Should You Always Counter a Job Offer?
The offer stage is often likened to a chess match: Watching. Waiting. Thinking. And strategically assessing your “opponent's” moves … as well as your own. It can be a maddening period for both candidate and employer.
March 08, 2018 at 12:15 PM
4 minute read
The offer stage is often likened to a chess match: Watching. Waiting. Thinking. And strategically assessing your “opponent's” moves … as well as your own. It can be a maddening period for both candidate and employer. Each filled with a level of anxiety and the hope of “I do.” As a result, candidates search for answers on the best way to handle this situation to get what they want—and need. One piece of advice that has been popular to dispense involves the automatic counteroffer: No matter what the offer is … you always counter. Always. No exceptions.
So, how sage is this advice for today's legal professionals?
Not very.
In today's legal market, employers do not follow a standard playbook for offers—contrary to what some professionals may believe. Each circumstance is unique, as is each human resources department and hiring manager. So the philosophical approach employed will vary from offer to offer. Given this, there may be some situations where it won't always make sense, or be in your best interest to propose a counteroffer. Example #1: You receive an offer that exceeds the stated compensation range/package. An offer that you know the hiring manager had to cash in political chits and fight for. Is a counteroffer appropriate in this scenario? No. Example #2: You are simply extremely happy with the offer you have received and are excited to move forward. Counteroffer required? Nope.
Candidates must be mindful of this current market reality and assess each situation independently to determine whether a counteroffer is prudent … or unwise. This requires a thorough understanding of the dynamic at hand. So when evaluating whether to ask for more, ask yourself … and answer the following questions:
- Are you happy with the offer? Why or why not?
- Is the offer fair?
- Are you unable to financial afford your standard of living on this offer?
- Is the offer at the top of the compensation/stock range?
- Does the offer exceed the stated compensation/stock range?
- Has the hiring manager been transparent with you about the compensation, where it slots in; and his or her inability to go beyond the range?
- Do you trust the hiring manager?
- What messages have you received about the compensation throughout the process?
- Has the hiring manager told you this is his/her best and final offer?
- Did you tell the employer you would accept a specific compensation number that is reflected in your offer?
- Did the hiring manager “go to bat” to extend you this offer?
- How involved has HR been in the process? And how powerful does HR appear to be? A powerful HR heavily involved in an offer is indicative of less comp flexibility.
- Does your desire to get “more” outweigh any of the factors above?
After you've assessed these issues, a clearer picture will emerge regarding the right path for you to pursue. If you decide to counter the offer, craft your “ask” wisely, communicate it effectively and be sensible. An unrealistic request will not sit well with employers and you'll run the risk of a rescinded offer or tainted reputation. If you decide to accept the offer as is, do so enthusiastically with gratitude and thanks. This negotiation phase is the springboard for your future relationship with the employer. So the conduct and judgment you display now will set the tone going forward.
Compensation is an important piece to your professional puzzle. And, no doubt, it's an important factor in every career decision. But it's not the only factor. Consequently, determining whether or not to push for more does not involve a one size fits all solution. It requires good judgment after careful consideration of your experience in the process. And no two experiences will be the same. So discard that antiquated advice and implement a modern perspective for modern times. And you'll be a savvier professional for it.
Julie Brush is the founder and author of The Lawyer Whisperer (www.thelawyerwhisperer.com), a career advice column for legal professionals, also found on LinkedIn. She is co-founder of Solutus Legal Search, a legal search/consulting boutique firm, serving as a strategic adviser to lawyers, law firms and corporations.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrending Stories
- 1GC Pleads Guilty to Embezzling $7.4 Million From 3 Banks
- 2Authenticating Electronic Signatures
- 3'Fulfilled Her Purpose on the Court': Presiding Judge M. Yvette Miller Is 'Ready for a New Challenge'
- 4Litigation Leaders: Greenspoon Marder’s Beth-Ann Krimsky on What Makes Her Team ‘Prepared, Compassionate and Wicked Smart’
- 5A Look Back at High-Profile Hires in Big Law From Federal Government
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250