B.B. asks:
After obtaining my PhD, I worked in the semiconductor industry for over ten years, serving as an ASIC architect and technical lead. In my last role, I was employed by a large international company, where I was responsible for defining chip requirements and designing ASICs for a key product line. Some time ago, for reasons incomprehensible to me, my position was made redundant. After all, without a chip architect, there will be no new product line and the company’s product portfolio will lose competitiveness.
Recently, I encountered two interesting technology companies, with which I had a number of discussions. Eventually, both made me an offer. One of the offers clearly stood out, not just in terms of salary but also regarding secondary employment benefits.
To be honest, the significant difference between the offers was somewhat disillusioning, all the more so because I preferred the role at the other company, a startup. I informed them of this and they indicated that this was their final offer. This was, of course, a disappointment – I made that clear – although it did provide clarity.
A week later, however, they came back to me with a much better offer that considerably surpassed the other one. Unfortunately, this put me in an awkward position, as I had already verbally agreed to the offer from the other company. It’s not just an ethical dilemma; there’s also a legal aspect, because a verbal commitment can also be binding. How do you view the situation?
The headhunter answers:
A verbal agreement is indeed binding, but I doubt whether an employment contract has been established in all cases merely by agreeing on the financial details. After all, an employment contract consists of more than just an agreement on salary. What if the contract contains a severe non-compete clause with a significant penalty clause? Are you then obliged to sign? I don’t think so. If you have signed, you can also resign, and in a situation like this, the legal aspects are of minor significance.
When looking for a new role, you’ll always face choices and may experience some social pressure. In your case, that’s only positive, as it indicates you’re in high demand in the market. A bidding war ensued, and ultimately, the party with the most bluff, not the highest bid, won the pot.
Regarding the ethical dilemma, I prioritize personal freedom. If you make the wrong choice, there will be only losers. That’s why negotiating under pressure only works in certain situations. The most important consideration should be that you don’t later regret accepting the first best offer. Now, it looks like you’ve missed out not only on your preferred role but also on the ultimately best offer.
