Have you ever had a position accepted and then another comes along that's even better

I've seen this topic discussed, in fact a fellow forum member went through this a few weeks back.

How do you handle this? What's your thoughts on handling this situation? Do you do it or do you just stay the course with the position you just took?

I wish I had better questions but I was just wondering about the forums experiences around this situation.

Find more posts tagged with

Save $250 on 2025 certification boot camps from Infosec!

Book now with code EOY2025

Button

Comments

NetworkVeteran

When I accept a position--we've both signed a contract--I cease entertaining offers. The company does the same. That seems like the most ethical approach to take. If you tell someone you're taking the job and then don't come through, you've burned them. Expect that to come back to bite you.

This doesn't mean I don't have hard choices to make. In my last job hunt, I received a very good offer which expired in two business days. I had to tell another company, that had my dream position, they had two days to act. A couple flights and several limo rides later, they needed another day. I had to tell the first company I needed more time. One day later my dream position came through and all was well. The right choice is not always the easy choice.

Akaricloud

If it's a contract then that is a different story, but if you've accepted at will employment, which most positions now are, then you are NOT obligated to start that job.

If it was worth my while I would definitely entertain the second offer. It's fairly common in practice and employers are used to handling it.

NetworkVeteran

Akaricloud wrote: »

If it's a contract then that is a different story, but if you've accepted at will employment, which most positions now are, then you are NOT obligated to start that job.

As I see it, there's a difference between one's legal obligations and the ethical norms. For example, the norm is to take a job once you accept it, to work at a job long enough for them to recoup their initial investment in training you, and to provide adequate notice before leaving. None of those are legal obligations, but failing to meet them can get you a bad reputation.

I do have an acquaintance who left a job within two weeks of joining. He's now on the don't-hire list of the largest employer in his area. In his case, the risk was calculated, since he's nearing retirement and this is likely the last tech job he'll need to work at.

Akaricloud

I do understand what you're saying, but from the company side of it they would still rather find someone new to fill the position while their search is still open(It's usually quite easy to hire the second pick), rather than train you 4 months until they recoup their losses and then start again when you quit. They would much rather find someone who wants to stick around for the long haul rather than someone who wants to leave before they even get started.

Starting a job is a big committment for both parties but if it isn't going to work out then it's best for both to cut their losses early and move on.

N2IT

Akari makes a lot of sense. At will employment (either party can terminate for any reason). I am going to stay with the position I originally accepted, but I was interested in others responses. I'm sure there are others out there with some interesting stories.

After creating a decision tree and weighting the pro's and con's I decided to stay with the position I am with now. I agree with NetworkV that you should (in most cases) stay with the original offer. I also think it depends on the type of contract.

I know the answer in short (it depends).

Iristheangel

I agree with Akari. If it's a permanent job, I'd go with NetworkVeteran on the ethics part because it's understood that you were being hired for a career, not a position. When it's a contract/temporary position, I think it's a little more understood that if something more permanent comes along for the contractor, they might take it.

paul78

Both @Akaricloud and @NetworkVeteran make excellent points. It is at-will employment in most states in the US but being on global company's do-not-hire list should be avoided if possible.

I, personally, just avoid that situation altogether. If I have an offer which I intend to accept, I will notify any other prospective employers that I am no longer interested before I accept the offer. It gives the other prospective employers the opportunity to make the offer if they truly had any interest.

techdudehere

I hear stories about people accepting low pay and few benefits believing that's going to get them somewhere. I believe they are right, it will get them a job as an 95 year old Walmart greeter who can't afford his medicine. Whether I've been with a company 2 days or 12 years, if someone offers me a better overall deal (increased salary, increased benefits, job stability), I'm going to take it. Letting someone take advantage of you only makes you poor. Why would anyone care if he were blacklisted by a company that pays less than its competitors? Seems like one would have blacklisted the company, too!

paul78

@techdudehere - I'm sure that we can probably get into an interesting discussion about the consequences or non-consequences of being on any companies do-not-hire list

.

You do raise an valid point if a job candidate's career prospects are not hindered by that scenario. And certainly I am not espouse the idea that someone should simply accept any job that comes along. I am only suggesting that if a decision was already made in good faith with a prospective employer, it is disingenuous to retract that decision unless great care is taken.

For me, its not a matter of only compensation but more about reputation and my own sense of business ethics. Also for myself, I work an industry where everyone knows everyone else and I could very easily run into that same company again while doing business. And frankly, there are just not that many positions at my level in my industry. And I don't want to work in another sector because the business domain knowledge that I have acquired is invaluable to my current and potential employers. And I am more than fairly compensated for that additional value.

Roguetadhg

Do you mind if I ask what is "Your Industry"?

YuckTheFankees

NetworkVeteran wrote: »

As I see it, there's a difference between one's legal obligations and the ethical norms. For example, the norm is to take a job once you accept it, to work at a job long enough for them to recoup their initial investment in training you, and to provide adequate notice before leaving. None of those are legal obligations, but failing to meet them can get you a bad reputation.

I understand what you are saying but I definitely do not feel that I have to stay at any job until my current employer can "recoup their initial investment'. Being/getting hired is a two way street, most of the time you're taking the new job because you think it's a good career move and the employer is hiring you because you match what they are looking for.

So if a week, 2 weeks, or even a few months passes by and you receive any type of offer, why wouldn't you at least hear what they had to say. You do not owe your employer anything, and your employer doesn't owe you anything either. If they needed to cut your position immediately, would they hesitate and think..is it ethical we are firing this man/woman without notice? No, they are looking out for their company and they're doing what's best for them. You in turn, need to do the same.

It sounds bad but always think about yourself first, when it comes to employment.

hiddenknight821

I had no idea this would stir up a debate. I am on NetworkVeteran and paul78's side here, but you're right YuckTheFankees. It's a two-way street. There are always a lot of factors when making such decision. If I was recently hired, then a few weeks later I got an offer that I couldn't resist, I would be incline to leave the job with a two-week notice on a few conditions.

1. The new job pays substantially more than the current one given that the transportation and additional compensations remain the same.
2. I'm still struggling financially with the current job.

I can't think of more reasons now, but if the new job offer is questionable in stability then I wouldn't consider it despite the pay. I care more about job stability than the money, especially in this economy. I think it is our safe bet to communicate with our current employer, and honestly tell them why you are leaving. And... remember, do not accept the counter-offer but try to leave on good term. Although, this never occur to me, but I learned this lesson from many members here.

Mrock4

I accepted a job across the country..that was a "last resort" job..away from my family..

I was literally on the road to go fill the position, when I received a call from a job that would allow me to stay at home with my family. I turned around and took the job.

All company's involved understood my decision and I don't feel it reflected bad upon me. I still maintain steady contact with the company I almost worked for..on good terms, I might add.

Ultimately the solution is that you are more selective when accepting a position. You hold out (if possible) until you get the right offer for you, and take it- confident that you won't get any others that are a lot better than the one you accepted.

But, there are special cirsumstances, and in those, I default to "take care of my family" - If that makes me unethical, gives me a bad reputation, well......so be it, I'd rather have a bad reputation among business associates that I may never see again, then have a good reputation and know that I COULD be taking better care of my family (whether financially or literally in my case)- but chose not to, to maintain my reputation.

N2IT

Great points made here no question about it.

I side with look after yourself. If you get laid off after the first month nobody on here is going to be bashing that company and no one really cares. That's my thoughts, which align with look out after yourself.

Of course remain as professional as possible and offer to assist in anyway possible. I believe if you are up front and explain the situation you'll be fine.

MiikeB

I don't believe there is anything unethical about backing out like this. There are things you need to consider and weigh against though, like being put on a do not hire list.

You really have to look out for yourself.

onesaint

Another thought provoking thread, N2. Well done!

There are a ton of things that come into play with a decision like reneging on an accepted offer to accept another. While I think ethics should always be maintained, I also think that it's your work and drive that get you ahead, not relying on a company to carry you to career heights. Unfortunately, that means backing out of an offer if another one comes along that will lead to better career growth. Granted this is from an ambitious mid-level perspective. I don't think the same perspective will be had at the Sr architect/manager level (as demonstrated by Paul & NetVet). I don't think the incentives are the same for growth and thus a slightly unethical move wouldn't appear worth the trade off.

I've read, on average an employee stays at a company for 3 years, then moves on. Gone are the days of working at one company for life, yet we still interview and think of positions like we're being offered a lifelong career. That seldom happens in this day and age. We who work so hard to stay ahead of the technical curve owe it to ourselves to also approach our career with the same diligence.

YuckTheFankees

Great post onesaint, I couldn't agree more.

paul78

YuckTheFankees wrote: »

It sounds bad but always think about yourself first, when it comes to employment.

I don't actually think it sounds bad at all. The way that you outlined the scenario seems reasonable. While I tend to favour @NetworkVeteran's point of view. I will acknowledge that there are always going to be situations where if a better offer comes along which cannot be passed up, it could be fool-hardy not to consider it. My comments were meant to suggest that it's really about how someone handles the separation from the current employer and weighs the benefits of actually going through with it.

YuckTheFankees wrote: »

is it ethical we are firing this man/woman without notice? No, they are looking out for their company and they're doing what's best for them.

Hopefully, that's not the predominant mindset of management in most companies. I'm not sure if you have been that position before, but firing or laying-off anyone regardless of business rationale is not always the easiest thing to do. The best that any employer can do is to handle it with compassion and offer a sense of dignity for the impacted employee. As for the whether an employer should provide notice, I have always believed that it's in the best interest of all parties not to drag it out and that an employer should never provide notice.

YuckTheFankees wrote: »

You in turn, need to do the same.

I tend to go by the believe that I should treat any employer with the same sense of business courtesy and respect that I would expect in return. Perhaps that's naive on my part but it's serve me well for the past 23 years of my career.

docrice

Some time ago I went through this same dilema. I had switched jobs from a smaller tech company to a much, much larger Fortune 100. Better pay, more in line with my career goals, a good team whose outlook / perspectives, paralled mine, etc.. However, I knew it would be quite a change since it wasn't a technology-focused company, had a much slower pace (due to the inevitable bureaucracy / red tape involved), and the culture would be different.

When I started at this company I noticed from the first day that it felt like I was going backwards somehow. The building was older, some of the technology used was more dated, the workspace felt aged, etc.. When I actually went through the new-employee orientation, it finally dawned on me that I was no longer in a company that focused on technology products or services. It's one thing to know it, but another thing to actually start experiencing it.

A week before I started that job, I was given a tour at another company a few co-workers had moved to right down the street from my previous company. I had always driven past by them (they're a small infosec company) so I figured what the heck I'll see what it's like inside. While I was there, they did also extend me a casual offer, but I declined since I had already accepted the position at the larger company.

After about one month into this big corporation, I realized that I wouldn't be happy working there for the long-term. Although my co-workers were sharp and dedicated to their tasks, the company culture ultimately didn't fit me. I was also really, really bored since at large corps like this it takes a couple of months for the pace to pick up for new people. I had a good manager and a good team that I respected (as a matter of fact, it was because of them that I had accepted the position there), but I knew that the dramatic change of pace at this Fortune 100 wouldn't suit someone like me who's used to a much, much faster and hectic pace of operations. It took me some time to struggle to terms on this, but I finally decided that it'd be better for me (and perhaps my employer) that I cut my losses short and just move on to the position at the smaller infosec company who still had the position open. This was a somewhat selfish reason, and I didn't move on simply due to better pay. It would require more than that to have me move on in such a manner (unless it was an obvious million dollar salary which I couldn't turn down).

There was a step-up in pay, better commute, better hours, better overall access and direct management of technology, and co-workers that I already had existing relationships with. Plus the new company is in an industry which directly aligns with what I find interesting. It would be rather dumb to pass this one up. And in the first month at the new smaller company, I literally did ten times more work than at the larger company. Night and day.

I understand the employer's perspective - you spend months searching for a candidate, go through interviews, do the paperwork to bring the person onboard, provide training, spill some internal secrets such as network interior / security architectures, forward plans, design documents, etc., and then bam he leaves. How could any organization be happy with that?

But I also had to consider my long-term happiness as well. I don't advocate doing this if you can help it. The fault in this case clearly lies with me with having not really assessed and understood my needs. Of course, sometimes it's difficult to ascertain the experience of a internal corporate culture without having been in it. Glassdoor and similar resources only provide so much insight.

Overall I agree with the professionalism involved when taking on a new job. It's rude to onboard and then disembark so quickly. However, the mental health of yourself and long-term career needs as well as tangible obligations such as family, etc. are going to factor into consideration. It would've been a lot easier to move on if my manager and / or co-workers were difficult to get along with, but that's simply not the case. It's hard to let a good group of folks down. In a larger sense, it also does taint your reputation.

Therefore it's crucial during your interviews / negotiations with a potential employer that you really understand what you're looking for and what they offer. There are always going to be trade-offs and you should be conscious of what's acceptable to you. While lots of companies are in the habit of just dumping employees as they see fit (with excuses like head count being too expensive, it looks good on paper to outsource some parts of the business, etc.), as IT professionals I still think maintaining our profession's integrity and respect relies on us to have done our homework properly when it comes time to moving to positions involving sensitive business controls and the trust that goes along with it.

onesaint

docrice wrote: »

I was also really, really bored since at large corps like this it takes a couple of months for the pace to pick up for new people. I had a good manager and a good team that I respected (as a matter of fact, it was because of them that I had accepted the position there), but I knew that the dramatic change of pace at this Fortune 100 wouldn't suit someone like me who's used to a much, much faster and hectic pace of operations.

So, I just did the opposite, reneging on an accepted offer from an SMB to go to a Fortune 100 with some 50K employees. I semi expected the whole processes that take time environment, however when I started work the other day, I hit the ground running and was swamped all week. Surprisingly, the pace at this company is fast than my last few SMBs. I think I just lucked out with my move.

But I also had to consider my long-term happiness as well. I don't advocate doing this if you can help it. The fault in this case clearly lies with me with having not really assessed and understood my needs. Of course, sometimes it's difficult to ascertain the experience of a internal corporate culture without having been in it. Glassdoor and similar resources only provide so much insight....

Therefore it's crucial during your interviews / negotiations with a potential employer that you really understand what you're looking for and what they offer. There are always going to be trade-offs and you should be conscious of what's acceptable to you.

I whole heartedly concur with this. Finding out day to day specifics of the position, what the culture is like, how the company operates, etc. should be thoroughly covered if possible during the interview process. Knowing what you're walking into can make a ton of difference in deciding if a position is right or if something better is out there, worth waiting for. Then hopefully one wouldn't have to renege on an offer.

Zorodzai

I know of people who have done it though it's not really encouraged (I have a former colleague who went for training in Jordan only to come back and sign up for a bank we used to provide services for - caused a bit of a stink !!).

According to the labour laws in my country there is a 3 month probation period during which one can leave the company at 24 hours notice, similarly the company can fire one at 24 hours notice (I think it's similar to what is being referred to as 'at will' employment) so the tendency is for most companies to only offer a minimal salary and training etc when one signs on with the condition that those will be availed once passes probation. Once probation is over labour laws legally bind one to serve 3 month notice before leaving a job or to pay back the equivalent of 3 month salary (similarly if my company decides to fire me they have to give me 3 months notice period or give me 3 months pay upfront - most prefer to give the payout rather than keep someone for 3 months during which they can wreak havoc).....