4 ms·

It's not always a bluff. Depending on the company, it can happen that there are a fixed number of positions, that they need filled as soon as possible. They nee

It's not always a bluff. Depending on the company, it can happen that there are a fixed number of positions, that they need filled as soon as possible. They need an answer from you, or they need to know to move on. It's not unheard of for a company to have multiple candidates who are good enough to hire, and not enough openings, and they don't want to lose one just because their first choice doesn't want to wait. That's not immoral, unethical, a bluff, or unfair, that's just the reality for them; they can't guarantee the offer will be open if you don't get back to them in time. That said, as a candidate, there is no real cost to pushing back against the exploding offer, i.e., "Well, I am interviewing with X as well, and don't feel it would be fair to make a decision without speaking with them". If the company sticks to their guns, you will have to make a decision, but if it's a bluff, they may back off (and you can make of that what you will).

jzwinck 11y ago
I used to work for a company that took that line. We were given a quota, say to hire 5 people. I proposed sending out 7 offers with the expectation that not all would accept. And if they all did accept we would certainly find a use for them. HR rejected this idea. So a lot of it is made up by HR folks who want hiring to appear in their reports to be more predictable than it is.
- lostcolony 11y ago
  It's not really HR's fault, though. They don't share the viewpoint that most technical people do, that finding good technical people is sufficiently hard to warrant hiring extra if you find yourself so lucky as to find more than you need, rather than risking missing out on filling the positions you need.
- gumby 11y ago
  That's unfair to the candidates: what if all seven accept? In this case HR is doing the right thing.
  - jzwinck 11y ago
    Two extra employees in a big firm is nothing. As I said before, we could easily have found a use for two more. Not that there was more than 1% chance of it happening.
    - gumby 11y ago
      ah, I was thinking of a startup, or a company with more strict headcount rules/constraints.
ludamad 11y ago
Interviewing for internship at Red Hat Toronto, I was given just under a week to respond to an offer. With limited spots and a tight schedule, they sort of needed to be able to give the offer to new candidates quickly, without leading anyone on.

jzwinck 11y ago

I used to work for a company that took that line. We were given a quota, say to hire 5 people. I proposed sending out 7 offers with the expectation that not all would accept. And if they all did accept we would certainly find a use for them. HR rejected this idea. So a lot of it is made up by HR folks who want hiring to appear in their reports to be more predictable than it is.

lostcolony 11y ago
It's not really HR's fault, though. They don't share the viewpoint that most technical people do, that finding good technical people is sufficiently hard to warrant hiring extra if you find yourself so lucky as to find more than you need, rather than risking missing out on filling the positions you need.
gumby 11y ago
That's unfair to the candidates: what if all seven accept? In this case HR is doing the right thing.
- jzwinck 11y ago
  Two extra employees in a big firm is nothing. As I said before, we could easily have found a use for two more. Not that there was more than 1% chance of it happening.
  - gumby 11y ago
    ah, I was thinking of a startup, or a company with more strict headcount rules/constraints.

ludamad 11y ago

Interviewing for internship at Red Hat Toronto, I was given just under a week to respond to an offer. With limited spots and a tight schedule, they sort of needed to be able to give the offer to new candidates quickly, without leading anyone on.