A correspondent was rankled by some of my comments in "Choosing between the bird in your hand and the two in the bush," (Advice Line, 4/25/2007). His comments:"All companies aren't amoral and all hiring managers aren't heartless bastards. As someone who manages a staff and is responsible for hiring decisions I think it is very important for candidates be as honest and upfront with me as possible. I try my best t A correspondent was rankled by some of my comments in “Choosing between the bird in your hand and the two in the bush,” (Advice Line, 4/25/2007). His comments:“All companies aren’t amoral and all hiring managers aren’t heartless bastards. As someone who manages a staff and is responsible for hiring decisions I think it is very important for candidates be as honest and upfront with me as possible. I try my best to do the same for them. I would categorize an individual who accepted a position knowing that he was going to turn around and interview for another as a poor long-term prospect. Knowing that the candidate handled this situation in that way would set a pretty low expectation for similar future circumstances. On the other hand, if the person contacted me and said a much better offer was on the table and he would like time to evaluate it I would consider that much more positively. It would give me time to discuss the situation with the candidate, I might be able to add information to his decision making process, and it might even cause me to reconsider my offer. I think it’s a pretty simple test. Put yourself in the other person’s position and ask yourself how you would handle the situation. If you aren’t handling it in that way then you should rethink what you are doing. Finally if right out of the box you take the position that you can’t trust the other party then what’s the point? You are predisposing yourself to a pretty poor working relationship. To put it more directly, if either party can’t trust the other then working relationship is doomed from the start. If you don’t have an expectation that the other party will act in a manner you find reasonable then don’t go there.” These are strongly made points, and worthy of consideration, so let’s take them one at a time: * Are all corporations amoral? No. All publicly held corporations are, by definition amoral. The privately held ones are a different matter since their owners are materially involved in their day-to-day decision-making. It’s easy to demonstrate that amorality is a legal requirement of publicly held corporations. Imagine a situation in which a company has an opportunity to add 20% in profits to its bottom line. The opportunity is entirely legal. It’s also unethical by most commonly accepted measures. Should the company’s management and board of directors decide to forgo this opportunity and shareholders found out about it, they’d have every right to sue or fire the lot of them for failing to maximize shareholder value – the alpha and omega of management responsibility in a publicly held corporation. * Are all hiring managers heartless? Of course not, nor did I suggest this in my response. Hiring managers run the gamut, and as I said, the world of business is a network of personal relationships. Damaging these is generally a bad idea. * Should the candidate inform the hiring manager that he’s also considering another opportunity? This is questionable. The hiring manager might respond as my correspondent suggests. He or she might also, quite reasonably, view the situation as banks view mortgage applications: Once you lock in, the deal is done. Many would consider the act of continuing to consider a different position to be an act of betrayal – a violation of a commitment. Or, the hiring manager might view this is a negotiating ploy to try to squeeze out more compensation – something that would leave a bad taste, regardless of the truth of the matter. Putting yourself in the other person’s position is of limited value as an ethical test here. Apply that guidance to any other negotiation and you’ll see its limitations: If you put yourself in the other person’s position you’d never be able to negotiate at all. Here’s another reason it provides the wrong guidance: Imagine you, as a hiring manager, knew your company was strongly considering a hiring freeze. You still have an open position, and the freeze isn’t in place yet. Do you continue to recruit, knowing you might have to pull the plug at the last minute? Do you inform candidates of the possibility? Of course you continue to recruit, and of course you don’t inform applicants that there might be a freeze (doing so could, and should get you fired for revealing confidential information). * How about the last point – that if the two parties can’t trust each other then the working relationship is doomed from the start? My own view is that “trust” isn’t a binary value – that it covers a broad range of values, from the interaction of “soul mates” on one end of the continuum to how U.S. diplomats need to interact with Vladimir Putin on the other. When you start a working relationship you owe your manager the benefit of the doubt, but not absolute trust. The relationship will evolve from there. – Bob Powered by ScribeFire. Technology Industry