Declining a Job Offer: an Investigative Reporter Model
If, for any reason, it becomes necessary or desirable to pass up a job offer, it is important to do it the right way, the reporter way—to make sure that
1. the right person is informed (the “who”).
2. declining the offer is done with the right style, e.g., politely and in a format acceptable to the offering party (the “how”).
3. the reason given is credible and inoffensive (the “why”).
4. the rejection of the offer is or is not unconditional (the “what”).
5. it is communicated as promptly as possible or in a time frame that is optimal for at least one (and preferably both) of the parties (the “when”).
6. the venue, if the job is not being declined from a remote location, is the right one, e.g., in a manager’s office, not in view and earshot of other staff (the “where”).
All, Not Just Some
Note that getting just some of these right will not suffice, just as it won’t in the job of investigating and reporting. Otherwise, there will be a substantial risk of seeming
* socially and professionally inept
* ungrateful
* capricious
* evasive
* unfair
* flaky
* inconsiderate
* tactless
Here are scenarios that illustrate the importance of including ALL of the essential elements in declining (not to be confused with refusing, which is hostile and rude) a job offer. To systematize this, the acronym “W5H” will serve as a checklist abbreviation of “Who, What, Why, Where, When, How”. This means that the “turn-down” should have six components to be complete:
- Missing “Who”: Joe declines his job offer appropriately, except for the “who” element—he misdirects his email to the company’s general mail, where it gets buried, overlooked, accidentally deleted, sent to a spam folder or otherwise not forwarded to the hiring manager who interviewed him.
- Missing “Why”: Jane covers five of the six bases, but omits any reasonable explanation as to why she’s giving the job a pass. This puts her at risk of seeming flaky or capricious, since she previously seemed sufficiently interested in the job to go through the application and interview hoops.
- Wrong “When”: Joey writes a lovely letter of non-acceptance, but waits a month to send it, by which time he’s been dismissed as “not serious”, irresponsible, professionally self-destructive, etc.
- Wrong “Where”: Jill is prompt, polite and otherwise meets the W5H requirements, except that she declines the job in the short elevator ride down with the hiring manager. Even if there are no other passengers on the elevator to overhear what should be a private conversation, her choice of venue is unwise, because the elevator ride creates a limited time frame that precludes any detailed thoughtful exchange between Jill and the manager.
This suggests a “bum’s rush” out the door—with Jill more likely to be seen as playing the role of the bum. What is so wrong with this is that choice of the elevator as a turn-down venue violates a fundamental law of communication: The less time allocated to an issue or a person, the less important it or (s)he is.
- Vague “What”: Jack ambivalently or strategically declines a job offer, but in an attempt to hedge his bets, hedges in his email wording. “I regret to have to decline your kind offer and wouldn’t if the compensation package could be modified.”
What Jack thinks he is accomplishing with this wording is to exert pressure to open the door he is seemingly closing—either to get a better deal or (unconsciously) to leave some wiggle room he wants because he is not really sure that declining the offer is such a good idea.
The problem with this is that he leaves the company wondering what he is really trying to say: Has he declined the job offer categorically, or conditionally? Does he want it, or not? Is he assuming the compensation package can’t be modified and therefore using it as an excuse, or does he want to negotiate?
- Wrong “How”: In declining her job offer, June is careful to meet all of the requirements, but one—she chooses to write a very polite, timely, properly directed message for the HR manager handed over to his secretary. Problem: She writes it on the back of a pizzeria take-out menu. OK, that’s ridiculous, but it dramatically illustrates what “how” means in the context of declining a job offer.
To grasp the relevance of “how” in a job turn-down, compare getting the “how” wrong or omitting it in investigative reporting. A spy steals weapons blueprints and gets away with it. A good reporter will investigate what happened, who the spy and his target are, why (s)he did it, when, where and, of course, how the feat was pulled off, e.g., through a break-in or organizational infiltration.
In a job offer turn-down, omitting the “how” is not possible, since without it, there is no declining (or explicit acceptance) of the offer.
This exception to the investigative reporter model exists only because, unlike a job candidate, a reporter is not reporting the “how” of his own behavior. Hence, he can file a story that omits the “how” of the behavior of others—whereas no job can be declined without a “how”.
That leaves the wrong “how” as the only “how” mistake June can make. Unlikely messages on menus aside, June can get it wrong by mailing a stamped turn-down letter instead of phoning or emailing as requested. She might also get it wrong by using the opportunity to subtly insinuate that the company she’s decided to join is so much better (which would almost certainly backfire as an attempt at self-aggrandizement).
Failure to include all six of the W5H elements of a job offer turn-down can damage a candidate’s reputation, crush any future opportunities with the turned-down employer, establish a habitual pattern of such mistakes in future job-offer situations…
…and force the candidate to finally follow the investigative reporter’s rules and ask the W5H questions, about himself and his inept handling of job offers.