workers? (I know this sounds like a loaded question, but it's a genuine one. You might weigh everything and decide that, yes, you are willing to accept this. That's fine; I just want you to think it through first.)

Speaking of reputation, it's also worth asking yourself what your new employer will make of this. They may assume you're willing to do the same thing to them.

* This one is hard to quantify, but you should at least be aware that there were probably other people who really wanted that first job and would have been thrilled to get it ... and might have gotten if it the employer had known that you had secret plans to leave after a few months. Again, your call to make, but this should be part of the ethical landscape that you think about.

Now, whenever this topic comes up, someone points out that you don't owe employers any loyalty because they may fire or lay you off without notice, etc. But it's a rare employer who will hire someone planning to fire her in a couple of months, or who will hire you and then rescind the job offer when a better applicant shows up. And yes, plenty of employers treat employees badly, but it's far from true of everyone, so at least make sure you know who you're dealing with before you paint everyone with the same brush.

All that said, it's certainly true that employers make decisions based on what's in their own best interests. But the reason they don't, for instance, hire someone planning to fire her in two months, is because that's not in their best interests. It's not in their best interests to become known as an employer who does that kind of thing, or to make their current employees worry they'll do it to them. And it's not in their interests to become known as a company that treats people unfairly or callously, because they want to be able to attract and keep good people. And something similar is true for you: It's not in your own interests to get a reputation as someone who doesn't keep commitments, who cuts and runs, or who acts without integrity or concern for others -- because you want to to be able to work with good people too.

So just as employers will act in their own best interests, you should too. But you should make sure you have a really comprehensive picture of what those interests are -- and for all the reasons above, it's not as simple as "Job A is better than Job B."

can I back out of my new job if I get a better offer?

I have a feeling this one is going to generate disagreement. A reader writes:

I recently accepted an offer with an organization and started this past week. Four days into it, another potential employer I'd interviewed with once (at the same time I interviewed for my new job) has asked me to talk with them a second time. While I like the job I just started (and the employer), I would love the other position more - it feels more closely aligned with my interests and values, and it is 20 miles closer to home. Both jobs pay the same salary. Any advice as to how to handle such a situation?

There are very few cases where I'd advise even considering taking a different job right after starting a new one, because doing so can harm your employer, your reputation, and even other job-seekers.

Let's start with the damage to your own reputation: Anyone who hears about this isn't going to rely on your word in these sorts of matters again; you'll be known as someone who cuts and runs. And people have a way of popping up again at other companies you may want to work for. Imagine that you really want a job offer in the future, and one of the decision-makers is someone who used to work for this employer. "Joe took a job with Acme but left for a different offer a week into the job" are not words you want spoken about you when you're interviewing.

Now let's talk about other job-seekers. Some of your fellow job searchers really wanted that job, but didn't get it because you gave your word that you'd take it. And it's not as easy as the company now going back to them, because some of them have since moved on to other things. (This is the same reason that it frustrates me when someone accepts an interview for a job they have no intention of ever accepting; that's an interview slot that could have gone to someone genuinely excited about the job but who got a rejection letter instead.)

And now, most controversially, let's talk about the impact on your employer. After you made a commitment to them, they took you at your word. They invested time and money in preparing for you and training you. They've planned work around the assumption that you'll be there. And they've turned loose their other candidates. They'll probably need to start the hiring process all over again with those back-up candidates gone, which means losing more time and more money, plus the opportunity cost of having the position open far longer.

At a large company, maybe this is easily absorbed. But I can tell you from seeing it firsthand that at smaller organizations, it causes real harm, so I strongly recommend factoring in the size of the organization.

The reason I called this controversial is that that I know there are a lot of people out there who say, "The company wouldn't hesitate to cut you loose if they needed to, so you don't owe them anything." The thing is, though, this isn't really true. The reverse of your situation happens all the time: An employer hires someone for a job and then, a few days later, a resume comes in from someone who looks even better qualified for that position. They don't (usually) rescind the job offer and say "sorry, someone better came along." They (usually) say "damn, maybe next time" or "I wonder how else I could use this late-breaking applicant." (There are exceptions to every rule, of course, and I don't doubt that some employer out there has handled this badly. But the majority don't.)

That said, it's true that companies make decisions based on their own best interests, and so it's reasonable that you should make decisions based on yours. But getting a reputation as someone who doesn't keep commitments and who leaves a job after a week isn't exactly in your interests. (Just as it's not in an employer's interests to get a reputation as a company that terminates people in anything other than a thoughtful, fair, and compassionate manner.)

Now, with that lecture behind us, there are a very limited number of situations where you can make a better case for what you're considering:

* The other job is your dream job, an opportunity you may never get again, and the first job is just something to pay the bills.
* You realized very quickly at the new job that there is something profoundly wrong with it -- the boss or culture is a nightmare, the job description is totally different from what you were told you'd be doing, etc.
* Your financial situation changed unexpectedly (family health crisis, spouse lost his/her job, etc.) and the other job pays dramatically more.

In these cases, it's easier to defend breaking your commitment, as long as you (a) fully explain the reason to the first employer, (b) apologize profusely and demonstrate that you know what a terrible situation this puts them in, and (c) realize that you're almost definitely burning that bridge.

But it doesn't sound like your situation fits this category: You like the job you just accepted. You knew what the job was and that you were getting a long commute when you accepted it. You knew it was possible that some of the other companies you'd applied to could still contact you, but when you accept a job, you are saying "I am going to stop considering other jobs for a while now." It's hard to make an ethical argument for backing out at this point.

I'm bracing myself for wild disagreement in the comments, though, so bring it on...

turning down an employer's offer a second time

A reader writes:

Here's a situation I never would have seen coming in this market. I received an offer for a job about 1.5 years ago. Ultimately I rejected it to stay at my current employer because the compensation package as a whole was just not quite enough to allow me to pull the trigger. 

Fast forward to today - my current job has lost a little extra luster due to precarious security (ongoing layoffs) and reduced benefits. I start looking for jobs and lo and behold, the same company needs the very same position. Naturally I apply, although of course I'm looking elsewhere as well. I interview with all the same people and more. And now it appears an offer is imminent. I expect it to be similar to last year's, only this time I'd take it for sure. 

Except....I also have late word of another imminent offer (or at least I think it is) that promises a significantly better package and a comparable quality of job.

Neither offer is in hand yet, but I'm already dreading the potential of turning the same employer's offer down a second time - if it were to come to pass. I guess it's just human conscience, but that just feels like it's wrong in some way. But then I think I'm just following all the rules, applying and applying until I get offers in hand, and logically I can't think of anything I'm doing that's really wrong here. Can you? Give me some assurances that an employer, even in this situation, has to know that I'm not only looking their way!

I don't think you've done anything wrong at all;  you're just dealing with a convergence of events that's going to put you in an unfortunate situation (if having two job offers can be considered unfortunate).

My take would be different if you had allowed yourself to become a serious candidate with little intention of accepting the job, or if you'd had serious reservations you hadn't shared with them. But neither of those things is true. Your interest was genuine, you didn't hide anything from them, and you planned to accept an offer if you received one. And of course it's reasonable that you were looking at other jobs as well -- it would have been foolish not to, in fact, since there were no guarantees that you would get this job, no matter how promising things looked.

As is so often the case, the best way for you to handle this, if it does come to pass, is to be candid and straightforward. Tell the company that you've been seriously interested in the position all the way through and had every intention of accepting an offer if one came, but there's now another offer in the mix that you can't turn down. (Also, keep in mind that they may want to counter that other offer; you never know.) Explain that you're worried this is frustrating for them, and that you feel terrible and hope that won't think you wasted their time, and that that was never your intention.

Of course, a lot of people in their shoes wouldn't seriously consider future applications from you, out of fear that they'd be wasting their time. But if you express yourself well, a really good employer will be able to read you well enough to see that you operated in good faith. Good luck!

should I work long hours for low pay in order to get experience?

A reader writes:

I have a question regarding my first "real" job. I recently had a second interview for a company that went really well. My interviewer and I developed a real rapport, and I think I'd really like the people I'd be working with.

The problem is, the job is really, really low pay for really, really long hours. I'm a hard worker and willing to put in time and effort, but the math works out to less than minimum wage in an expensive city. I'll probably need food stamps just to get by. And the hours - even if I wanted to get a second job tending bar or something to pay the bills, I would literally not have the time. Unless I actually didn't sleep and stayed awake through shots of Red Bull. It's long, long, hours.

My question is do I take the job if offered? I haven't had any success with my job search (the numbers are just depressing, so I'll spare you) and I would feel guilty, and somewhat desperate, if I turned down a resume-building job. I've asked several people, though, and they think the company would just be taking advantage of me.

What do you think would be the lesser of two evils? Taking the job and sucking it up for a year, or continuing my search with the chance I may not have another opportunity for quite some time?

The answer is ... I don't know. Only you can decide if what they're paying you and the experience you'd get is worth it.

But I can suggest that you see if you can turn the offer into a better one. For instance, you could tell the company that you're really excited about the work, but given the salary, you don't think you could swing those hours, since you'd need to take on side work to supplement your income. Would they be willing to let you work more reasonable hours in light of the pay? Or, in light of the hours, will they negotiate on pay? At a minimum, even if you ultimately decide to take the job as it currently stands, you want to at least ask about these things. Sometimes people are very willing to negotiate.

And if they say no to that, maybe you want to ask them if they'd consider part-time work at lower pay -- so that you're working fewer hours, leaving you time to take on other work, but you're still getting the experience that will eventually help you move on to something else.

It's completely okay to ask about these kinds of options. The answer may end up being no, but you shouldn't have qualms about raising the questions -- especially given the low pay. They may know that the pay is ridiculous but financially have no choice, and they might be relieved at some creative suggestions.

I'm also curious to know what the work is and why the pay is so low. Is the company or work prestigious? Is it a nonprofit?  Is this the market rate for this work, or is the company offering far less than other employers for similar work?  (And if you don't know if it's market rate or not, start doing some research; that's information you want to have.) 

In other words, is there some reasonable narrative explaining why the pay is what it is? There are some reasons to accept less than market rate pay, like the ones above, but you want to know that's what's going on, so you're making the choice deliberately.

Good luck!

is it okay to resign while I'm still waiting for my new job's formal written offer?

A reader writes:

I've been working at a company for the last year and a half, and its been great for what it is-- first job out of college, I've learned a ton, and they've been very nice about working with my schedule. I've been working full-time and going to school at nights to get my masters degree, and they've been great about accommodating that.

I've been offered another position more in line with what my education (and newly achieved masters degree!) is for, and I'm excited to take it. However, until the background check is completed, the formal letter of intent from the new position can't be sent out to me. I know there's nothing in the background check, and that I'm going to be offered the job barring massive catastrophe, but here's the rub:

I've told my direct supervisor about the job offer and my planned final date, and she'd like me to tell our boss this Friday (giving them a little more than 2 weeks notice). I'm okay with the idea in theory, but it makes me nervous to offer anyone *anything* until I have the formal letter of intent from the new job in my hand.

If I know the other job is more or less solid, is it okay to offer notice? Or do I wait and keep my mouth shut?

Do not under any circumstances resign until you have a firm offer in hand. "More or less solid" isn't solid enough, unless you're willing to risk being unemployed over it. 

Until you have a written offer, you don't really have a job offer, no matter how certain you think it is. Positions get cut at the last minute, background checks turn up things that you'd never think would be a problem but the company does, all sorts of crap can happen. 

And if you give notice before you have the offer and then it falls through, your current employer may have already made plans to replace you, or for whatever reason may not be willing to let you rescind your notice (which also happens), and then you'd have neither job.

(Not to freak you out. Chances are that this won't happen, but the consequences are serious enough if it does that you don't want to take the risk.)

So you want to have the offer in writing. I recommend that you:

1. Tell your direct supervisor that you'd like to wait until you have the formal offer before officially giving notice or setting an end date, but that as soon as you do, you will formally give notice and talk to your other boss. Assure her that you'll give at least two weeks notice when you do.

2. Tell the new company that you are excited about the offer and that you will give notice at your current job as soon you have the formal, written offer from them. 

They should implicitly understand that this means that the longer they take in getting you that written offer, the further back your start date may need to be pushed (depending on how far away it is now). 

3. It doesn't sound like you've agreed on a start date with the new company yet, but in case I'm wrong, and one has been discussed: Ask how long they expect the written offer to take. If they give you a timeline that implies you may not have the letter in time to give sufficient notice at your current job, explain that you need to give your current employer at least two weeks notice, and ask if it's possible to (a) push your start date back slightly to accommodate that or (b) get a written offer letter sooner.

As long as you're polite in asking for these things, they should accommodate you. If for some reason they balk, keep in mind that an employer who pushes you to screw over your current boss (and your own professional reputation) by giving insufficient notice, or one who doesn't understand your need to protect yourself by getting a written offer before you resign your old job, is an employer to be wary of anyway.

Good luck!

how to turn down a job offer

A reader writes:

I know you write a lot about rejecting candidates for job offers. Do you have any sound advice for the best way for a candidate to reject a job offer when it's not the position for them?

As always, straightforward is good. Thank them for the offer, but say that you've decided it's not quite right for you. Say you hope there's opportunity to talk again in the future, if that's true.

If there's a specific reason that you're comfortable sharing -- such as salary or job duties -- you should. If they know what didn't work for you about this offer, they may approach you about something that's more appealing to you in the future.

And tell them quickly. If you know you're not going to take the offer, don't drag it out. Their number-two candidate may be waiting anxiously for a "yes."

job offers and lengthy pre-planned vacation time

A reader writes:

I find myself in a really tight position here. I am going to an interview tomorrow for a job that I would really like. However, in less than a month I’m going on a pre-planned family visit in China for a little over a month (May 21 to Jun 29). It is nerve wracking because I do not expect things to happen so close to each other.

I already have a job where they say they will be happy to keep me. So even if they do not hire me I am not going to be jobless. But I really want to get a job that is more in line with my degree.

I am really irritated right now and I hope you can help me out a little.

Don't be irritated. The situation is just going to (maybe) require you to make a clear choice between what's more important to you: the trip or the job.

Now, if the trip were a week or two, it would likely be a non-issue. But given how long it is, you're right to be prepared for it to give them pause. Of course, it depends on how long they take to make a decision too; the longer it takes, the safer your trip gets. Most employers are willing to wait a month for the right person to start and sometimes a bit longer. 

In any case, here's what to do:

1. Go on the interview. Don't mention the trip; you don't need to give them a reason to discard you at this stage.

2. After the interview, start figuring out whether or not you even want the job (you never want to decide you do before you've ever interviewed anyway; that's like deciding you want to marry someone hot you see on the street and have never spoken to). And if you do want the job, do you want it enough to either cancel your trip or shorten it, should it come to that?

3. If you get a job offer and you want to accept it, explain that you're in a bind because of this pre-planned trip. And if you're willing, tell them you're willing to shorten the trip and negotiate to see how far out you can push the start date.

But ultimately this is going to require you to be really clear in your own head about what you want more. And clarity isn't such a bad thing.

[By the way, if they haven't made a decision by mid-May, let them know you're going out of the country on May 21 but will be checking email (you'll be checking email, right?) so they can reach you.]

retaliation for not accepting previous job offer?

A reader writes:

I recently applied for a position in a company. A few months ago, I had interviewed for a different position in another division within the same company and received an offer. I reflected on where I wanted to go with my career and what I am presently working on and decided that this was not an opportunity that would help me move forward career-wise. I explained that to the recruiter and the hiring manager at the time, when turning down that offer.

Back to my applying for a different position with them now. When the hiring manager for the new position discussed my application with the hiring manager for the previous position and the HR person handling that previous position, apparently they raised a large number of objections and ultimately convinced the new hiring manager to not extend an offer. I also know that the new hiring manager was extremely interested in hiring me because I was an employee referral and was very impressed when we met for a brief two hour chat.

Is this kind of retaliation legal? What connection does a previous job offer have to do with another position in another division even though they are within the same company?

Yes, it's legal. Their reasons could be petty (taking it personally that you turned down an earlier offer) or rooted in something legitimate: for instance, maybe they felt that you hadn't been straight with them about your interest level for the other job earlier in the process, and that you'd wasted their time when you'd never had serious intentions of taking that job if offered. If they feel that way, they could be right, or they could be misinterpreting in an uncharitable way, or they could be flat-out wrong.

(By the way, one way to try to head that off when turning down an offer is to explicitly assure them that your interest in the position had been strong and genuine all the way through.)

But the real question here is whether there's anything that you can do about it now. It may be too late, but if they haven't yet firmly closed the door, it might be worth reaching out to the hiring manager for the second position and say that you're worried that the two others are reacting to the fact that you turned down their earlier offer, that your reasons for doing so were ____, and that that doesn't apply to this new position because _____.

Good luck!

HR told me they're taking a risk in hiring me

A reader writes:

I recently received a job offer from the HR person of the company that I interviewed with. She said "they are taking a risk in hiring me and offering me the job." I thought it was a strange statement.

When the managers in that company discuss me, they can say "OK, let's take a risk and hire this person." But would a HR make that statement to a candidate when offering the job?

I think it is a negotiation tactic so that I won't ask for a higher salary, work my ass off to prove I am not a risky person, and don't ask for raise for a couple of years.

What is your opinion? Interested to know.

It's one of two things. Either it's a negotiation tactic, like you suspect, designed to make you not ask for more money, or it's an awkward attempt at a compliment. I can think of a couple of times when I've said to a candidate who knew her experience was on the light side, "We had candidates with more experience than you, but ultimately we were really impressed with your ____ and think you would excel in the job." It's possible that the HR person was going for something like that and screwed up the delivery.

On the other hand, do you think you're a risk? If it's clear that you're not the traditional ideal candidate for the role but you pushed for them to take a risk on a new approach, then maybe she was just acknowledging that. But if that were the case, you probably wouldn't be asking me.

And frankly, the reality is that every hire is a risk to one degree or another. People can blow you away in an interview and then crash and burn once on the job. But hiring managers don't normally feel the need to remind candidates of that when making an offer.

company made me a tentative offer, then hired someone else

A reader writes:

I have a question about what I should do after, I feel, I have been lied to in my job search.

I applied for and was interviewed at a local university. During the interview I was unable to meet with the head of the department because she was recovering from a surgery. The next day they set up a telephone interview for me to have with her because she was unable to meet in person. At the end of the phone interview, she said: "We are very impressed with you, I would like to tentatively offer you the position providing your references check out" (well that is pretty much what she said). Then she continued to say she would call my first two references that were not my current supervisor, work with the university to put together a job offer, then she would send me the offer, if I accepted she would call my current supervisor and if everything checked out, I would be hired. I was really excited!

I provided her with all my references knowing they would check out. Two days later, a Friday, she emailed me to say she had not gotten a chance to call my references, but would call early next week. Two and a half weeks went by, one of them was during a huge snow storm, and I decided to follow up to see if she was able to contact my references, etc. I know these things take time.

She answered that they had decided to hire someone else who had a different skill set then me. I was angry, I replied and told her I was under the impression I had the position contingent on my references; I asked if she had contacted them and if it was something they said. She replied and said it was not that at all, they were still interviewing when she had talked to me and thought the person they hired was a better fit. She then said everyone really liked me and I should continue to apply to jobs in their department.

I have not followed up yet. I know I should not think I have the job until I have an offer and was prepared for some possibilities, but not that they were interviewing other people still! Should I follow up with her? Is this normal, should I get used to it and I actually have no reason to be angry?

Ugh. It's true that you shouldn't count an offer until you have it writing.

She was sloppy in how she handled this though. She was sloppy in her language when she let you think the job was yours, pending a reference check, and I can't believe that she didn't apologize profusely to you when she then had to deliver a different message later on. Your account here makes it sound like she was weirdly cavalier, like she thought it was no different from any regular job rejection. I really, really don't like that.

(Plus, what's up with her not even bothering to tell you until you called her to check in? I am not a fan of this woman.)

In response to your question of whether you should be angry, I'd say that you don't get anywhere by being angry in a job search. Take in all the information you're receiving about an employer treats people, but don't get angry. Use that information to make good decisions for yourself. Maybe in this case you decide that this woman is flighty and you wouldn't want to work for her. Or maybe you decide this was bad luck, or even a miscommunication, and that you're open to future jobs with them.

And always, always assume you don't have an offer until you're reading it in writing.

is this company stringing me along?

A reader writes:

I interviewed with a company earlier this month and for the first time in the year+ I have been unemployed, I knew I completely killed it. I was myself, I clicked with the people, and the technical portions of the interview could not have gone any better. The next day, my feelings were confirmed when the head of their HR team called me to tell me that the team really enjoyed meeting with me, wanted me to know I was the clear "front runner" but because they were early in their interview process, they would have to get back to me in two weeks when the interviews concluded. She also asked if that would be okay with my time line, and of course I said yes, and hung up very excited.

Well, two weeks passed and no word, so I emailed her to see what was going on. According to her, the snow in the last two weeks has pushed back some of the interviews and they won't be able to make a decision for another "few weeks," yet she reiterated that I am at the front of the pack with regards to candidates, the team really likes me and she hoped that I could accommodate their timing.

Maybe its because I have had a lot of crushing disappointments this last year+, but I don't know if I can believe her. It seems (and this happened to me once before) that I am being strung along while they look for a better candidate. Am I paranoid or are my concerns valid?

I guess I feel like if I was truly the best person for the position, they would make me an offer ASAP, especially since they have two other positions open on the team, though in a slightly different role than the one I preferred (though I, and I assume all candidates, interviewed for both). Obviously there's nothing I can do to speed up their process, but I am expecting to get an offer from another firm at the end of this week and while I am far less interested in that position, I have been unemployed for a LONG time and I don't know that I can turn down a credible offer in the face of really great feedback with no clear action. What do you think? Am I being too anxious or could there be something to my paranoia?

Actually, there may be something you can do to speed up their process, but we'll get to that in a second.

First, I wouldn't assume they're stringing you along at all. Some companies really take a while to move through the process. Some are just slow. Some have policies or conventions that require them to interview a certain number of candidates. And lots of hiring managers aren't comfortable hiring a candidate right off the bat, even if the person is an obvious rock star; they still want to see a reasonable number of other candidates, because the responsible thing to do is make a good faith effort toward ensuring they really do have the best candidate, no matter how great you are.

So while you shouldn't count on this until you have an offer in hand, it doesn't sound like there's any reason to doubt that you're in the strong position they say you're in. I would never tell a candidate she was my front-runner unless she really was; you just don't say that to people if it's not true. It would be weird and gratuitous, like saying "I love you" to a date you're not sure you even want to see again. Again, none of this is a guarantee -- but they don't sound like they're intentionally stringing you along.

Now. If you do get another offer in the meanwhile, here is what you should do: Ask the company making the offer when they need to hear back from you by. Best case scenario, you'll get a week -- but be aware that a few days is not uncommon, so you want to move quickly. (And if they ask how long you need in order to make a decision, don't ask for longer than a week; they'll start questioning your interest level.) Then, contact the other company immediately. Explain that they are your first choice and you really want to work for them, but that you just got an offer that the clock is ticking on. If they're as interested in you as they seem, they may expedite things so that they don't lose you.

A variation of this: You can contact them right now, without the other offer, and tell them that you're expecting to get one within days. That may get things moving too.

Good luck!

a demand not just for salary history, but benefit details too

A reader writes:

How weird do you think this is? After my second interview today, the person in charge of the organization (who I've been corresponding with all along) emailed and said I am their first choice, and can I please send my current salary, info on the value of all my current benefits, including 401(k) contributions, etc, so he can make an appropriate offer. While I understand the current salary question, isn't there a standard "average" of what benefits are worth? I thought that was slightly odd. Of course, I've been out of the interviewing/job offer world for some time, so maybe it isn't!

Ugh. While I appreciate his interest in making you an offer that beats your current package, there's no reason he can't just ask you what your salary expectations are, taking into account things like benefits. Oh, wait, actually there is -- the fact that so many employers think it's okay to base your compensation on what their competitors thought you were worth, rather than figuring out what you're worth to them. I really hate these invasions of privacy, which are designed to benefit the employer and lower the negotiating power of the candidate.

That said, it sounds like you're about to get a job offer, in a terrible market. So congratulations on that!

weird behavior during salary negotiations

A reader writes:

I have a question about something I ran into in a previous job than the one I am in now:

I had an interview for a job and returned home afterward. Only about two hours later, the HR manager called me and asked if I could come back to the office. It wasn't until I drove back to their office that same day, that they then offered me the job. Then things got extremely weird and uncomfortable.

They brought out papers with their offer on it and I politely asked if we could discuss it. I was in a room with the HR manager and my future boss. I brought up extremely valid points to renegotiate the salary. Then everything took a turn. They justified such a small salary by saying that I lived at home with my parents. (Though true, this seems completely irrelevant to me and there was no way that they could know that except for my age at the time - 22 and out of college. I lived at home with one parent until I could find another place and I still paid rent, utilities, etc.) Then they justified such a small salary by saying that I was on my parents' health insurance. (This was completely untrue. I was not on anyone's insurance except my own which I paid for.) I politely corrected these misconceptions but they didn't really seem to care. It was as if they had made up a story in their heads about who I was and what they owed me based on that.

As far as asking for a slightly larger salary, one of them finally said, "Well, when I was right out of college, I made less than $18,000 per year at my first job, lived with my parents and lived off of credit cards for the first two years." I didn't see at all how this story was related to me, especially since he graduated from college in the eighties. This was my first time negotiating a salary and I truly needed a job, so I accepted their offer of just $1,000 more on the salary. Needless to say, this was a horrible experience and I started the job with a very, very bad taste in my mouth.

I would really like to know what your take is on all of this and what advice you have for future negotiations. Especially:

- Is it odd for an employer to interview you and call you to return to the office that very same day? They didn't call, offer it to me and let me think about it. They only asked if I could come by, put me in a room and made their offer.
- Is it odd that they offered me the job in person and not on the phone?
- How do you handle such inappropriate comments and assumptions during a negotiation?
- Was any of this behavior normal and I should know this now and accept it so that I don't expect better treatment in future negotiations?

I realize now that if they were asking things like that, they probably were a company that I didn't want to work for. I really needed a job, though. I have since left and it was truly a horrible job with a very corrupt company. The job itself was very impressive but I only lasted five months in that atmosphere. It was a toxic environment.

I am now in a great job with wonderful people. I would just like some help knowing what's right/wrong in negotiating a salary and accepting a job offer. I feel like all of this was not normal but perhaps it's more common than I think.

No, this was all weird.

Assuming they know things about you they they don't know, like your living arrangements: Weird.

Justifying a salary offer by what they assume your expenses are: Weird. (And irrelevant; your expenses are none of their business, just like your expenses aren't a way to justify it when you want more money.)

Assuming you're on your parents' health insurance: Weird.

Suggesting you live off of credit cards: Weird.

Offering you the job in person rather than over the phone: Inefficient, but not unheard of.

There are a bunch of red flags here. I can't tell if they were pushing you for an answer right then and there in the meeting, or if you just didn't ask them for time to think it over, but if they were pressuring you for an on-the-spot answer, that's another red flag (the biggest of all, in fact -- that is always a bad sign).

As for how to handle it -- well, interviews are a two-way street. Just like they wouldn't have offered you a job if you had conducted yourself really weirdly throughout, you should be very cautious about accepting an offer from any employer that behaves weirdly itself. It's highly unlikely that the weirdness is somehow confined only to their hiring process -- and indeed, you found that out after you started working there.

So my advice if you encounter a situation like this in the future is to (a) thank them for the offer and tell them you'd like a few days to think about it, (b) do some research if you haven't already on what the job should pay in your area and at that level, and (c) call them up and counter with a higher number if you feel it's warranted. If someone refuses to give you time to think over an offer, run. If someone tells you that you should accept a low offer because you live with your parents, politely respond that your expenses are not a factor in how much your work is worth. And if an employer seems to be unprofessional, rude, or unfair in its dealings with you as a candidate, assume it's going to only going to get worse once you're employed there.

does employer realize I declined their offer last year?

A reader writes:

I recently applied, interviewed for and accepted a job at a company that I interviewed with 20 months ago.

20 months ago, I was offered the job but had to decline (I couldn't wrap up my job at the time and move cities quickly enough for them).

In my cover letter and during the interview process this time, I did not disclose that I had previously interviewed, nor did they indicate that they recognized me.

I am not the same candidate I was 20 months ago (better experience, fully established in the city the job is located in, etc...), and the job has changed somewhat (same people but different reporting structure). I don't feel that I've done anything unethical, but am concerned how about how it might be perceived.

I have resigned my current job and am very excited about the new one which starts soon, but am a bit anxious about the omission, despite being fine with it during the process.

Two questions:

1) Would you as a manager fire me or rescind the (signed) offer if I disclosed this now?

2) Any advice on how to bring this up with my new manager?

How strange.

I would simply proceed on the assumption that they know you applied previously, and not give it too much more thought. If in two months they suddenly look shocked and say, "Hey, didn't we offer you this a job a year ago," then just say, "Yes -- I thought we all knew I was reapplying after the first offer didn't work out." I can't see any reason why someone would fire you over this, assuming there was no deliberate deception (which there wasn't).

Because really, if they didn't know -- and it's the same people -- that's really weird. They should know. You should be able to safely assume they know. It's odd that it didn't come up in the interview at all (even just a "hey, nice to see you again" from either of you), but I wouldn't stress out too much about it.

People re-apply for jobs all the time. Your situation is only different in that you got an offer last time. Your reason for declining then made sense. There isn't anything to hide here.

Really, this isn't a big deal. Just go about your job.

which job should I take?

A reader writes:

I have a temporary job working for a federal government agency as a clerk. I have been offered a promotion. The new position would raise my salary from $30,000 to $38,000. Accepting the position would require moving from the large city I currently live in to a much smaller place about 300 miles away. I have never been there and know no one who lives there. The person I would report to is a jerk. I am not sure I could do the job. It would be a challenge. Both jobs, the one I have now and the one I would move to, are temporary and would last about a year.

Reasons to take the new position: (1) More money (2) Better job title (3) One year in the new job would allow me to compete for better jobs with the federal government in the future. (4) Could lose credibility with current management if I decline.

Reasons not to take it: (1) New boss is a jerk (2) Not sure I would like the job (3) Expense of moving (4) Not familiar with the new town I would live in (moving from metro area of 4 million to a city with 100,000 population)

Should I accept the new job?

I can't answer this for you because ultimately it's about what weight you put on each of these factors, but I can point some things out that you should consider as you make your decision:

* Since the new position only lasts a year, are you only planning to stay in the new town for that year and then move again? If so, are you comfortable with a second move so soon after the first?

* You're not sure you could do well at the new job. If you fail at it, how will having a professional failure affect your career outlook afterwards?

* You're not sure you will like the new job, and you already dislike your new boss. So you'll be living in a town where you don't know anyone, with a boss you dislike, and a job that might not be your thing.

* On the other hand, it's only for a year. Are you someone who can stick out a less-than-ideal situation for the pay-off at the end? And how sure are you about that pay-off at the end?

* Are there other ways to advance your career in the ways that you want without making this particular move? Is this really the only available path to get you there?

As for losing credibility if you decline the move, people decline to move to new cities all the time. If your boss doesn't understand that, he's an ass anyway.

Looking at the factors above, it's not a move I personally would make. But it all depends on how you weigh the issues above, not me.

What do others think?

5 reasons to turn down a job offer

In this economy, it's easy to feel like you should jump at any job offer that comes along. But doing that could land you in a job that would make you miserable and could even harm you professionally. Over at U.S. News & World Report today, I discuss five reasons to consider turning down a job offer. Please check it out!

should I take a one-month, seasonal position that's far from home and won't pay me much?

A reader writes:

I have been unemployed for 6 months. I keep going on interview after interview -- all well prepared, well researched, well rehearsed and thought they all went extremely well. Then, nothing. Last week, I had three interviews that all went really well. The third I was offered the job on the spot, but I asked for some time to consider the offer based on the following:

1) It's seasonal.
2) It's only a month long.
3) It's 35 miles one way.
4) The pay will have me break even.

Of course, I did not tell him that.

The two other jobs SEEMED interested in having me back for a second interview/ skills test (I'm a visual merchandiser, its not uncommon to be asked to "show 'em whatcha got" in store) before they hire by the end of the month. I'm concerned that if I take the seasonal job I won't have the time to interview elsewhere. I also don't want to say yes and then later back out, I don't like burning bridges. However, my unemployment is running out and the seasonal position is the only one that has solidified itself.

Any advice would be much appreciated! Thank you!

I'm having trouble seeing the advantages of taking the job. There's apparently no monetary gain, as you say you'll break even on the pay. So it's short-term, and without any financial gain. Plus you might even come out behind, since you said you won't be able to continue interviewing during that time.

Is this job prestigious? Likely to add significantly to your resume and/or help you build important connections that you would not otherwise have? If so, those are valid reasons to take it despite the above. But if the answer to both those questions is no, then I have to wonder what you'd gain from it. It almost seems like at that point you'd be taking a job just for the sake of being employed -- but not for any of the reasons you actually want a job, such as monetary gain, professional advancement, etc.

If you decide to turn it down though, I recommend explaining to the employer that the numbers don't work out for you -- that you'd just be breaking even. They may surprise you and make you a higher offer once they hear that, so it's worth mentioning.

Good luck!

reopening salary negotiations after accepting an offer

A reader writes:

11 months ago, I accepted a job in the nuclear industry (Company X). At that time I was unemployed. The offer was contingent upon the issuance of a security clearance. Clearances take anywhere from 2-3 weeks to 2-3 years. In such situations, people either travel, volunteer, enjoy the free time, or find a job. Luckily for me, I found another job immediately, not really pertaining to my field, but it's higher pay, 20% more to be exact.

I was informed by the issuing agency that my clearance is about to be issued any day now from, and the next step would be that Company X will discuss my start date. I really want to start my new job, but I am having second thoughts since my current job pays much more.

I know that the #1 rule is never to discuss or negotiate job terms AFTER formally accepting an offer. However, this offer was made a year ago and a lot happens in a year! I also know that these clearances cost a lot of time and money for the company (8K-15K). I feel guilty to open up negotiations, but I also know that they need me more than I need them, since they invested in me and have been waiting.

Should I address salary negotiations given that it's been a year and that I am currently employed?

I wrote back to this reader and asked if he/she had signed a contract. The response:

Now that I think about it, I should have signed the contract (a condition mandated by government agencies to pursue security clearances, I technically have to be an employee-on-stand by).

However, instead I verbally accepted the offer. They were more concerned about my paperwork for the clearance, and I now think that they forgot to wait on my signed contract. I believe the HR lady has committed a blunder by processing my paperwork without my signature on the offer.

Okay. If you didn't sign a contract, then it sounds like legally you're free to back out.

Ethically is a different story.

You accepted this job at a particular salary, knowing that there would be a long wait while your security clearance was processed, and knowing that the company would spend $8-15,000 getting you that clearance. Now that your clearance has been obtained, the ethical thing to do is to set up a start date and not try to negotiate.

Frankly, if I were this employer, and you tried to negotiate at this point, I would be so disgusted that I would probably pull the offer, unless I were desperate. It shows a lack of integrity.

So I wouldn't count on being able to negotiate successfully anyway. You should see your choices as taking the job you committed to, at the salary you accepted, or not taking it at all. And if you don't take it at all, account for the fact that you will burning a bridge, and you may run into someone from that company in your professional future. Do you want to be seeking a job offer from a different company some day and discover that the person you burned is a decision-maker there?

So not only is honoring your commitment the ethical thing to do, but it's also probably the smart thing to do.

What do others think?

being given only 4 hours to decide on a job offer

A reader writes:

Earlier this year, I was interviewing for IT internships, and got into the final stages for a large international document handling company. I was one of six people, out of over 3000 applicants. I did thoroughly well throughout the day, but a few days later found that I did not in fact get the job.

Cue several weeks later, a Friday lunchtime; I get a phone call from my contact there; their first choice had rejected the offer and they wanted to offer the position to me instead. I asked for a week to think it over, which I believed to be reasonable, considering that it would be affecting where I would be working for the next year. I was told that they needed an answer by the end of the working day - four hours away. I told them that I would call them back; I took some time, spoke to my placement advisor, and ended up reluctantly calling them and verbally accepting.

I called another potential employer (another multinational in another, more stable market) I had previously scheduled an interview with to let them know that I had accepted another job; they asked if I had signed anything yet, and I confirmed that I had not. They offered to move my interview forward as they were keen to see me. I decided to attend, if only for interviewing experience, and it also went very well.

That Friday, I decided that the second company was a far better fit for myself, and sent a professional email to the first one stating that I had felt pressured into giving a response due to the incredibly limited time constraints set for a response, and that I would have to politely turn down their kind offer. It took them 2 weeks to respond with a standard 'We are sorry to hear...' reply.

I am sure that it caused them a considerable amount of hassle, seeing as the first candidate had also declined, however I feel justified in my actions due to the pressure placed on me for an answer. It does worry me, however, that I have potentially soured my professional relationship with this company, and may cause issues should I decide to apply for any positions there in the future, post-graduation.

What is your opinion regarding this? What's done is done, but any advice on how to handle similar situations in the future would be appreciated!

(As a side note, I was only just beaten at the interview stage for the second company by another student, which was a shame, but it was a gamble I was willing to take. I was however offered positions at two other companies soon afterwards in the same week; one of which I accepted and thoroughly enjoy!)

I'm looking forward to your take on this matter, and thanks for running an excellent and incredibly useful blog!

Well, yeah, you've probably burned their bridges with them as far as future opportunities go. But at the same time, giving you four hours to make a decision was unreasonable of them, and if they're going to pressure people to give them an answer that fast, they're pretty much setting themselves up to have this happen.

You originally asked for a week, and a week can often be too long, especially for junior-level positions. (They have other candidates they need to get back to, candidates with timelines of their own, or they may need to know that they're going to need to re-advertise or whatever the case may be.) But a few days is completely reasonable, even standard.

Insisting that you give them an answer in four hours (especially when they must have known that you'd already mentally moved on from the job after being rejected earlier) is unfair. Ideally, you would have said to them, "I'm very interested, but I need at least a day or two to think this over, and I wouldn't feel right giving you an answer I hadn't had time to think about." It's hard to imagine why they would have been unable to do that, but let's say for the sake of argument that their next choice after you had a timeline of her own and was accepting another job at 6 p.m. that night, so they really did have no choice but to push for an immediate answer from you -- if that were the case, they owed you an explanation, at least. But I suspect that they had no such time constraints and just wanted to be able to wrap the whole thing up.

In any case, if you'd made that request and they'd refused you (with or without explaining why), at that point you would have had to decide whether or not you could make that kind of major commitment in such a short time. I preach all the time about why you shouldn't renege on your acceptance of a job offer, but in this case, with this kind of pressure, it's very hard to fault you for later backing out. Again, they kind of set themselves up for it.

(They've also demonstrated that they're not great at managing this kind of thing by the fact that they rejected you before their first choice accepted the offer. This is why you wait to send out rejections to second and third choices until you have a firm acceptance in hand from your first choice.)

So the upshot: Yes, you probably won't be well-received there in the future, but you can at least take some solace in knowing that the whole situation is at least partly of their own creation.