The offer wasn't perfect. Although the money and job responsibilities were virtually identical, the benefit package was a problem: It provided very little tuition reimbursement, whereas her previous employer had paid 100 percent. By accepting the offer, she could ensure her ability to pay the rent and put food on the table, but it would mean the collapse of her many career goals.
Thinking it through, she realized she had four choices:
- Try to negotiate a higher salary to compensate for the lesser benefits package.
- Accept the offer and give up on school.
- Accept the offer and keep on looking for other opportunities.
- Turn the offer down and continue job hunting.
The first option (negotiation) was her first choice, but she doubted the hospital's pay scale could be stretched $15,000 higher. She also knew she could never permanently give up her educational goals, although she realized she might have to postpone them for a while. That left her with two choices, both of which involved continuing her job search. It simply became a question of whether to do so as an employed or unemployed person.
There are advantages and disadvantages to either decision. If she accepted the position and kept on looking, it would (1) be unfair to the employer who hired her in good faith and (2) slow her search down, since it takes time and energy to learn a new job.
Yet, if she turned the offer down, she had no guarantee that she'd be offered another position anytime soon. This would create financial pressures, and she'd probably end up delaying her education, anyway.
Does it matter that she received the offer within her very first week of job hunting? Should we write this off to "beginner's luck" or read it as an indication that the laws of supply and demand are on her side?
The question leads us to a fifth option (which is, in fact, the one she chose):
- Stall the employer for time in order to check out the job market.
For her, this meant directly contacting every Chicago hospital to determine their need for surgical nurses. Then, armed with a little more feedback, she was better able to decide whether to risk the wait.
Many candidates mistakenly believe that an offer must be accepted on the spot or it will be withdrawn. Rather than fall into this trap, express your appreciation and enthusiasm for the offer, then ask when a response is needed.
Most employers will give you a week to think it over. You may not need that much time. Perhaps you just want to "sleep on it" overnight, to make sure your questions have been answered. Or you may want to talk it over with your partner to make sure your family can live with your decision. Many professionals can't accept a job offer without first consulting the other people it would affect.
For example, an Indiana-based marketing manager wanted desperately to move his career into the international arena. His dream job finally came through, but it was in Ohio and his wife, a tenured university professor, had no desire to relocate. After many long discussions, they decided to live with a commuter marriage to keep both careers on track.
On the other hand, when a tenured journalism professor at an Illinois state school decided to accept a non-tenured position with a prestigious private East Coast college, she didn't want to live apart from her husband and two children. So her husband liquidated his private law practice and started job hunting on the East Coast, knowing that legal jobs weren't plentiful there. Not surprisingly, it took him six months to find something suitable.
In another case, a Houston engineer turned down a higher paying sales engineer's job in Atlanta because his girlfriend didn't want to move.
Whether a job requires a move overseas, across the country or simply from the suburbs to the city, you must consider carefully whether the sacrifice is worth the effort.
When an accountant who lived in a Chicago suburb interviewed for a management position with a well-known restaurant chain, executives expressed a concern that his long commute into the city would interfere with his job responsibilities. Being single, the accountant decided to eliminate the obstacle by moving into a downtown high-rise. Before he made that move, however, he should have asked why a simple commute that thousands of people make every day would be a problem.
He may not have asked but he found out, anyway. Once hired, he was expected to start work at 6 A.M. every day of the week. Not only did he routinely put in 12-hour days, his job involved meeting hourly deadlines every single morning and then working straight through lunch.
To decide whether to move for a new job, recruiters and relocation experts suggest the following guidelines:
- Investigate the new area thoroughly. Make sure you see what you're getting into and that the city is a livable place for you and your family.
- Determine how the new city's cost of living compares with your current situation and consider whether your salary will be adequate.
- Evaluate whether the job opportunity is worthwhile. Don't move just to move.
"I didn't realize that I'd have to turn my whole life over to this job," the accountant remarks ruefully. "But that's what it's become. I don't have time for anything else, including looking for a new job."
Unfortunately, many candidates are so anxious to accept a position that they close their eyes to the messages an employer sends. During the interview process the restaurant chain sent many signals that unrealistic demands might be placed on employees. Yet the accountant ignored the red flags and accepted anyway.
He was put through a rigorous selection process, including four interviews with different managers in different locations and an extensive battery of personality and aptitude tests. That's all standard procedure, but the fact that he was asked to personally coordinate the logistics of this complicated interview process should have made him wary. At the end of each meeting, he was given the telephone number of the next person to contact and instructed to schedule an appointment. Since each executive on his list was inordinately busy, he ended up literally spending weeks tracking down interviewers.
Then, after the fourth meeting, the subject of testing was introduced. The accountant amiably agreed, but then he heard nothing back for two weeks. Finally, he followed up with the human resources director, only to find that the group had "dropped the ball." No one even knew if a hiring decision had been made.
Apparently, his call prompted them to take action, because he was offered the job a few days later. But the company let him know that (1) he was coming in on the high end of its pay scale (message: don't expect any more money from us); and (2) that it doesn't usually hire from the outside (message: you'd better be worth it).
The way an employer treats you during a job interview is usually a good indication of how well you'll be treated as an employee.
When Jerry Hannigan received his first job offer, he was annoyed that the employer extended him an offer on Thursday and wanted an answer by Monday. "Employers have to realize that this is an important decision in someone's life," says Hannigan. "I needed time to think about it."
Had he been more excited about the offer, Hannigan might have been less concerned about the short timetable. But a second red flag went up when the employer refused to let him meet his prospective coworkers. When Hannigan wasn't allowed to "check the employer's references" this way, he knew he couldn't work at the company.
Timing often plays a critical role in your decision-making process. You may find that compromises you're unwilling to make in the beginning become more acceptable after you've realistically evaluated the job market-and vice versa.
In June 1992, Lana Steinman lost her training position with Packaging Corporation of America during a general layoff. Since this was her third layoff in 12 years (one company went belly-up and another was sold), she knew how to deal with the situation. To support herself during the transition, she started looking around for interim consulting positions and hooked up with several firms.
The following February, Steinman interviewed for a training position with a health-care products manufacturer near her home in Lincolnshire, Illinois. The job sounded promising. She knew she'd enjoy the work responsibilities, liked her prospective peers and was very enamored of the close location.
She heard nothing from the company until mid-May, when she was asked (as is standard in training) to do a presentation for the CEO, president and vice president of human resources. Her presentation went well and she was told that a decision between her and another candidate would be made the following week. By mid-June, she still hadn't heard anything. Reviewing her conversations with company executives, she realized that their failure to answer her questions about their training budget and resources indicated a lack of commitment to the position.
In the meantime, her consulting practice was blossoming and Steinman was reconsidering her decision to seek permanent employment. Although she'd always chosen job security first, her experience over the preceding 12 years had taught her that security is rare in the current American workplace.
Finally, she decided to commit herself to self-employment. So she called the health-care company to withdraw her candidacy--only to find that they wanted to offer her the job. "I had this moment of panic when they made me the offer," Steinman says. "Was I doing the right thing? Should I choose the safe route and accept the position?"
It only took a moment of soul-searching to come up with the answer.
"How much security can there be with a company that isn't committed to the job or the department?" Steinman says. She decided to keep on looking.
Periods of transition are almost always stressful. But they can also be opportunities to grow. For many laid-off executives, this means reevaluating needs, values and priorities to develop new directions.
When an architectural marketing professional lost her job, she realized that her former employer had actually done her a favor since she'd never really liked the work. She decided to change careers, but first she needed more skills. Her strategy was to take another marketing position that enabled her to go back to school and build some new credentials. Although she never told her new employer she was planning to be a "two-year employee," in her mind, she'd made a distinction between short-term and long-term goals.
The marketing professional's actions display a new self-directed mentality in the workplace. People no longer expect to commit their entire work lives to one employer. Companies may lament this new "what's-in-it-for-me" thinking among employees, but it's really just a matter of "turnabout is fair play." Since employers no longer make lifetime commitments to their employees, they can no longer expect that kind of loyalty in return.
When an employer and a candidate decide to work together, they should do so because the partnership is mutually beneficial. Anytime the relationship stops benefiting either party, there's cause to terminate the contract.
People with a more survivalist "Depression-era" mentality have trouble' with this new value system. They remember vividly what it means to be poor (and, in some cases, have passed those memories in the form of values along to their children). They still feel that people should be grateful just to have a job.
Ironically, most companies are looking for employees who really want to work specifically for them--people who can commit to their unique missions and goals. By knowing what you want (and actively seeking it out), you do both sides a favor and ensure a more productive and satisfying work partnership.
This insight doesn't develop overnight. It takes time and effort to understand yourself and how you best fit into the job market. Few people are willing to engage that process. Jerry Hannigan is an exception.
After being laid off from AT&T, Hannigan sent out more than 1,000 resumes, generated 76 interviews, and received several job offers. It has taken 15 months.
Many people think he's being too picky--that he should compromise. Having waited this long, Hannigan is loathe to do so. Currently, he's considering an offer from a microwave transmission company that recently restructured, hired a new management team and is gearing up to enter the international arena. Hannigan thinks there's a good market for the product, the career path is great, the money is right and the people seem smart and nice. But until he sees the final offer on the table, he plans to keep on interviewing. (Too many offers have already fallen through.)
In fact, he has two interviews pending--proof positive that he's still a viable candidate. The hardest part, he admits, is keeping himself psychologically revved up. He feels his age creeping up. And he'd like this part of his life to be settled.
But he wants to make sure that the decision he makes is the right one. His career depends on it.
