Counteroffers, and how employers handle rejection
Posted: Thu Jan 23, 2025 5:26 am
I have found that when a candidate goes through a full recruitment process, but ultimately rejects the offer, how the employer handles it can speak volumes.
Equally, when in receipt of a resignation letter, a classy or petulant response can inform a candidate’s decision to accept a counteroffer, or not.
This week the wisdom of candidates accepting a counteroffer, upon resigning from ukraine phone number resource their current employer, has been raised again. In the interests of recruiters, agencies, hitting targets and making commission, it has come to be believed that counteroffers must never be accepted. That there are a whole list of reasons why your employer is not to be trusted in a resignation situation, and that there are bound to be dark motives behind any offer of more salary, promotion, responsibilities or working conditions. The assertion goes that “You have forced their hand, so anything resulting response must therefore be tainted”.
There is a much photocopied document, passed round the recruitment community since the 1980’s, which originated in an article written for no less august an organ than the Wall Street Journal, which detailed everything a recruiter wanted to hear. This article, when given to a candidate, would scare the bejesus out of them, and ensure they never again spoke to their soon-to-be former employer, never mind consider an offer to stay. So persuasive was this document, that it went unquestioned, and became an accepted truism in our industry.
Nevertheless, using general statistics (however fabricated) from past events to predict specific outcomes for a candidate in front of you is bad form, and defies the rules of logic. The recruiter always has far better information, upon which to give much more considered and appropriate advice. Sure, if a recruiter needs to convince a wavering candidate in order to make the fee, that Wall Street Journal document can help to make your flawed argument, but it is simply not relevant to a specific candidate that has been made a counteroffer.
Equally, when in receipt of a resignation letter, a classy or petulant response can inform a candidate’s decision to accept a counteroffer, or not.
This week the wisdom of candidates accepting a counteroffer, upon resigning from ukraine phone number resource their current employer, has been raised again. In the interests of recruiters, agencies, hitting targets and making commission, it has come to be believed that counteroffers must never be accepted. That there are a whole list of reasons why your employer is not to be trusted in a resignation situation, and that there are bound to be dark motives behind any offer of more salary, promotion, responsibilities or working conditions. The assertion goes that “You have forced their hand, so anything resulting response must therefore be tainted”.
There is a much photocopied document, passed round the recruitment community since the 1980’s, which originated in an article written for no less august an organ than the Wall Street Journal, which detailed everything a recruiter wanted to hear. This article, when given to a candidate, would scare the bejesus out of them, and ensure they never again spoke to their soon-to-be former employer, never mind consider an offer to stay. So persuasive was this document, that it went unquestioned, and became an accepted truism in our industry.
Nevertheless, using general statistics (however fabricated) from past events to predict specific outcomes for a candidate in front of you is bad form, and defies the rules of logic. The recruiter always has far better information, upon which to give much more considered and appropriate advice. Sure, if a recruiter needs to convince a wavering candidate in order to make the fee, that Wall Street Journal document can help to make your flawed argument, but it is simply not relevant to a specific candidate that has been made a counteroffer.