I had told them I was weighing their offer against a different one. In fact I slightly preferred their situation.
After several rounds of this ridiculous dance, I finally realized I didn't want to work for a company that acted with so little decency.
I've no doubt that wasn't the case everywhere at Uber, but it was a bad experience.
Plus as a hiring manager, and this is minor, I’d feel kinda embarrassed if out of sheer statistical luck multiple candidates turned down written offers, which would indicate maybe something is wrong with us as a hiring entity.
Not sure there’s a playbook here. Another commenter suggested being untruthful and pulling the offer out of them. Given how many times companies screw over employees that might be the game theory rational thing to do here even though it’s not great ethically.
Just my 2 cents.
Isn't this your fault (your company's fault) for creating such a silly process? It's not the candidate's fault that writing an offer is difficult. Still not the candidate's fault that you've got some poorly thought out metrics that make you withhold a written offer.
Like everyone else, I change my mind about things frequently, and have to back away from things I've said. But it feels very different when you know up front that there's a good chance you won't do what you've just said you'll do. I really dislike that feeling.
Always be suspect of what people say verbally, vs what they are willing to put into writing.
Just corporate procedure and trying to save busy-work.
At the same time, the other company was willing to do that extra work upfront, which made me feel like they actually wanted me to come.
I think I might've felt a little differently about it had the recruiter been transparent and said something about the work involved. Then again, at the end of the day, we had all done quite a lot of work to get to that point. Not being willing to do the final steps suggests (to me) a lack of commitment to the offer.
1: there is something materially and surprisingly bad in the contract (equity or cash isn't as described)
2: there is something that is arguably not material, but which is surprisingly bad in the contract (something to do with vesting schedule, clawback of a 'signing bonus')
3: everything is as-expected.
In case 1, it's clear that they have materially changed the terms, and I am no longer bound by my verbal acceptance (which was of a different offer).
In case 2, they can argue that what was changed isn't material, and so I'm still bound. But if they say that, I would reply that if it's not material, then they should have no problem changing it back to the originally-discussed state. If they don't, I walk. It's not like they can force you to work for them, and they would presumably not try to ruin your rep over it because you could probably do more damage to them (by posting on HN, for example).
In case 3, obviously everything is fine!