Anne

I worked on a search once and the candidate ultimately declined the generous offer because her employer agreed to allow her to work from home one day a week. That seems like a long time ago. Of course, in the past, many firms were certain that if employees weren’t in the office, they weren’t doing their job. Indeed I know of a situation where a hiring manager dismissed a candidate who asked about working from home; the candidate’s wife was disabled and needed assistance. The hiring manager said, “I want this guy down the hall.” Now that the pandemic has made WFH status quo, many firms have found the outcomes far from what they expected. Most people are working longer hours and harder than ever. And while it’s true that some, especially parents of young children, are clearly challenged, most are more focused and productive. This is certain to revolutionize the workplace.

Just this week someone in the Southwest wrote me about job openings. He inquired if I thought positions, supposedly in the Northeast, would require someone be in that part of the country. Before the pandemic, that wouldn’t have been considered. Now, it’s anyone’s guess. And my guess is hiring firms are now going to recognize that if someone has the experience and determination, their location is irrelevant, for many positions. Sure they may want them to come to the physical location periodically, but it will be far less essential that they be there Monday through Friday.

On June 1st, someone I know is starting a new job. He has already told his new employer that he will not be coming to their physical office until he’s certain he’s comfortable with the idea. A father of four young children, he’s in no hurry to embrace the risk. His new employer didn’t flinch. Some think that employers won’t challenge employees because they don’t want a lawsuit.

Of course there is an enormous benefit to employers. Needing less physical space means rent is lower, fewer furnishings are needed, heat/electricity/janitorial services/security/office supplies bills shrink, to name a few. When I think about companies that made large moves from say New York to Florida or Tennessee, to lower taxes or salaries, I realize they must now be scratching their heads and thinking that was probably unnecessary. Those sorts of moves were typically logistical nightmares. Heaps of money was spent on relocation and separating from the employees who declined to move. Identifying talent in the new location was typically challenging, so much so that some companies ultimately relocated some roles back to their original location. Now people recognize that was, in some respects, unwise.

Last year a hiring manager agreed to have a candidate work from home a few days a week. All was going well. The candidate had a long commute on the days that she traveled to the office. Now that she’s no longer commuting, she continues to demonstrate a terrific appetite for accomplishing her work. And that’s without getting in the car. She enjoyed her time in the office, getting to know her colleagues and the camaraderie. Now she’s delighted to save the dozen or so hours and spend them with her young family.

There will likely always be some managers who refuse to accept WFH as the norm. Those who do, however, will find that many employees can still be valuable contributors, even if they’re miles away in sweatpants. 

Finding oneself out of work is stressful. Explaining it to one’s child can be the worst component of the situation. How to convince your child that everything is going to be OK isn’t easy, especially when you’re not sure you believe it yourself. But doing just that helps considerably. Here are some strategies to consider.

1. One has to accept that this happens. Unfortunately, it’s common. But it’s not the end of the world. And that’s something the unemployed person needs to embrace. Is it challenging? Absolutely. Still, it’s not the end of the world. But the unemployed person has every right to let off some steam. Screaming, crying or pounding a fist are options. All are best not done in the presence of children, as they could be scary for them.

2. Having a conversation with a child who is around age seven or eight or more, is important. It’s reasonable to tell the child that what’s happened isn’t ideal and that it’s a bit scary. Still, you can convey that you’re keen to view this as an exercise that’s going to be like a big test. One that will demand you talk to many people. One that will include some lousy days. But a test that should, in time, come with good results.

3. Make sure that the child can ask questions. The obvious question is: how will this change our lives? Well, it’s likely that it will change things both short and long term. And you’re allowed to say that to some degree, it’s going to make things different but you’re unsure of how long. Ideally, in the short term, you will have severance and, perhaps some savings, to minimize the impact. Do let the child know that if at any point they have questions, they should ask.

4. One thought that is important and should be communicated is that someone can lose their job even when they’re doing good work. Sometimes, because a company needs to make changes because it’s not earning enough revenue, decreasing the number of employees is viewed as a solution. And when it happens, even good employees lose their jobs. Make the distinction between being laid off versus being fired.

5. One of the best remedies to this challenge is to exercise and laugh. If possible increase your time outside whether it’s to take a walk, play a pick up game of basketball or smack tennis balls against a backboard. Include your child. This is likely to help them release some of the stress they’re likely to feel as they process the news. Any chance you can, read funny books, tell funny stories or watch a funny film with your children. This will allow both of you to relax and feel better about things. A Marx Brothers film is a great distraction when you’re navigating a job search.

6. When you do have an interview, let your child know that you expect to have to have many interviews before you find a new job. Share with them that it will likely take longer than you’d like but each interview is an opportunity to get better at interviewing. This is likely to be the case. Being forthcoming about this will make it easier for both you and your child to endure the process.

7. One advantage of being laid off is that you should be home more. This means that you might be able to spend more time with your child. Relish it. Have fun with them. If you need to answer an important call or email, explain that you need to be attentive, even if it means that for a bit, you can’t give them (i.e. your child) attention.

8. If you think you’re going to get a job offer, wait until you’re actually reading the offer, before you announce that you have a job. Too often, someone can have a positive interview process and even references can be checked and a candidate can be told to expect an offer and then, whoops, nothing happens. Best to abstain from telling your child until you can say, I have a job offer and I can see it in front of me.

No one goes through life without hitting some bumps in the road. And some bumps are very challenging. Make your best effort to be honest with your child. Let them know you’re going to do what you can and that you’re hopeful things will fall into place sooner versus later.

And when you do get your new job, remind yourself and your child how pleased you are to be back to work. Because the next time you have a difficult day at work, it’s likely your child will remind you how fortunate you are to have a job. And that could be good for both of you.

Why Hiring Managers need to be spell out exactly what they’re seeking from their new hires

Often students who earn lousy grades suggest that the teacher is responsible for their poor performance. Those same students claim that if a teacher is effective and knows how to teach students at all levels, then they will produce better work. At times it’s hard to say who should be held accountable. Occasionally, the blame can be shared. Perhaps not equally, but shared, nevertheless. This same dilemma is true in the workplace.

Hiring managers often don’t do all they can to maximize the performance of a new hire. And while they may loathe to admit it, the burden is on them at the beginning. It’s the responsibility of the hiring manager to communicate, early on, what is expected of employees. Don’t assume that your new hire knows. Hiring managers need to review ground rules, at a minimum, relating to: the desired caliber of the work, the importance of collaboration, what the real work hours are and how others balance responsibilities outside of work. When that’s done, subordinates usually adapt more quickly. And hiring managers who make a point to meet regularly and candidly discuss how someone is doing, will also find that a subordinate is more likely to remain productive. If a new hire doesn’t appear to understand what’s required, showing them actual examples of how others approach work can help considerably.

Sometimes, a hiring manager will select a candidate because they are less expensive than others. The hiring manager might even try to convince themselves that this same candidate will be fine. But then the hiring manager won’t bother to manage them and they’ll promptly realize they’ve created more work for themselves. This is a tricky situation and one few navigate successfully. Nearly all of the time, if that candidate is less expensive than the others, they will likely require more guidance. That’s been proven repeatedly.

Just as folklore suggests that teachers of younger children should refrain from smiling for the first few months of school, as a way to set a tone, some hiring managers are known to keep a personal distance. And while many teachers would argue that not smiling makes no sense, some hiring managers would encourage relaxed interaction. But what might be best first is to make certain that new hires are really doing what’s expected before their managers relax.

Two situations that I can point to demonstrate that the hiring managers didn’t do all they could to lay the ground rules. One manager isn’t experienced. He doesn’t appear to know how to approach overseeing a subordinate. And he waited about nine months before he told his direct report that his work was unsatisfactory. A second manager was hoping to figure things out but found himself wrestling with the situation. He hoped that humor would do the trick. Unsurprisingly, it didn’t. Ultimately, he realized he might benefit from having a conversation with a third party. A strategy was suggested with several recommendations that included parameters to apply so that the new hire was clearer on what was tolerated. It’s too soon to know the outcome but the hiring manager has been advised to update the third party weekly for the next six weeks.

If a hiring manager finds that the work done week after week is problematic, it’s essential to assume a different approach. First, speak with the new hire and listen to them. Ask them about their perspective on how work is going and what they view as their biggest challenges. Encourage them to be forthcoming. What may be learned is that the new hire is a victim to the Dunning-Kruger effect which essentially means the person believes they’ve done better than others on something when, in fact, their performance has been lousy. Once the new hire has had the opportunity to share their concerns, the hiring manager should first thank the new hire for being open. Then, take responsibility for not being as clear as possible. Explain in a matter of fact manner what is/isn’t suitable. The sooner this is accomplished the less likely it will be hostile, argumentative or miserable. Think of it as cleaning a closet regularly versus waiting months and being reluctant to open the door.

Just as teachers aren’t a good match for all of their students, hiring managers aren’t effective with all of their hires. When a hiring manager recognizes that the new employee can’t accomplish what’s necessary, they should be given the opportunity to find a new role, either at the same company or another, sooner vs. later. No reason for everyone to be miserable long term. The more respectful the hiring manager is, the less damage will be done. That’s important for everyone, including coworkers impacted by the unsuccessful hire.

The best outcome, from a situation of this nature, is that hiring managers are more careful when evaluating candidates and ultimately making an offer. Ideally, they might recognize that they shouldn’t be influenced by a candidate’s compensation expectations. Instead, the hiring manager should candidly convey their expectations in the interview process. Apart from that, they should ask questions when interviewing that require candidates to give examples of how they approach their work, deal with mistakes and criticism and collaborate with others.

Most teachers are delighted when their students excel. Students, of course, are pleased too. It’s the same with hiring managers and their subordinates.

Paul was laid off about two years ago. His wife works. But she earns probably a tenth of what Paul was accustomed to bringing home. Suddenly, things were very different. The uncertainty of how long Paul was going to be on the sidelines was hard for him. It impacted his morale, perspective, sense of self, while all the while testing his sense of humor and networking skills. For his wife, in some respects, it was worse.

She wasn’t in the industry and just couldn’t grasp the new reality. The media suggested hiring was increasing and unemployment was at record lows. Hm. Why couldn’t her husband find a job?

Jerome’s wife was a stay-at-home mom with several children. When her husband was told his job was being eliminated, she was, understandably, very anxious.

This is normal. For a spouse, it’s anxiety provoking for numerous reasons. First, of course, a lack of income is unnerving. But a lack of knowledge of the industry, in combination with a limited understanding of the process of finding a new job, is unsettling.

Watching an unemployed spouse go through the interview process is often frustrating. This isn’t painless when the person is employed, but when they’re between jobs, it’s far more stressful. Candidates may think an interview went well and never hear back. Candidates may have countless interviews and then learn there’s a hiring freeze. Or an oral offer may be made and then no written offer is provided. Meanwhile, the spouse, trying to be supportive, can, and usually does, struggle to maintain composure. As time passes, the rollercoaster ride is harder to endure.

This can really test a marriage. When someone said “for richer or for poorer” maybe they hoped that they could skip the “for poorer” part. Whatever can be done to make this easier, should be. A few ideas follow.

1. It’s almost always easier to discuss financial matters on a walk. Get outside.
2. Limit how much time each day you will discuss your search.
3. The spouse shouldn’t expect the unemployed spouse to be spending 8 hours a day looking for work. It’s unrealistic. And it’s better to take some breaks during the day.
4. Try to save more money when you’re employed. This is seldom easy.
5. Spend some of your day laughing about something.
6. If you have a pet, that will help.
7. Expect to move a few steps forward, a few back, and so on. That’s normal.
8. Try to remember that your spouse probably asks how you’re doing because they want to be supportive, not because they’re trying to cause more anxiety.
9. There are few people who are able to navigate a career that excludes some time on the bench. Nearly everyone either finds themselves out of a job at some point. Still, it’s enormously challenging. And uncomfortable.

The good news is that some folks, even after two years or more, get hired. And many find new roles long before the two years. When that happens, it’s typically the spouse, more than anyone, who is over the moon. Because, while no job is perfect, and it’s often the case that people complain, at least periodically, about their work, living with someone who has a routine and is earning money, almost always beats being on the sidelines. And often, if someone has been unemployed for a patch of time, they have a different relationship with their job once they find a new one. Their perspective helps them ignore most of the nonsense and focus on how glad they are to be back at work.

Someone resigned yesterday. It was the first time this individual had this experience and they were anxious. I asked, “What’s your biggest fear?” The reply, “They could ask me to leave immediately. And they could take my phone. Also, they could not pay me what I’m owed for the first quarter.” We discussed each of his concerns. After, as he felt better, the focus turned to the exit interview. My response, “Say nothing of substance.”

When you have one foot out the door, don’t assume it’s a good time to educate the boss, the boss’s boss, HR or anyone else, on how things ought to be. There’s no point. Focus instead on how you’ve been pleased to have had an opportunity, grateful for what you’ve learned and a simple thank you. That’s it. And when speaking with colleagues before departing, the same is true. Be cautious.

But it’s not just someone who’s resigning who ought to be careful about what they do, and don’t, say. Imagine you’re speaking to a recruiter and telling them about how your boss’s boss is a problem, how you think the boss’s boss is the decision maker and a penny pincher. Is it ever wise to say that to a recruiter? Unlikely. Because the candidate may not know the relationship that the recruiter has with either the candidate’s boss or their boss’s boss. Loose lips sink ships. No reason to lie. Just say less than you know. In one situation, the recruiter told the candidate that she knew the candidate’s colleagues. Nevertheless, the candidate continued to air dirty laundry. There is no benefit to sharing details of a certain nature with a recruiter.

Similarly, a candidate ought to be careful in an interview. Never make a negative comment about colleagues, nor your place of work. The world is too small. For all you know, the spouse of the hiring manager may currently work with you. And if a hiring manager conducting an interview finds the candidate doesn’t use a filter, well, that suggests they don’t have the capacity to be discreet. And discretion is a valuable quality in an employee.

Sometimes candidates are asked questions about a complex work matter they’ve navigated. Some of the details may be sensitive or highly confidential. It’s best to convey to the hiring manager that you’re glad to discuss the components that aren’t confidential. Then, do just that. A candidate who recognizes that they shouldn’t compromise their values in an interview is one that a hiring manager will recognize as having backbone. Just as discretion is an attractive quality, so is having a backbone.

It is not uncommon for hiring managers to drill candidates on topics. Candidates may think it’s because the hiring manager has a genuine interest in them. Sometimes, that’s true. Other times, however, the hiring manager is just trying to learn about how the competition is grappling with matters. Recently a candidate was questioned at length about some cutting-edge work. He was forthcoming in his answers. And the interview was lengthy. Unfortunately, he didn’t get hired. The candidate felt a bit abused. Similarly, several lawyers who interviewed for a role thought that they were basically pumped for free legal advice. It’s challenging to manage that situation. The candidate is damned if they do, damned if they don’t.

Don’t discuss politics. In part because you don’t know if it’s a trap. But even if it’s not a trap, it’s just not what should be shared. Getting tangled up in politics is a no-win situation. Moreover, it’s best to say little about current events and religion. Just listen. Don’t jump in. “That’s an interesting point.” or “I’ve never thought about it in that way.” are reasonable responses.

But it’s not just the candidate who has to watch what they say. The hiring manager should be thoughtful, too. Some hiring managers may become overly enthusiastic when interviewing and then make the mistake of oversharing. They may speak about the current team members and include some unkind comments. Or, they may mention some confidential issues that shouldn’t be discussed with anyone outside of the company. It’s one thing for a hiring manager to pose a question like, “Hypothetically, if you were asked to deal with A,B,C, how might you approach it?” That’s a lot different from “We’re dealing with A,B,C, and it’s been challenging. Have you confronted these sorts of issues?” While a candidate may recognize that the reason for the question could well be because the hiring manager is already dealing with these issues, it’s still better to lean on “Hypothetically…” Certainly some candidates are asked to sign a NDA. Before signing, it’s important to read it.

Moreover, hiring managers should be careful discussing who they, and the candidate, may know in common. There is a tendency for both hiring managers and candidates to spend some time playing “Do you know.” Best not to say anything negative. And under no circumstance should anyone overstate the actual relationship. If you give the impression that someone is a close friend when, in fact, you could barely identify them in a police line-up, you’re not doing yourself any favors.

Equally important, hiring managers shouldn’t say to a candidate, “We’ll be having you back” when actually, they’re uninterested. Even if a hiring manager is certain the candidate is a superb match, say nothing. Too often a hiring manager will explain at length the balance of the interview process with a candidate they know isn’t a fit. Then the candidate finds themselves wondering what transpired. Best if the hiring manager says, “We’ll be in touch.” and then, follows up accordingly through HR or the recruiter.

As for recruiters, some wrestle with what to share with both candidates and hiring managers. They struggle with revealing feedback to either party. Often they will mention a sliver of what’s been told to them. Sometimes, the recruiter is best saying nothing. They, after all, are the messengers and shooting the messenger is a popular activity.

Hard to imagine that Shakespeare was much concerned with interviewing when the Fool in King Lear said, “speak less than thou knowest.” Nevertheless, he was on to something. Remember, you have two ears and one mouth. Use them in that ratio. It will make it easier to avoid saying something you’ll regret.

Making a change, whether it be within your existing firm, or with a new firm, is stressful. That’s especially the case if you are in a job/firm where you’re unhappy. Why? Because moving doesn’t guarantee that you’ll be happier. And it could result in a situation worse than the one you’re currently in. Thus, it’s important to be as careful and deliberate as possible. So, go slow. And think about the following:

What do you like/dislike about your current situation? Best to write down everything so that you can see the whole list. This is an essential step, as it should help you determine what you really are drawn to, or trying to avoid. Moving just for money, or title, is probably unwise. But, and this is important, if you’ve been promised something (such as a raise or title bump) and didn’t receive it, you may consider a move. If management says one thing and does another, it’s a question of good judgment and trust. Fool me once, shame on you. Don’t hang around to be fooled twice. What you want to establish is: why you’re open to leaving a job, what you expect to escape and how well do you understand what you would be accepting, if you left.

1. At times, the idea of making a huge change is appealing but unrealistic. Sometimes it’s the result of fatigue, frustration, or boredom. Try to carve out a bit of time to separate your feelings so that you know what you can manage. If you’re at a point in your life where you genuinely have the flexibility to do what you like, that’s ideal. But few have that flexibility. So, take a look at what you could realistically do and try to establish some goals for yourself so that you can measure your growth. Best not to make a decision when you’re on the brink of taking vacation. Very hard to have the clarity at that point.

While there is no perfect job/firm, it’s possible to find a situation that is appealing. If/when you interview, pay attention to how you feel and how your questions are answered. But mostly, pay attention to the process. It’s nearly always the case that if you’re treated respectfully and reasonably in the search process, the firm you’re considering will be one that will treat you in a reasonable and professional fashion. Don’t confuse people being nice, which they often are when they want you to join. Just as boyfriends/girlfriends can be nice in a courtship, people can be pleasant in the process. One shouldn’t accept a role solely because the people are friendly. Candidates flattered by superficial kindness in the process often kick themselves later. There is a difference between thoughtful, professional interaction in the process vs. nice. Candidates should be alert to that discrepancy.

2. Be thorough. Not only is it essential that you be as clear as possible about why you would leave, make certain that you know what you’re seeking and get the answers to your questions, so that you feel you’re as sure as one can be about what you’re considering. While there’s no perfect job, it’s important that you identify your priorities and then determine if most of those will be met in your new role. Be honest about how attractive the role is/isn’t. But for one exception, no matter how much money you may be paid, if the role isn’t one you want to do, don’t make that move. Because the compensation increase can be the equivalent of a sugar high and job satisfaction is more important.

1. Now then, the exception, and this is one that can’t be underestimated, may be if the compensation is such that a move will dramatically change your financial situation and can significantly ease the stress of not having what you need, or if you’re drowning in debt. For many people, that’s a real situation and one that deserves consideration. So, ideally, while moving only makes sense if the actual role is attractive to you, if you’re financially uncomfortable, it’s understandable if you pursue a role because of the compensation. Unfortunately, the reality is that if you accept a role for the increased compensation, you may not be happy, nor fulfilled. Thus, it’s essential that you be honest with yourself as you evaluate increased financial stability vs. contentment and professional satisfaction.
2. Always think about what your new role could allow you to be considered for in the future. This means that if you make a move, what future moves will be open to you as a result. There are many people who have found that they get interviews because of a role they have and, if it weren’t for that role, or that employer, they wouldn’t have been given full consideration. So think about your goals beyond that immediate position. And remember, starting down a path that isn’t one you really want to pursue is unwise, as it will likely lead you further from what you enjoy/find stimulating.

5. Pay attention to how the hiring manager talks about their subordinates and try to get an idea of how they’ve grown in their roles. Most people want to know that growth is part of what the hiring manager encourages. And if they have helped others develop, that typically indicates the hiring manager wants people to flourish.

6. If you’re wondering if you’re going to be doing the same old thing, make sure that you ask the hiring manager what they think could be the outcome over an extended period for the person who assumes the role.

7.Talk to your sources and do due diligence. It’s a small world.

8.Talk to people who know you. And talk to people who have made moves. Ask them why they made a change and what were the most important criteria behind their decisions. Listen to what you ask them and pay attention to how you process their responses.

9. Most recruiters and hiring managers want you to move. Be careful. Do what’s best for you and your family. If you decide not to move, that’s okay. But it’s best to make that decision before you engage in multiple rounds of interviews. Recruiters and hiring managers will understand if you participate in a single round and then determine that you prefer not to go further in the process. That’s acceptable. Going far down the path and ultimately declining an offer that meets your requirements, however, is likely unwise. If you select a position that isn’t as lucrative short term but is professionally appealing, don’t feel you have to justify it to others. Be honest with yourself about what you enjoy doing and the direction that you find rewarding. Be professional and communicative and a good recruiter will/should treat you in the same fashion.

Google the word “counteroffer” and you’ll see plenty about the supposed potential impact. As is typical on the Internet, everyone who wants to will weigh in with their five cents. For recruiters, counteroffers resemble what a baseball player experiences when they’re tagged out at home plate.

It’s no secret that a recruiter’s goal is to fill a position. Ideally, the candidate is jazzed with the offer and the hiring firm is eager to welcome the candidate. The recruiter is paid. (Note: this is true for a recruiter working on contingency vs. retainer.) And everyone lives happily ever after. But any recruiter who has worked on a mess of searches knows that sometimes things won’t end well.

No matter how many times a recruiter establishes with a candidate what they’re seeking and how successful they are in securing their asks, a counteroffer is still a possibility. Candidates may claim they’ve no interest in a counter. And they may say they want to give their current employer a chance, but are ready to leave. That doesn’t mean they’re being genuine. And perhaps it’s because recruiters aren’t always responsible and trustworthy, some candidates are more comfortable not being forthcoming. So, a recruiter can ask a candidate for their wish list as it relates to compensation, title, vacation, etc., and a hiring firm can knock themselves out to meet every single ask. At that point, it may appear that things are moving forward and everyone’s on the same page. The recruiter can question the candidate a dozen times: will you take a counter if your asks are met, and the candidate can assure the recruiter, never ever. And then, take the counter. Recruiters who’ve had this experience often think they shouldn’t bother to mention the topic. Others mention it and think they’re throwing a monkey wrench into the equation. While still other recruiters will ask a dozen times, hoping they’re not being misled.

The outcome of accepting a counteroffer can vary. Just as the reasons candidates accept them can. For example, one candidate worked with a recruiter for approximately 16 months and ultimately accepted a counter. The explanation: permission to work from home once a week was offered to her by her current employer, and that meant the world to her. This decision was made, despite the compensation package, which was sizably larger than what was requested. Another candidate declined to leave her existing employer after all details were agreed upon, saying that she had been assured of a great future and that her current employer would consider her for more than one potential trajectory. A third candidate, who said about two dozen times that she’d never take a counter, lied. No real explanation. A fourth panicked because he was anxious about the future and wondered what would happen to him at another firm. In appreciation, he sent a fruit basket. One individual accepted counters twice, at the same firm; it was a clever strategy to increase his compensation. Ultimately, he left. A sixth claimed adapting to a new firm seemed unnerving.

What happens to candidates who stay? Some delight in the compensation increase and feel all is well. Others have a different experience. Often, they don’t stay for long. Some who do are mistreated by management that feels abused, or even tricked. Many are never trusted and find their trajectories stunted. While in the short term, their compensation packages may be increased, long term that’s anything but the case. Senior managers seldom recover from the experience. Typically they do all they can to make sure that the person who is now being paid more has more work. And if there’s a round of layoffs, well, no one is indispensable. Cutting a more expensive employee often happens. Sometimes the dynamics can be altered, either temporarily or permanently. It’s a bit like after a spouse learns that their husband/wife has cheated. The recovery can be long. If, indeed, there is real recovery. Moreover, the candidate may find they will be negatively impacted long term by the industry and/or the recruiter. Part of that is determined by how the candidate extracts themselves from the situation. An HR representative or a hiring manager may, themselves, move in the future. And the candidate who accepted a counter may turn up at the new firm, encountering these familiar faces, claiming to be interested in a role. Because folks tend to remember who accepted a counter, they may discourage their new firm from pursuing the individual, so as to avoid a repeat performance. In short, feigning interest in an opportunity to ultimately secure a counter may well catch up with the candidate.

Years back, several in a compliance department at a large bank pursued offers to secure counteroffers. The goal: find out their value in the marketplace and then convince their employer to raise their compensation. This generated a lot of resentment among those who were, as one person said, “loyal”. Around the same time, two other large financial institutions decided that they would identify anyone they thought was underpaid and increase their base salaries. This was unusual, in particular, because the salaries adjustments, some as much as 30%, took place in the months of July and September.

Candidates, after a first round of interviews, are allowed to excuse themselves from the process. And it’s OK not to explain to anyone their reasoning. Sometimes a candidate may sense the role isn’t a fit. The manager isn’t a match. Or the vibe of the firm isn’t comfortable. That’s for them to determine. But, if a candidate decides to proceed, and the hiring firm ultimately presents an offer that meets the candidate’s expectations, as they relate to compensation, benefits, vacation, starting date, title, then the candidate ought to accept the offer. Because if a company does produce an offer in good faith in a timely fashion, it suggests that the people who work there are reasonable and have been respectful of the candidate.

The best approach to counteroffers: avoid them. When a candidate goes to resign, they can simply tell their boss, they don’t want to consider a counteroffer because the next step makes sense for them. In short, decline one, before it’s presented. That’s the sign of a real professional.

In the small world that we live in, that may be the most reasonable way to navigate this component of the search process.