In a market where top accountancy talent is scarce and competition between firms remains fierce, “compromise” has become one of the most influential — and misunderstood — factors in successful hiring. Yet the word itself often triggers resistance.
For candidates, compromise can sound like settling.
For firms, it can feel like unnecessary concession.
But in today’s evolving world of work, smart compromise isn’t a weakness; it’s a strategy. And, done well, it leads to better outcomes for both parties.
This article explores what compromise should look like on both sides of the hiring table — and when it pays to hold your ground.
The Candidate’s Dilemma: When Is a Compromise Worthwhile?
1. Salary: When “slightly less” is still a big win
Many candidates enter a process with a target number — and rightly so. But insisting on a figure that’s precisely met, to the pound, can mean missing out on roles that offer far more value than a marginal salary difference.
If a candidate is offered £2k–£4k below their ideal figure but the firm provides:
- a clear progression path
- exposure to more complex clients
- support towards qualifications, or
- a stronger work-life balance over the long term
then the compromise isn’t a loss — it’s an investment.
The real question becomes: Is this £2k today worth more or less than an accelerated route to Senior Manager or Partner tomorrow?
2. Hybrid Working: The new battlefield
Most candidates now want two days in the office, three from home. Many firms still require three in, two from home.
Is this difference material?
Sometimes yes. Often, surprisingly, no.
A healthy compromise might be:
- an initial three-days-in arrangement that reduces once trust is built
- flexibility around start/finish times, or
- the option for occasional fully remote weeks
Candidates who weigh these nuances often unlock opportunities that the “two vs. three days” debate would otherwise close off.
The Firm’s Challenge: When Does Flexibility Secure the Hire?
1. Should you offer £3k more to secure the candidate?
In most cases, the cost of losing a desirable candidate far exceeds the extra £3k.
Consider:
- the lost fee income while the role remains unfilled
- the pressure on the existing team
- the risk of quality issues or burnout, and
- the cost of restarting a hiring process that may already have taken months
For many firms, a small uplift isn’t an indulgence — it’s a commercial decision.
And firms that consistently lose candidates over marginal salary gaps quickly gain a reputation they don’t want.
2. Is it time to review flexible working policies?
Firms resistant to hybrid flexibility often assume this protects culture, collaboration and client service. But the market has shifted. The strongest candidates increasingly expect — not hope for — genuine flexibility.
Partners and Managers now face a critical question:
Is the policy supporting high performance, or is it losing us talent we’d otherwise hire?
Even small policy evolutions can transform hiring outcomes:
- standardising two days in the office across the firm
- allowing teams to choose which days they attend, or
- offering more remote autonomy to senior staff who have already proven their capability
Firms that adapt faster will win the talent battle. Those that don’t will continue to ask the same question every quarter: “Why can’t we find the people we need?”
Where Compromise Creates Mutual Success
1. When both sides give a little
A candidate who flexes slightly on hybrid working + a firm that flexes slightly on salary = a hire that strengthens both futures.
2. When compromise reflects shared ambition
If both parties want the same end — growth, progression, stability — a middle ground is usually easy to find.
3. When compromise prevents regret
Candidates rarely regret joining a great firm for £2k less.
Firms almost always regret losing a great candidate over it.
Where Compromise Is the Wrong Choice
Compromise isn’t universally good. Both parties should hold firm when:
- the compromise undermines core values,
- it damages long-term career or business plans,
- it’s being made through pressure rather than genuine choice, or
- it masks a deeper misalignment that will surface later.
The best compromises are strategic, not emotional.
The Takeaway: Compromise Isn’t About Losing — It’s About Choosing
For candidates, compromise can open doors to richer, more fulfilling careers.
For firms, it can remove the friction that blocks growth and limits capability.
In a market as competitive as UK accountancy recruitment, the ability to compromise intelligently is often the difference between a stalled process and a successful appointment.
Neither side should settle.
Both sides should negotiate.
And the smartest leaders — and the strongest firms — are the ones who recognise that the right compromise isn’t a concession at all. It’s the start of a productive, long-term partnership.
Secure Your Future with Public Practice Recruitment Ltd
If you’re a candidate weighing up your next move — or a firm looking to secure the right talent without unnecessary friction — we’d love to help. Get in touch with us today and secure the talent your firm needs to stay ahead.
