We’re told to be bold and ask for what we want in interviews—but is there a line?

Kellogg’s Leigh Thompson, an expert negotiator, addresses the question in the context of a student who had a dilemma: Should they leverage one job offer against another they had already accepted?

We’ll get into that today. Plus, how emotions affect our willingness to accept help.

The scenario

In her Substack, “Dear Professor: Negotiation Help,” Thompson, a Kellogg professor of management and organizations, explains that her student had signed an offer with Company A, but soon after sought and received an offer from Company B, in a geographical location they strongly preferred. Their dilemma was whether and how to use the second offer (from Company B) as leverage to request a reassignment to a different office within Company A. Their initial plan was to send an email to Company A essentially stating that they had another job offer, and unless Company A could assign them to a different geographical location, they would retract their acceptance.

Thompson’s recommendations? Pump the brakes.

Acknowledge your commitment

Once you’ve signed an offer, it’s important to approach subsequent negotiations delicately, Thompson says. Using a new offer as “leverage” can often be perceived as a threat—a tactic unlikely to foster goodwill. In fact, it could harm your reputation. The professional business world is highly connected, and people talk!

Request a synchronous conversation

Thompson says that you should only deliver good news and updates via email and that negotiation conversations of this nature require something that’s more verbal or face-to-face. You should request a phone or video call with a decision-maker at Company A, she recommends, which allows for rapport-building in real time and conversational adjustments—and creates space for collaborative problem-solving. During this conversation, avoid mentioning the new offer, and instead present the discussion as an opportunity to explore a mutual solution, such as a reassignment to your preferred location.

Frame your request from the employer’s perspective

When presenting your case, focus on how the change would benefit the organization. For instance, explain how your presence in the desired location could strengthen client relationships, align with strategic goals, or address specific needs. Avoid framing the request solely around your personal preferences; instead, emphasize how this move aligns with the company’s objectives. Use research or evidence to support your proposal and demonstrate that you’ve thought carefully about their perspective.

Read more in Thompson’s Substack, Dear Professor.

A handout or a helping hand?

How people perceive the help they receive can make a significant difference when it comes to humanitarian and charitable aid.

Kellogg researchers Samantha Kassirer, Ata Jami, and Maryam Kouchaki conducted a battery of experiments in Kenya and the U.S. to find out how different types of charitable aid influenced people’s emotions—and whether those emotions would affect their willingness to accept aid in the first place.

“Past studies have compared the effect of offering cash versus no aid at all,” Kouchaki says, “whereas we wanted to compare people’s response to cash versus food aid.”

Their results suggest that cash and in-kind aid encourage different psychological responses and behaviors from the people who receive it.

In-kind donations can lead to positive feelings of being cared for and better take-up of aid. But under certain conditions, cash can create feelings of shame—and make people less likely to accept the charity’s help. However, when cash aid comes from the government instead of a charitable organization, these emotional and behavioral effects disappear.

The takeaway, according to Kassirer, isn’t that cash is bad and food is good. Instead, the kind of aid charities provide also sends a social message that can either support or undermine their efforts.

Read more in Kellogg Insight.

See you next week,

Laura Pavin, multimedia editor
Kellogg Insight