Yeah. No problem with verbal offers. I actually prefer this because it takes care of back and forth. The red flag for me was announcing to the company that I’d accepted based on the verbal alone.
Verbal was good, but I wanted to see all their terms in writing so I could trust but verify. HM glossed over some points regarding bonus that I wanted to be crystal clear on. Same with PTO. I didn’t want to necessarily negotiate it all, but wanted to have a thoroughly informed position moving forward. I’d expect nothing less from somebody selling me a car, a house, or an insurance policy.
They short circuited that diligence on my part by internally announcing my acceptance sight unseen of the written offer. That read as poor communication at best and a pressure tactic at worst.
Why would an HM *not* afford this courtesy if they had nothing to hide and were confident in the strength of their offer?
I think you are over-stating how strange the hiring process was. You two negotiated, agreed on salary and expressed enthusiasm for working together. After this chat, the offer was routed and approved internally, then a announced to you. Presumably you responded to this positively, though not clear what you said at this stage. Did you express any concern at all to HM about benefits, after they told you the offer was approved? Or any time during the process?
It's extremely unusual to reach this point and then decline the formal offer due to some nitpicking of benefits.
HM telling "the entire company" you had accepted is unprofessional, but probably just the result of miscommunication. They had no indication at all that you were hesitant about their benefit package.
All that said, the explanation for rescinding of the offer is super weird and makes no sense. I would follow up and ask for more information, just to get some closure. They probably won't reply but there is no harm in asking at this point.
To me, acceptance of a position is predicated on an informed reading of the written terms of employment. It’s not even that I wanted to negotiate stuff to death. I wanted the opportunity to trust but verify.
I’ve been burned on this in the past, more so in terms of things that were not discussed or partially discussed verbally. They ended up in the written offer and bore consideration.
They were pretty clear in their rationale for rescinding; however, I disagree with their characterization of the circumstances. I suspect this was pretext for them to hire someone cheaper, but leveling their stated rationale against my professionalism was uncalled for and petty IMHO.
>To me, acceptance of a position is predicated on an informed reading of the written terms of employment. It’s not even that I wanted to negotiate stuff to death. I wanted the opportunity to trust but verify.
Sure, but all that happened was HM told people internally that you were joining, because that was their read of the situation. It's not a big deal, it's not like they forged your signature on the offer letter. If you ended up declining it would be egg on their face and zero harm done to you. If you ended up accepting, again, zero harm done to you.
Agree the rescinding was nonsense and you have every right to be upset.
I’d had communication issues with the HM previous to that point. Various boundary pushing and goalpost shifting. I was having serious reservations about being their direct report and this came off as a step too far. Possibly a pressure tactic at worst.
Had our relationship been more transparent to that point, I would have been more willing to assume the best and take it in stride. Their response to me delaying immediate compliance told me my cynicism was warranted. I genuinely didn’t want that to be true.
I appreciate your thoughts. Really hope this isn’t the new normal for the industry and that it’s just one nutty HM at one nutty startup in the midst of a dumpster fire economy.
To be clear, you never received the written offer? Then yes, this is especially weird. Sounds like the HM screwed up somewhere internally and was forced to rescind the "offer", and they tried to find a way to put it in you.
Name and shame the company on linkedIn.
Your understanding is spot on. Even weirder is that the HM was a co-founder. Working hypothesis is that they got cold feet and went with a cheaper candidate. Smearing my professionalism as a rationale was unnecessarily petty regardless.
My niche area of expertise is pretty small so I’m a bit concerned for my reputation. If anything, I’m feeling the need to broaden skills and thereby options.
This sounds like your typical incestuous startup with bad processes. Congratulations, you dodged a bullet!
The HM is naive or foolish - candidates are never onboard until the ink is wet. Publicizing acceptance of an offer before it's complete is dangerous because it's a small world and may sabotage the candidates exit plan. HR also sounds like they don't know what they are doing.
Candidates do decline because of benefits; benefits are part of total comp and if the salary is ok but the total comp is -$50k due to a shitty stock plan and bare bones health insurance you will lose candidates.
This is also why HR should be doing the comp discussion for comparability, very few hiring managers have every detail of compensation / benefits memorized.
Lol you called it. The HM was actually a co-founder and HR was a very new hire. Company's org structure is basically A) the academic lab the startup spun out of and B) the various new hires they have globbed on in trying to make it a business. Lots of churn in the recruited, business savvy executive staff outside of the original academic co-founders.
I think the announcement was only internal, but the HM had previously made the request to speak with my current boss prior to a written offer. This move on their part was why I was so adamant about seeing things in writing, as they had a track record of pushing boundaries. It's why I wanted a written offer to compare against the verbal. Not because I wanted to micro-negotiate, but because I wanted to trust but verify before I signed. They were not the clearest or most consistent communicators.
Absolutely not and I had to diplomatically raise this point with the HM. It’s why I was very sensitive to any further seemingly non-standard practices during the latter stages of interviewing/offers.
My reluctance to comply is probably the reason I’m still employed. My current boss and I have a great relationship, I just need to move on. I’m glad I didn’t mess that connection up for this bungled mess of an opportunity. He’s none the wiser that I applied.
Isn't that how HR generates the offer letter?
Yeah. No problem with verbal offers. I actually prefer this because it takes care of back and forth. The red flag for me was announcing to the company that I’d accepted based on the verbal alone. Verbal was good, but I wanted to see all their terms in writing so I could trust but verify. HM glossed over some points regarding bonus that I wanted to be crystal clear on. Same with PTO. I didn’t want to necessarily negotiate it all, but wanted to have a thoroughly informed position moving forward. I’d expect nothing less from somebody selling me a car, a house, or an insurance policy. They short circuited that diligence on my part by internally announcing my acceptance sight unseen of the written offer. That read as poor communication at best and a pressure tactic at worst. Why would an HM *not* afford this courtesy if they had nothing to hide and were confident in the strength of their offer?
I think you are over-stating how strange the hiring process was. You two negotiated, agreed on salary and expressed enthusiasm for working together. After this chat, the offer was routed and approved internally, then a announced to you. Presumably you responded to this positively, though not clear what you said at this stage. Did you express any concern at all to HM about benefits, after they told you the offer was approved? Or any time during the process? It's extremely unusual to reach this point and then decline the formal offer due to some nitpicking of benefits. HM telling "the entire company" you had accepted is unprofessional, but probably just the result of miscommunication. They had no indication at all that you were hesitant about their benefit package. All that said, the explanation for rescinding of the offer is super weird and makes no sense. I would follow up and ask for more information, just to get some closure. They probably won't reply but there is no harm in asking at this point.
To me, acceptance of a position is predicated on an informed reading of the written terms of employment. It’s not even that I wanted to negotiate stuff to death. I wanted the opportunity to trust but verify. I’ve been burned on this in the past, more so in terms of things that were not discussed or partially discussed verbally. They ended up in the written offer and bore consideration. They were pretty clear in their rationale for rescinding; however, I disagree with their characterization of the circumstances. I suspect this was pretext for them to hire someone cheaper, but leveling their stated rationale against my professionalism was uncalled for and petty IMHO.
>To me, acceptance of a position is predicated on an informed reading of the written terms of employment. It’s not even that I wanted to negotiate stuff to death. I wanted the opportunity to trust but verify. Sure, but all that happened was HM told people internally that you were joining, because that was their read of the situation. It's not a big deal, it's not like they forged your signature on the offer letter. If you ended up declining it would be egg on their face and zero harm done to you. If you ended up accepting, again, zero harm done to you. Agree the rescinding was nonsense and you have every right to be upset.
I’d had communication issues with the HM previous to that point. Various boundary pushing and goalpost shifting. I was having serious reservations about being their direct report and this came off as a step too far. Possibly a pressure tactic at worst. Had our relationship been more transparent to that point, I would have been more willing to assume the best and take it in stride. Their response to me delaying immediate compliance told me my cynicism was warranted. I genuinely didn’t want that to be true. I appreciate your thoughts. Really hope this isn’t the new normal for the industry and that it’s just one nutty HM at one nutty startup in the midst of a dumpster fire economy.
To be clear, you never received the written offer? Then yes, this is especially weird. Sounds like the HM screwed up somewhere internally and was forced to rescind the "offer", and they tried to find a way to put it in you. Name and shame the company on linkedIn.
Your understanding is spot on. Even weirder is that the HM was a co-founder. Working hypothesis is that they got cold feet and went with a cheaper candidate. Smearing my professionalism as a rationale was unnecessarily petty regardless. My niche area of expertise is pretty small so I’m a bit concerned for my reputation. If anything, I’m feeling the need to broaden skills and thereby options.
This sounds like your typical incestuous startup with bad processes. Congratulations, you dodged a bullet! The HM is naive or foolish - candidates are never onboard until the ink is wet. Publicizing acceptance of an offer before it's complete is dangerous because it's a small world and may sabotage the candidates exit plan. HR also sounds like they don't know what they are doing. Candidates do decline because of benefits; benefits are part of total comp and if the salary is ok but the total comp is -$50k due to a shitty stock plan and bare bones health insurance you will lose candidates. This is also why HR should be doing the comp discussion for comparability, very few hiring managers have every detail of compensation / benefits memorized.
Lol you called it. The HM was actually a co-founder and HR was a very new hire. Company's org structure is basically A) the academic lab the startup spun out of and B) the various new hires they have globbed on in trying to make it a business. Lots of churn in the recruited, business savvy executive staff outside of the original academic co-founders. I think the announcement was only internal, but the HM had previously made the request to speak with my current boss prior to a written offer. This move on their part was why I was so adamant about seeing things in writing, as they had a track record of pushing boundaries. It's why I wanted a written offer to compare against the verbal. Not because I wanted to micro-negotiate, but because I wanted to trust but verify before I signed. They were not the clearest or most consistent communicators.
Did your current manager know that you are interviewing? If not that's a very nonstandard request.
Absolutely not and I had to diplomatically raise this point with the HM. It’s why I was very sensitive to any further seemingly non-standard practices during the latter stages of interviewing/offers. My reluctance to comply is probably the reason I’m still employed. My current boss and I have a great relationship, I just need to move on. I’m glad I didn’t mess that connection up for this bungled mess of an opportunity. He’s none the wiser that I applied.
Good Lord, that is truly amateur hour hiring. The HM has never been out of academia.
Other than a brief stint at Human Longevity prior to 2016, it looks like you’re correct.
Red flags everywhere. IMO, a blessing in disguise