[neilv]

> Rule #5 of negotiation: don’t be the decision-maker. Even if you don’t particularly care what your friends/family/husband/mother thinks, by mentioning them, you’re no longer the only person the recruiter needs to win over. There’s no point in them trying to bully and intimidate you; the “true decision-maker” is beyond their reach.

It's a very old thing in general, not just in job-hunting.

And sometimes "I have to discuss it with my spouse" is literally for real.

But if someone says it, but the listener doesn't think it's for real, then the speaker sounds like either:

* from a culture in which it's mutually understood as a nicety, not to be taken literally; or

* a bullshitter.

The former is very Californian stereotype, incidentally.

[petesergeant]

I've worked as a recruiter, and I have never assumed "I need to check with my spouse" is anything other than real.

[crazygringo]

I don't know why a listener wouldn't think it's for real?

A new job can involve relocation, or if it's in the same city, prevent the spouse from a desired relocation.

Not to mention people do tend to evaluate major life decisions with trusted friends etc. Discuss whether to job-hop now or wait to see if something better shows up in six months.

I'm intrigued by your perspective that someone would assume this was non-literal or a bullshitter?

I mean yes, it might be buying time, but as a recruiter why would you even care? The person wants extra time, they've given a valid reason for it, so you give it to them within reason unless it's an emergency and the position needs someone in the chair on Monday and there's another candidate who can take it. I don't think they would bother to think about it any more deeply than that.

[neilv]

Of course most married people considering a job offer would discuss it, but that doesn't mean the person making the claim isn't actually just using a delaying tactic.

(For example, maybe they already discussed it with their spouse. Or they're going to discuss it in the next hour, but they are saying this when their goal is to effectively delay for a week.)

That's just one example of commonplace lying.

A lot of people will openly lie, and think that's normal. Even most of these advice articles for job-hunting are full of habitual corporate-standard lying.

But not all people are like that, and don't want to hire corporate-standard liars.

[crazygringo]

That's interesting, I'd never thought of it from the perspective of lying. Thanks.

It's funny, because I don't really consider making statements about what I plan to do in the future lies.

Like, if I promise someone I'll do something for them or do something important to them and I know I won't, that's a lie.

But if I'm just sharing a plan or a personal need... I don't see that as a lie. My plans and needs change by minute. I can decide to discuss something with my spouse, then change my mind. To me, it falls under the category of personal autonomy. Frankly it's not even a company's business why I need more time, and if they want a reason to give it to me, and I give them a reason about needing to discuss it, I'm free to change my mind immediately afterwards without telling them. And that being the case, it makes no difference what my reason for needing time actually was.

Also, remember that they're the ones telling you they have a 48h deadline in the first place. Isn't that a lie, too? But you're not going to judge them for extending that for you, because it's in your interest. Same way they won't judge you for your reason for needing more time, because they want to hire you.

I don't know. I just think it's hard to call these things lies when they're merely stating intent, which is constantly changing. But I appreciate your perspective! It comes from a different moral worldview, which is important to recognize.

[loxs]

While I see where you are coming from... It's not about your personal autonomy, it's about perception. You can be completely honest and people still perceive you as dishonest. In fact, absolute honesty is often perceived as rudeness by skilled negotiators. It took me a long time to grasp this - it's much better to deliver a message than be honest, although being honest AND delivering a message is even better (and the article talks exactly about that). And the message being delivered is often not the bare meaning of the words. Unskilled negotiators often deliver the wrong message (I have been there so many times...), although they used the most precise words while doing it.

[ordu]

> Of course most married people considering a job offer would discuss it, but that doesn't mean the person making the claim isn't actually just using a delaying tactic.

I'm a very bad negotiator, but perhaps because of this I understand that it often doesn't matter what they believe. What truly matter is whether your excuse is plausible enough. If they can make it seem like you are a bullshitter then they will win. To counter this tactic you need to find a way to make it impossible for them to dismiss your need for time.

Think of legitimate reasons to discuss their offer with your friends or your spouse beforehand, and prepare the strong arguments. This way you will make it clear that it is not a "cultural thing, not to be taken literally", and how could you sound as a bullshitter if you genuinely intend discuss it with your spouse or friends?

They can still believe that you are just buying time, but it doesn't matter if they have no polite way to challenge you.

> A lot of people will openly lie, and think that's normal.

I do not lie. I hate to lie. But I can bend the truth a little. For instance, if it is me who making a decision and I plan advice from my friends, I still can decide that I will not accept any offer without discussing it with them. It is a true decision and I do not lie when stating it openly. I just need to be careful with wording to avoid revealing the full truth. Moreover if I need to I can disclose the truth, and explain then that I did mistakes in the past by not taking time to think. Now I strictly adhere to the rule of discussing significant decisions with friends before making them. I can even share a true story about a poor decision I made.

If I have no such a story, I can refer to a book on negotiation, explain that I agree that big decisions need to be weighted carefully, and assert that I won't make any decisions without talking with my friends first. Just stress it, and if it comes to it, be ready to politely decline their offer because you need time to think.

I'll reiterate: it doesn't matter do they believe you, what is matter if they have no polite way to pressure you while sticking to the rules of polite conversation. I hate to lie, so I imposing one more constraint: I must believe what I'm saying. But that's all.

> But not all people are like that, and don't want to hire corporate-standard liars.

Perhaps. I hadn't considered that. However they are likely a minority, and it will be hard to find some of them and to impress them by your anti-corporate-politics stance in a way that leads to immediate hiring. I suspect that even if you do find some, they will take full advantage of your refusal to engage in corporate negotiation tactics. It is sad, I know. The world is unfair.

[neilv]

> it will be hard to find some of them and to impress them by your anti-corporate-politics stance in a way that leads to immediate hiring.

I think this might get at a cultural/values difference.

For some, an important goal is to be honest, and/or to be known as honest.

Maybe for its own sake, maybe for a more complicated reason (like they want to promote honesty by example so they can trust others, or want to avoid small dishonesty turning into big dishonesty).

But some others trying to fit that to immediate goals, will be, like: . o O ( OK, self, I can make this counterparty think I'm honest, for cost X, but how much will that advance my objective of getting them to take action Y, which is the goal, of course )

The elite schools and top-paying tech employers that encourage truth-bending and theatre, in getting in and then advancing, are promoting the latter kind of thinking about honesty.

We can debate which thinking is better, but we can inform that by understanding the other groups better.