3 ms·
>the other 9 candidates who are waiting in line don't want that [to wait for the first candidate to contemplate the offer] If any of them have other offers, th
by edmccard 12y ago
>the other 9 candidates who are waiting in line don't want that [to wait for the first candidate to contemplate the offer]
If any of them have other offers, they might appreciate _some_ extra time to decide between them.
EDIT: Nevermind the previous bit--I was still thinking in the context of multiple simultaneous offers, which I guess is not a thing.
And if not, then if the first choice turns it down, you make an exploding offer to the second (to be fair to the next 8), and again to the third (to be fair to the next 7), etc. Is there ever a situation where an exploding offer is not in everyone's best interest?
- morgante 12y ago> And if not, then if the first choice turns it down, you make an exploding offer to the second (to be fair to the next 8), and again to the third (to be fair to the next 7), etc. Is there ever a situation where an exploding offer is not in everyone's best interest? The ideal scenario would be if it were socially acceptable to rescind offers—thus making the exploding offer unnecessary. An employer could make offers to everyone they're interested in, see who accepts, and then stay with them (essentially, allow parallel analysis on both sides). Instead, candidates can have multiple simultaneous offers while companies can only make offers sequentially. Hence the exploding offers.
- judk 12y agoA rescindable offer worse than a deadline, because the deadline is unpredictable.