Hacker News Reader

The hypocrisy is that to even get to the point where you have a 24 / 48 hour exploding offer, you (the candidate) had to often wait weeks to get a response to the application, phone screen, on-site, decision.

So I don’t buy this fairness argument. If we’re talking about fairness, the process would be super quick, and then I would get a week to think about a decision that will affect YEARS of my life. To say nothing of things like asking previous salary, salary expectations, etc. Everyone knows why it’s done. If you wanted to be fair, the salary would simply be posted with the criteria that would influence it up or down. There is a reason unions and public sector jobs do this.

Companies have access to far more market salary data than I do. It’s not close to fair.

My job is far more influential to me than the company. It’s 100% of my income and yet I’m only one of many for the company. This should be taken into consideration.

One thing I am very careful about now is to try to keep offer terms from being a surprise.

If I know what to expect comp- and offer-wise earlier, then an exploding offer is just the culmination of the weeks of lead-up and thinking on it.

But sometimes recruiters don't want to give you that until offer stage. Other times, it's not so hard to get.

Well, it's an asymmetrical situation; you had to wait to get an initial response, but on the other hand, you can keep interviewing while the offer is on the table. I think the explosion timer is simply a response to the fact that it's not an exclusive relationship (yet), but the company cannot explore other options while the offer is out.

I am not even sure how to judge fairness; do you have a specific moral/ethical framework in mind?

> but the company cannot explore other options while the offer is out.

That’s not how it works in most companies

Quick can be bad - if someone submits a resume on day one that is good should we hire them or wait a week for someone else to discover the position? If you don't know you want to work for the company until by random chance is shows up in one of your searches as hiring your type of person then you need the time to discover us. As a results policy is we can't interview anyone until the position has been posted for a week, or we have at least 7 people who seem worth interviewing. (you want to be in the former - less competition: we will prefer to wait the full week instead of taking all 7 - though do note that week 1 is posted only to internal transfers in some cases)

In most cases people don't actually have two serious leads to a job at the same time. I know it is potentially years of your life that you need to decide on, but for most people there isn't a choice. If you are on unemployment you need to justify not taking a job offer or you lose benefits (this varies by state/country). Even if that isn't a concern, odds are you have one offer in hand and a few leads that probably won't call you in for an interview anytime soon so again there isn't much hope anyway.

Also if you're at a level where senior people are interviewing you, it can just take a while to make everything happen. (This is particularly true if you're interviewing with people who travel a lot.) I have at least some reason to believe that being hired for my current position (which I've had for over ten years) wasn't controversial but it still took a couple months for it to happen.

> if someone submits a resume on day one that is good should we hire them or wait a week for someone else to discover the position?

if some company gives me an offer on day one that is good should I accept it or wait a week for some other company to give me an offer?

It cuts both ways.

> In most cases people don't actually have two serious leads to a job at the same time.

That's common for me, as I usually do a bunch of interviews around the same time when I'm interested in knowing what else is out there.

Most of the time I'm not really paying attention to my LinkedIn unless I see something that immediately catches my attention, which is rare.

> but for most people there isn't a choice.

If there isn't a choice people will decide and reply quickly, you don't need an exploding offer in that case.

From a candidate perspective its very hard to evaluate what your compensation should be without first pooling multiple offers. Its also very hard to schedule many interviews in a short period such that the offer letters can be compared side by side.

For this reason I generally indicate a 1-2 week response time to an offer letter. I almost always come in before that, maybe around 2-3 days, but I find it absolutely essential to accepting a job to have that breathing room. Even if I lose out of some offers, its still a better investment to be patient.

For context I've been in the industry 6 years with 2 jobs and maybe 12 interviews to date. Currently going through interviews for $job-3.

Having multiple offers on the table certainly helps - but I feel a lot of people know what they're looking for in terms of comp range when they're going into the interview process. Recruiters will usually ask you up-front what your target comp range is before even submitting your resume to a company. At engineer salary levels in the US, +/- $5-10k isn't going to be a life changing amount of money (especially after taxes), and is likely within the realms of negotiations anyway. The main reason for big jumps in comp are if you're applying to vastly different types of companies with wide levels of stock options on the table, eg FANG vs seed-stage startup.

Conversely a lot of companies don't list their range and a lot of recruiters, hiring managers, and other groups, won't list an accurate range especially in "newer" roles like devops engineering, ml-ops, security roles, semi-management roles, etc. I've seen anywhere from $80k-$180k offered for the same role disclosed randomly throughout the hiring process - sometimes its listed on a job board, sometimes you won't know until the offer letter.

It's hard to get a fixed answer because there is no fixed answer. Only government jobs have a strict predefined salary, private industry everything is negotiable.

The role may be advertised at a certain level but most of the time there is flexibility in going up or down a level based on candidate experience and how badly you make them want you. So 80K-180K can be a perfectly feasible range for the same job posting.

I liked to ask the question, "If I extended an offer you like, would you accept it?" It helps facilitate a regular conversation about if & when someone would accept an offer, and if any steps can be taken to make an offer happen.

I was asked this question point blank and it took me by surprise. Then they asked me to name the comp for me to accept their offer and when I did they still exceeded it

It's good that they exceeded it. IIUC, generally accepted negotiation theory says that the first person to name a number loses.

Yeah, if I name a number and you exceed it that shows you want me. If you force me to name a number and you still come in below that is going to be a no even though I might have accepted it if you didn’t force me to give a number.

I just had a 3 month interview experience with Apple and the recruiter was the worst ever, kept lowballing and giving small improvements and the hiring manager accused her of lying to him. It was a role that i care a lot about but after that interaction there was no way I could say yes.

That question is one of my favorite questions as a candidate because it provides the space to have a realistic conversation about compensation and what is necessary to make the move a reality.

How is this a good question? The only acceptable answer is "yes" otherwise the interview is over.

Because the only acceptable answer is actually “it depends” and the point of the question is to find what it depends on.

It depends how you interpret the question. If I have objections that need to be overcome, it implies I don't like the offer. My natural answer to the question would be "sure", but that doesn't tell the interviewer anything about what I would "like".

If someone has 1+ interviews scheduled, they may not be prepared to give you an answer until they've explored their options. If you push the candidate to accept, they may just turn you down because they don't like being pressured.

Exploding offers are bluffs.

We all know the team wanted someone that could hit the ground running yesterday for the last 6 months.

Yes, salespeople call it the impending doom close. If you don’t buy this car/house/holiday today it will be gone tomorrow.

That is my experience as well. Every time I got an "exploding offer", I said "Thank you, but I need more time because I'm interviewing with other companies." This was always met with an "of course".

That said, I never got an offer from something like SV startup or a FAANG, so I can imagine it's totally different over there.

> That said, I never got an offer from something like SV startup or a FAANG, so I can imagine it's totally different over there.

It's not.

They can choose to be dicks about it or not, but the way they use their leverage isn't any worse. Competition for employees is fiercer than other markets. You yourself can get away with being a dick to them.

That is certainly not true in all cases. It's possible that there's a second choice candidate, and the hiring manager wants to extend an offer to them as soon as the other candidate declines.

Probably more common is an experience I was in- we found a good candidate, he wanted to finish other interviews before making a decision and I gave him a few weeks to decide, then later I regretted giving him so much time. It meant I had to either pause the candidate search for a few weeks or potentially waste my time and candidates' time interviewing people when there may not be an opening.

Treat them as bluffs anyway.

Of course if you personally were on the job market and were actually desperate because your spouse said "maybe its time to be realistic" and the bills were piling up, then you don't have the luxury of playing this game.

Google gave me a 4-day exploding offer and it really did explode.

What a joke. I've received two offers from Google and the first took nearly 5 weeks from start (phone screen) to finish (offer), and the second well over two months. And both offers were seriously disappointing.

Right, so if you can't hit the ground running in two weeks or less (2 weeks notice to leave your previous job) we will move on. The job market is hot, but we do have other candidates. I've been in the situation where we liked person A best, but person B was almost as good and would have got an offer if we had 2 positions open, so if you can't accept fast we want to get your offer to person B before they find a different job. I know of one case where we sent person's B resume to a different division that did their own interview and hired them.

>if you can't hit the ground running in two weeks or less (2 weeks notice to leave your previous job) we will move on

That seems unreasonable in a lot of situations. In my current position, yes, they did want me to start right away but I really did want to take a real vacation before I started so I negotiated it out to a month or something like that. No, it's not reasonable to offer to start in six months. It's pretty reasonable IMO to offer to start in a month. (I did accept the same day. No brainer. It was a good offer. It was my first choice company. I really needed to move on.)

No, it's not reasonable to offer to start in six months. It's pretty reasonable IMO to offer to start in a month.

This depends very much on the industry and the location. In much of Europe, particularly at senior levels, 3 months notice is the norm and between one thing and another you might start at the new company 4-5 months after accepting the offer.

They are although often it's not even an intentional bluff. It's just part of the HR offer letter template so there it is. You want more time just ask. Never seen a company (either as interviewer or interviewee) say no.

It’s quite fair. Are you hiring the best candidate or just any candidate? If the former, you make your offer to the best candidate and wait a reasonable time for their response, a week is usually sufficient. If you wish to offer to any candidate, offer to them all and see who accepts, but as you may find out, that’s not actually legal.

But of course you are looking for the best candidate right? If so, waiting for their answer is ultimately the one that serves you best.

companies apparently have no issue rescinding offers, so I wonder whether it is really illegal to give verbal offers to n candidates and then rescind n-1 of them.

Maybe not illegal but seriously crappy and amoral behavior.

Immoral, not amoral.

You have to take it on a case by case basis. I think the important thing is to have a candid conversation between the candidate and the employer.

"I have a final round interview in two days with another company that ends a 3 week interview process, and I'd like to compare offers"

is a very different response to

"Thanks for the offer, there's 8 or 9 more companies that I'd like to apply to before making a decision, can you give me 2-3 months to get back to you?".

Having a conversation gives both the candidate and the employer another data point. How serious is the person about wanting to work for your company, and how much does the company want to hire you as a candidate? It also just feels like a healthier way to start the relationship.

I think I sympathise with companies hiring for a single position. It’s hard to organise timing with several candidates and recruiting is expensive. If they’re a large company, I see it as a signal that they believe the candidate has a good chance of finding a better offer elsewhere given time.

I think from the candidate’s point of view, I don’t think the question is whether an offer is acceptable so much as whether it is the best offer in their search. Just as a company might like to interview several companies looking for a good fit and make an offer to the best even when others are acceptable, a candidate might want to receive several offers and accept the best even if others are acceptable.

I think a company would be fooling itself if it told stories about selecting for passion or something. If you’re not seeing any competing offers in your hires, you should ask why they aren’t competitive? Maybe your offers are very good or so bad as to not be worth trying to negotiate. Or maybe you’re selecting for the most desperate candidates. Or maybe you’re good at finding hires who perform poorly under whatever interview conditions are most fashionable.

Exactly, the company needs to know whether to tell the other candidates in queue to go away, or pause for a while. They can't wait indefinitly so an expiration on the offer is reasonable.

That said, don't take the expiration date too seriously, it's not a hard deadline. If you want a bit more time just say so.