Rules for Negotiating a Job Offer (2016)(haseebq.com) |
Rules for Negotiating a Job Offer (2016)(haseebq.com) |
I was clear from the beginning that I had another offer at hand, to use as leverage.
A global recession is happening. Let's see if this advice will withstand the times or will age like milk. I predict the latter; the Great Depression wasn't fake news.
I tried this while interviewing for my current job and sure enough they shared. Lesson learned: you can ask and the worst they will probably do is say no, but it's very valuable knowledge if they share.
But thanks to transparency in pay regulations from states such as Colorado. Pay is advertised up front.
You know what you are worth. Find jobs/companies that fit that ideal number. Then pop off in interview(s).
And magically I got 25% more TC. Only works for big enough companies with salary datapoints online.
It is kind of crazy how there is a bifurcation of TC between those who bothered to negotiate and those who didn’t. Being on the inside I know there are ranges for positions and if you push you can pretty much always get to the max for your range, obviously the recruiters will not give you a max TC offer right away.
"I'll work for you if you give me X"
"Here is X-Y"
"No thanks"
I’ve put a few of these into practice and they work quite well.
Once you’ve made it to the offer stage most companies want to close. You have more ability to push back on offers than you think.
If you’re speaking more broadly than just salary negotiation - I’d just say that humans aren’t perfect machines. We care about solving problems but we also have desire for money, power, status and following random rules.
I waited a day to cool off and think hard, and called the guy back to say, "Your colleagues have selected me, I've proven I'll be able to do this job, and they told you they want me to. I told you, make me an offer. You instead required me to make an offer, and look where it got us? Now do as I asked, make me an offer, and we'll see. I won't be offended, this is a hard post to fill, and we both want this to work, so just try, will you?"
Hardest phone call I ever made, but worth it. I saved my colleagues from having to go find another candidate, and got myself a job I wanted for the right price.
"I feel like I am contributing at least $X value to the company. If I am then it makes sense to pay me that, and if not I'd like to know how we can get there."
It starts a discussion and it's more honest: if I am not worth that much then tell me how I can be more valuable.
I have had a pay rise every year from this conversation but my company is very flexible and successful, so mileage may vary.
I find all other approaches to me gimmicky and tricks, and somewhat dishonest in some way.
It sounds cliché but there is nobody like you. We all have unique experiences (life + professional), hobbies, knowledge no one else has or at least not in that particular combination. That’s your « unfair advantage » as some call it and you absolutely can use it to your advantage.
The choice is yours.
For my second real job I did not feel I was an "extremely strong candidate", just a mildly above-average one. I crushed the coding portion of the interview, but that balanced against my unspectacular CV and lack of experience in the company's field. I read the linked article, applied the principles as best I could: I got £10k more than what they offered first.
Mind you, this was during peak ZIRP so I was probably playing on easy mode and didn't know it.
(Note that if is one of those crazy periods, they still won’t quibble over the salary, but for an entirely different reason!)
There’s a book on negotiation called “Getting to Yes” that uses a different framework, which became my preferred way to think about negotiation: The goal of a negotiation is to strike an agreement that both parties are happy about. The stereotypical negotiation, “I won’t go a cent below $10,” “well I won’t go a cent above $8” is bad negotiation because even if they meet at $9, neither is happy about it. Instead, the effective negotiator thinks creatively about what would make them happy and asks if it’s available.
As much as I basically agree with it, I would cast the advice in this article differently. Here’s my take, for what it’s worth:
- Re. all the author’s advice about withholding information: you may not be happy if one day you find out that you’re being paid 30% below market (though maybe you won’t care—know what you care about! It will help you negotiate more effectively). The ideal solution here, though, is to know about the market! Consult levels.fyi, talk to your friends, maybe interview from time to time before you’re really looking.
- Re. Don’t be the decision-maker: this is a useful rhetorical tactic, often also called “bad cop,” and it’s not really negotiation-specific but you can bring it into a negotiation if it helps you (at one startup, our co-founder would say on sales calls, “let me check with my sales team” when he was definitely the whole sales team). Honestly, IMO it’s only really useful if you’re trying to placate someone, which you hopefully shouldn’t be when you’re weighing their offer, but you’re welcome to use it if you have social anxiety about pissing off the recruiter (you probably won’t, but I understand the worry)
- Re. stay positive: …yes? The goal is to get to a deal you’re both happy with. If you’re already not happy, then the negotiation is already over. The effective negotiator walks away before getting mad—why burn a bridge over one deal not panning out?
- Have alternatives: honestly this is the main thing. I don’t know how much there is to say but anyone will understand you not being happy with a deal that’s already not your best option.
It's pretty basic, but BE FAIR. It goes a LONG way and is (sometimes) hard to clock.
I was offered something in my contract, and I misread the offer (not because it wasn't clear, I literally just skipped over a couple of words). Subsequently, I continued on with negotiations and never mentioned it as a concern.
It wasn't detrimental to my offer, and I knew I'd be fine with accepting that term, but it was sort of an annoying term. I knew if I went back to it after the 3rd round of negotiations and negotiated it, then it just wasn't fair. I later told my boss about it and he appreciated it a lot. I have an amazing and fair relationship with my boss.
> Turns out, it doesn’t matter that much where your first offer is from, or even how much they’re offering you. Just having an offer in hand will get the engine running.
> If you’re already in the pipeline with other companies (which you should be if you’re doing it right), you should proactively reach out and let them know that you’ve just received an offer. Try to build a sense of urgency. Regardless of whether you know the expiration date, all offers expire at some point, so take advantage of that.
Anecdotally, I have seen this work many times to great effect.
I just do not see how that works. There’s no logical reason for it.
Edit: I saw other comments. I am both “old” and I have a mechanical engineering degree (not CS) and I do just fine interviewing with startups. I worked really hard at the practice of interviewing, this has more rewards and lower risk than basically any other skills you can learn so invest it.
What did you do?
I was lucky enough to have 3 companies that all gave me offers (a couple years back when the market for tech was at its peak). It played out like this article recommends. After an offer was on the table, the other 2 kept throwing better and better offers at me.
However, interviewing at 3 companies, over the span of 2 weeks, with an existing (remote) full time job was hard work. Likely impossible if I hadn't already checked out at the FT job. It was also mentally exhausting, with how companies like to do multiple rounds.
In many other careers the interview process is, if not shorter, at least more behavioral and less mentally draining because you're already pre-screened by licensure or rigid advancement structure of some sort.
In this case, one organization had an onerous IP policy and that other did not. I asked for some carve-outs, and the first organization came back with a single line added to the IP policy that did not change anything meaningful. I told them that I could not accept that offer as written and wanted more changes, but they refused further negotiation and told me to take it or leave it. I waited a few days, rejected their offer, and accepted the other offer.
(I think that they were willing to add the single meaningless line to make it appear they were willing to change things without actually changing anything substantive.)
The morale of my story is that you may not be able to negotiate a better offer, but at least you have a choice when you have multiple offers.
In the current job market, only if your in the top 0.01% will you ever have to worry about this.
I really hope things improve but I'm pessimistic...
Assume that X% of companies are interested in you and you pursue Y leads to result in X% * Y offers. A large number of people will receive 0 offers and they'll be long term on the job market until they make a change to either X (job hunting strategy) or Y (pool of roles considered).
A large number of people will receive >1 offers because they're competitive in the marketplace. Only some tiny number of people will receive exactly one offer unless Y is very small.
That many people only receive one offer is more of a sign that they're not strategic in their job hunting approach (which is upstream of them not being strategic in their negotiations) and this is a fixable problem.
The question is whether it will return to what it once was.
The big tech companies are monopolies, no longer afraid that they have to employ "all the engineers" to prevent competition. ZIRP isn't there to give rise to startups, or to give the tech companies unlimited leeway in development.
If interest rates drop or big tech is broken up, we might see a sharp rise in salaries. But now there's also more competition from overseas, both in terms of great talent and competition from large international players.
edit: the article was from 2016, and can confirm. I was making bank then and getting free at-work massages, boba, and towel service.
Recruiter: "Here's your offer for $X compensation."
You: "I was actually looking for something paying $X+Y."
Recruiter: "Well our offer is $X."
You: "This data shows that comparable jobs with the work I'm taking on are paying $X+Y."
Recruiter: "Our offer is $X. Do you want the job or not?"
You: "Well, I'm not willing to join for less than $X+(Y/2)."
Recruiter: "OK, well, bye. We have 35 other candidates lined up to talk to. Good luck."
Not sure how it's different when you have multiple offers. The company offering a lower comp will just say "Well, their offer is higher. Have fun at Company B. Thanks for interviewing!" Reading stories of these Captains Of Industry just asking for more and getting it, or getting companies into a bidding war over them is... kind of wild. It's like we're living in different universes.
I don't think I'm negotiating to get a better compensation than what is reasonable. On the contrary, I'm negotiating to get a fair compensation.
Some companies (bigger ones) will just say "we hire you for this title, so the compensation is $X and we don't negotiate because we want it to be fair for your colleagues". Then I don't think you can negotiate much, but at the same time they're probably not screwing you. It's just what it's worth to them, take it or leave it.
Recruiter: "Here's your offer for $X"
You: "Well I'm also negotiating an offer with Z for $X + 200k
Recruiter: OK well how about $X + 200k and a 50k signing bonus?
Multiple offers are key -- seriously, timing that properly is the biggest thing you can do to optimize your job search. Even if you can't give exact numbers, the mere presence of a competing offer will make a company offer you top of band.
At a big company with known positions (e.g. junior, mid-range, and senior devs), salaries for each of those positions may fall within a narrow range with little to no leeway. At a smaller company, where roles are more amorphous, starting salary may span a huge range depending on your specific qualifications, how their business is going, etc.
But in reality it's just an illusion. Companies want to hire people who are delusional and believe that they deserve what they got. Big tech doesn't really need these people or their skills, in reality. They're merely cogs in the big machine. Big tech could easily have found someone better for a lower price; they get so many applications. The whole thing is like a psychological operation. They don't want to build up an elite class which understands how broken the system is. They want a delusional elite class who believe the grotesque myth of the meritocracy. People who don't believe in meritocracy are a huge threat; they cannot be allowed anywhere near the elite because the system is so unmeritocratic, it wouldn't take many interactions to snap the elite out of their comfortable trance.
Business leaders start getting imposter syndrome after they interact with people who understand reality. Business leaders sometimes start viewing themselves as mavericks/mafia boss and sometimes start behaving in dodgy ways.
It's like if you do something and you later discover that it was causing harm; you can either feel bad and correct your behaviour or you reinvent your self-image as a 'bad guy' and double down on the harm... Most people choose the latter, unfortunately.
Edit: I'm seeing a lot of comments on this thread that has not aligned with my experience. I have, in tech, as a software engineer used multiple offers to increase a lower offer by like 15% for a company I preferred and I have also held an offer on the hook so to speak to use it leverage someone else to good effect.
You're negotiating based on potential.
Then it’s not for them. You don’t see me complaining about advice for plumbers bc I’m not a plumber. The advice is for the 1%. Anecdotally I know numerous people, including myself, who have been in this situation.
That's not to say I don't think about where I might have blind spots for a candidate—as you say, all processes are biased—but I've seen too many bozos in this industry (especially as the money started to become its own draw) to take a random offer as signal for anything. More context is necessary or it's just garbage in garbage out.
When in an interview, when you're asked a question about your past experiences, the larger the library you have to draw on, the more likely you are to find an example that's relevant and persuasive. Even questions of the form "How would you deal with [hypothetical scenario]", I encourage applicants, if possible, to answer it in the form of "Oh yeah, that's interesting, we had to deal with a very similar case at [one of my previous jobs], here was my approach towards it".
After each interview, do a "l'esprit de l'escalier" retro, write down all the questions asked, what your answer was at the time and what you would have ideally answered now given the fullness of time to think about it. If there's a significant delta, that's a sign to go back and prepare more until your "real time" performance approaches your retroactive performance.
It worked, after 4 years of studying I landed a SF job and 6 months later I was at Apple, year after that I was at Netflix. You get out of this life what you put into it, and in software it’s all out there for you to get. You don’t need a degree, you don’t have to pass the bar or boards, you just need to prove yourself and be willing to hustle
I think it’s a challenging environment for developers who are either inexperienced or who have skills that are out of date. I have found that companies are a bit more picky than i remember about knowing the exact tech stack they use, but they are still making offers and those offers are pretty good.
Note that I’m applying mostly to mid-sized non-public companies. I’m not sure what it’s like applying to MAANG-types right now.
Now, those companies have mostly lost the luster they used to have, and the comp differences aren't as large.
This is why 1) it really helps to have a referral and 2) tell the recruiter when you have competing roles. Neither will change much about getting or not a role, but they will really help the prioritization and avoid you getting lost.
Paradoxically, that effect is bigger nowadays when the market is not as hot as it used to be, because recruiting is more stretched. Even some FAANG are very understaffed on the recruiting side
That's a strong signal, and probably puts you ahead of most people interviewing at the later company, who only have the one set of positive feedback.
(Also, in practice, there's supporting evidence like being able to spout off credible minor details that yes, are still easy to bullshit but again, most people usually aren't lying.)
I told a startup that I “was talking to Meta”, and they were like ok we cant compete with that. I hadnt even done leetcode yet I was just doing emails with Meta’s recruiter. I told the startup that its okay because I will be stuck in team matching for 6 months, and the startup bumped my salary 30%.
We've heard nowadays how hard it is to even get to the interview for many companies so theres probably plenty of candidates who do not have many other offers prepared or even close to prepared.
Another issue is timing. Theres been times when I've started the interview process with two companies but one is on a much shorter timeline than the other so now I have an offer for one whereas I am still waiting on an interview that isn't for even a couple weeks for another, if not longer.
Not gonna lie, last time I went through the interview process I just told them I have other offers already even when I didn't. It worked in my favor I believe but feels like to get the best outcome you just have to be okay with basically lying out your ass - and that goes both ways, as the employer and the employee since it seems like even the companies feel fine with dragging their asses on concrete unless you have other stuff going on.
"Oh, your honor, I was only checking whether they had an offer. We totally weren't discussing how we'd not raise our offers, with the goal of suppressing wages."
I wanted to ask for a raise: I had been working in that startup for 4 years and had never had a raise. I thought "if that book helps me get a raise of a few bucks per month, that will pay for it".
It didn't go as planned: I followed the instructions in the book, my boss spent an hour bullshitting me and I didn't get a raise. So I sent my resignation the next day. The boss called me back, and I got a substantial raise and a bonus (to compensate for the shitty salary I had been having before, it was not a miracle).
All that to say that this book did not make me a pro negotiator. But it made me understand how salary negotiation works (reading it, I felt like a child: it only says common sense stuff, but I had been doing everything wrong my whole life). And it gave me the confidence to actually ask for a raise.
Totally worth it.
[1]: https://www.amazon.com/Fearless-Salary-Negotiation-step-step...
Negotiation is a grammar. The rules of the grammar, when laid out on the page, sound incredibly basic. But like any grammar, anyone used to "hearing" the grammar, it becomes immediately apparently who has command of the grammar and who is making grammatical mistakes.
But the point of the grammar is not to learn the grammar, the point of the grammar is to make beautiful sentences. How far you choose to go down the path is up to your own avocation but learning the grammar allows you to understand and communicate the beautiful sentences of negotiation.
And you also don't want to throw away a great opportunity because you didn't wring every last dollar out of it.
That's probably because I did not explain it well enough. I can tell you the lesson, because it is impact it had on me :-).
I was already willing to walk away and was about to. I found the book by chance, in something like a random HN discussion. Without the book I would have resigned without asking for a raise, I know it.
Then I got a few lessons about the way I should prepare for asking for the raise, and the big mistakes I should not make ("don't say this", which seems obvious when you read it, but which I would have done wrong).
Finally it helped me talk about salaries when I was interviewing for other jobs. Again, difficult to say if I would have ended up with a lower salary without the book, but it most definitely gave me the confidence to talk about compensation, and I think it's worth more than the $40 of the book.
I read a book about negotiating. It had the usual breakdown of strategies, tactics and scenarios, and a lot of filler, but it was entertaining to read. Today I'm still not a good negotiator. Normally I just don't want to waste my time and just want to get something, or I don't want to "squeeze" the other side for little profit.
But I know that on big key deals, like buying a house, a car, or getting a job, there it is well worth to apply some pressure. And if I don't get to my goal, or if a deal fails, now I understand why and don't feel so much frustration as before.
That's exactly how I feel! That's why I believe it is important to understand the process. When you negotiate with a company, you're not squeezing the other side for profit. They just won't accept anything unreasonable. But in case they want to squeeze you (which is likely), then you should defend yourself.
I think that if this strategy works and salary is increased, then the job is burned anyway and I'd be looking for a new one no matter what they say, while pocketing the extra cash for a few months. If management starts to ask for documenting processes or training someone, that's a dead giveway and, ethics aside, the best course of action is (unfortunately) to do bare minimum and focus on job search.
What the book brought to me confidence: I would have resigned without asking for a raise, saying "well it's time for me to move on" and not "I'm leaving because of the salary". Hence my boss would not have made an offer.
The book also helped me understand how salary negotiation works, and how it is "normal": the recruiter does it all the time, they are used to it, and you may actually look more professional if you know how to talk about compensation than if you just accept whatever they say like a junior.
> but now they know you played a wildcard and they want you gone on their terms. Or they want to extract the maximum work from you.
Not at all, in my case :-).
And thanks for sharing this publicly, if for no other reason than it made may day.
Cheers!
In fact for most people, don't even bother, just find a new job.
If you super like the work at your current company, the way I'd roll is:
- work hard in a way that also builds new skills, and get recognized for your performance, widely (and add everyone to LinkedIn, you never know who might be moving on next to somewhere that needs more hires)
- At 2 years absolute limit: "I think I'm senior now" or whatever is next level, or "my salary isn't aligned with market" - at least give them opportunity
- They blah blah. Don't protest, politely nod and let the meeting end.
- You then, depending on your bank balance and risk appetite, either say the next day "ok I need to move on to pursue other opportunities" and resign, or start reaching out to your network for a new job the very same day they do their blah blah
(Goes without saying that saving up a big bank balance is the most important negotiating tool, but catch-22 and all that)
NB: I might add one other technique that can get overlooked: timing. The best time to ultimatum is when the counterparty is least capable of dealing with it. So if you wait until the person who has to decide if you'll get what you want is having an absolutely shit month, e.g. several other people have left recently, or they are bogged down in some other pain, they're far more likely to give in. And due to the ebbs and flows of business, those ebbs will always show up from time to time.
> I thought to myself: why is there so little actionable advice out there about negotiation?
There's a wealth of actionable negotiation advice if you know where to look, like Harvard Business Review and Harvard Law, First Round Review, among others.
One of the big pieces on negotiation I got from Harvard[0], from their Program on Negotiation. I did not attend Harvard, but reading two or three of their articles a week goes a long way.
--
[0]: https://www.pon.harvard.edu/uncategorized/what-is-anchoring-...
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.
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.
(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.
Well, I received an offer from them and I would have undercut myself by 30%.
This is perhaps—or perhaps not—an extreme example, but I only applied what I was told in the negotiation articles and books I've read.
When you read a book, you're going to think "It's just fantasy; no way this is going to happen to me" but if you actually apply that knowledge it can truly work in your favor.
I also declined an offer 2 months beforehand because the salary was ridiculously low, despite being unemployed at the time.
Want is fine, need is not.
If you were looking for a $150k salary, you could drop an extreme anchor at $200k and they might even give you $180k.
This allows the other party to still feel in control of the negotiation process but tells you two important pieces of information: the first is what the “top” number is for both equity and cash. The second is how much they really are valuing the equity portion.
Depending on the response, you can argue for both higher cash or equity, or both. I often ask what is preventing from giving both higher cash and higher equity? Often times I’ve gotten both.
It helped quite a lot of people - especially women, who had a mindset that they should accept they should accept the offer. A thought that one can (and should) negotiate was a game-changer. Sometimes they were shocked that an ask for 25% more was accepted with no questions.
The key to negotiating is to get to a deal that both parties feel happy with - if you “win” a negotiation through power then you will likely find later you lost when you get paid back for winning through strength.
Here is what I know about negotiating:
1: know in advance the salary that you want
2: aim for a salary that is not at the high end, not at the low end
3: your target salary should be one that you will feel satisfied with if you get the job - you do not want to get the job and then be unhappy and feeling like you undersold yourself an looking over your shoulder for the next job.
4: it is a good idea to ask for a salary range - typically $5K to $10K. you can say "I'm looking for $150K to $160K but it depends on what the role is" - this gives you some room to negotiate and helps avoid overpricing yourself.
5: if you feel that your salary target is fair, then stick to that - when the time comes that they ask you how much you want - state what you want and explain why you think it is fair.
6: if you get negotiated down, explain again that you think your target number is fair and explain why. explain that given that the number is a fair market rate then you're not moving down.
7: be willing to accept that you do not get the job as an outcome of asking for a fair salary - at that point shrug and move on.
8: if you are the start of your career then money should not matter at all - find a job that will allow you to hone your craft and learn key skills - this is the attitude you should have for your first five years. After that, you will be able to negotiate on the strength of your skills and experience.
Remember negotiation of salary should not be about a win/lose attitude - if either party feels that someone won and someone lost, then that will be a bad start to the relationship. Negotiating salary is about finding a salary that both employer and employee feel happy at.
If you are an employer, remember that every dollar you pay ABOVE the requested salary buys you good will and enthusiasm. Every dollar you offer BELOW the requested salary does the inverse. Also avoid the "If you do well we will pay you more in 3 months" - just pay straight up front that amount.
Everything else (including this article) is a specific case of the models described in that book.
By the time I get an offer, I already feel like I’m already uncomfortable about all the bragging I’ve had to do to hype myself up. Asking for more in a negotiation is just a recipe for even worse guilt during the onboarding process (which is already a fraught time for feeling like an idiot).
I think the 2025 rules will be different, for most US tech job-seekers.
When it's a buyer's market -- or the buyers think it is -- some of the candidate tactics are going to play differently.
Even the old advice that, once the company decides they want you, that changes the dynamics, and now opens up negotiation. The dynamics maybe don't change as much as they used to. If candidate A doesn't take the offer, B, C, D, etc., are lined up and waiting, and probably not going anywhere.
I suspect that a lot of techbros who only know/remember the sellers market of a few years ago are going to be hit by the pendulum swing, when a lot of employers will be similarly cocky and fickle.
As long as human nature remains, the advice will still be valid.
1. I second everything in the article.
2. You would be surprised to learn how important rule #7 is. We would build entire presentations that we would provide to the other side of the table in negotiations just to reinforce our points. Basically putting ourselves in the position of “hey we’re on your side, but look at the numbers; our hands are tied!”. Having a non-confrontational attitude and providing specific reasons for why you are asking for things makes a big difference in negotiations.
(Definitely don’t need to be building presentations for potential employers though… unless it’s for contracts large enough that you’d need a lawyer and wouldn’t need OP’s advice anyways!)
Reading through the thread and saw your comment. Just wanted to say hi, I'm glad you had a good experience, and say thanks for the kind words. Hope you are doing well!
This isn't true. They have no clue how to measure your value output. A company's goal is to make sure it has the staff to get its work done so it can sell its thing. A hiring manager's goal is to find someone to do the thing they don't have time/staff for. They will pay somewhere in the realm of whatever the market pays, depending on the "philosophy" of the hiring manager, engineering director, finance people, etc.
I recently interviewed for two jobs in different locations. Both remote, both companies in mid-tier locations in terms of salary. Same type of job, same kind & size of company, same tech, same problems to solve. One was offering 40K more than the other. I wasn't going to produce 40K more value for one than the other. Hiring and salary is just not a very smart process. They have the budget they have, and the market is what it is.
I've found that if they're a startup based out of a high-income city, they're most likely to throw money at you. Larger companies based out of high-income cities have to be more stingy and will limit based on your location, but you can push for more. A corporate hiring structure will often enforce salary caps based on title, so if you ask for too much, they may have to invent a new title for you and get it justified to their executive leadership, which is politically fraught. So if you get to the top of the salary band, don't push hard, or they will be in a corner and have to choose between you (a near-impossible candidate) and a candidate they can actually hire.
- Your #1 goal should actually be knowing the top of the range of what this role is worth in the market. Once you figure that out, the whole "don't say the first number" rule is BS. Set expectations at the high water mark and then your job isn't to negotiate on salary; it's to negotiate if you're worth it
- Now that you know the maximum price this role (or product, or service -- it's all the same!) can be set to, you need to convince the other side that you deliver the requisite amount of value to justify the price. Like the article said, talk about your impact. Your BATNA. Your opportunity cost. All of these things are real and support why you are worth it
Once you transition from negotiating on price alone to negotiating ROI, everything changes. Try your best to solve the asymmetry, set the price and move on, find your leverage, and then make a compelling case. That's how you win
Rule #2: be prepared to walk away
There are no other rules.
> And yet, when people talk about the labor market, they think “oh, a company wants to give me a job! What a relief!” As though having a job were in itself some special privilege for which a company is the gatekeeper.
>
> Dispel yourself of this mindset.
>
> A job is just a deal. It is a deal between you and a company to exchange labor for money (and other things you value).
>
> Negotiating is a natural and expected part of the process of trying to make a deal. It’s also a signal of competence and seriousness. Companies generally respect candidates who negotiate, and most highly attractive candidates negotiate (if for no other reason, because they often have too many options to choose from).
I think he played a big role for a lot of pre-pandemic bootcamp imposters like me.
But seeing this pop back up on HN I'm wondering how radically the tech world / job market has changed. I've been hiding in kushy underpaid remote jobs basically since the pandemic so I have no real idea whats going on out there.
How applicable is this perspective to the present day market for software engineers? How much have things fundamentally changed?
In my experience, it isn't about making a $20k more now or whatever. It's about making a million more because you're invested in something worthwhile etc. etc.
Never do that.
> Companies will ask about your current compensation at different stages in the process
This is not legal in many states, 44% of the US population lives in states where companies asking your salary is not legl.
Also, the exploding offer advice is terrible. It won't work. The company will just drop the offer. The actual advice is to decide quickly.
I also think that gaining some chump change during the negotiation is somewhat pointless as companies will just equalize salary bands over time.
Let's say you win $5-10k additional salary during negotiation. Great, now your second year's salary increase is only going to be 2% instead of 5%.
I think the real advice in the age of states having salary transparency laws is to not apply to jobs that don't have a salary range listed in the job description.
Perhaps it’s better to start high but I think the impact is moot. In reality every company has a budget range and it’s quite narrow.
The job market in 2016 is unrecognizable to anyone who has had to look for a job recently.
It is absolutely brutal out there right now, and this feels a bit detached from reality.
In addition, some of this kind of advice has always struck me as particularly US-centric and I doubt it all applies equally well in e.g. Europe. You don't get very far here by not sharing your initial salary expectations early on, I think.
https://fonts.google.com/specimen/PT+Sans
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PT_Fonts
I'd actually use them as my main programming font if the dot (.) character wasn't a bit too small at smaller font sizes.
I’ll defer to your experience on this but I am under the impression that giving a range was a bad idea because a company can always lowball you: “oh, you said you were okay with 150K, why are you trying to renegotiate with us now?!”
That’s how to handle it, with the caveat that you should not be using that as a ploy to get the higher rate, never having had the willingness to take the lower rate. If you give a range, you should expect to be offered at the lower end and you should be happy to accept that offer. If you’re not happy with the lower end then you put forward the wrong numbers.
And if they say no, shrug and move on.
Could you please provide an example of said scenario?
> if either party feels that someone won and someone lost, then that will be a bad start to the relationship. Negotiating salary is about finding a salary that both employer and employee feel happy at.
Yes, I second this. It once happened to me that I "won" by getting an over-budgeted salary, but had to quit 3 days later because one of the bosses leaked in a meeting that they intended to overwork me since they felt hustled by me during the salary negotiation.
Said and done, they assigned me more work than initially scoped, as to adjust the "bang for the buck" balance (and had to quit shortly after that).
I can think of a specific example where someone with experience and strong qualifications pushed for a higher salary - which I agreed to - then struggled with the role and ended up not sticking around. In another instance, someone had lower qualifications and experience, but also negotiated hardest out of their hiring cohort - same outcome, plus they weren't a great fit personality wise.
Meanwhile, I can think of several other people who cross-trained from their initial non-technical careers at the local community college, came in with low experience, didn't negotiate aggressively (although did stand up for themselves)... They've done great work (and grown substantially and been good to work with) over the long term, and seem to enjoy working for me enough that a few who left for other jobs were interested in being hired again later on.
Negotiating employment terms is the first task you complete at a new job. It is a good predictor. If it leaves a bad taste in the mouth for either side, it's not a good sign of things to come...
> Treat yourself as a business and every job offer as a business deal. Every job offer is a deal, a business deal that must remain carefully balanced win-win. If you let it slip, by getting too much work and not the required promotion or salary bump, it will become a win-lose deal (you on the losing end).
Is this really the case? If a company is giving you an offer, presumably they want to hire you. At that point, does the recruiter, your hiring manager, your skip level, the CTO, the CEO even care at that point? Does this respect ever come into play in future performance reviews? I personally don’t think so, but I’ve only ever worked for larger companies.
I’ve always thought you should negotiate because you’re potentially leaving money on the table, since companies will often try to lowball your offer.
In my opinion and experience, I've seen recruiters respect you "harder" if you're not a pushover; that reflects in their internal profile about you.
But I think there's an effect like a "bet" that now favors the candidate that negotiated. When you negotiate and the hiring manager or company accepts, it's like they're placing a bet that you were absolutely the best candidate in that pool.
Imagine you're the one doing the hiring. What kind of candidate would you extend extra compensation to? Only one that you believe would truly improve your organization and in doing so, you -- on the hiring side -- are placing a bet.
Connect, by David Bradford and Carole Robin (on business and personal relationships)
How to Talk so Kids will Listen and Listen so Kids will Talk (on parenting)
It's funny how at the end of the day, all interpersonal relationships work the same way, isn't it :-)
Only because the company has already made you an offer in the first place, ergo they see your value and are already making a bet on you. Has there ever been an instance where an offer has been rescinded because a prospective employee didn’t negotiate?
> Has there ever been an instance where an offer has been rescinded because a prospective employee didn’t negotiate?
How about the other side? Where the company sees you as an even more desirable candidate and increases the offer? Signing bonus, increased salary, other perks?
Author's whole point is "You always win if you negotiate the right way."
The author's point isn't that you aren't going to get the job by not negotiating, the author's point is that you're leaving money on the table by not negotiating. Potentially a lot of money by thinking that the other side is fair and transparent in their offer to you or doing you "a favor" by giving you a job rather than seeing that there is, unfortunately, a game that has to be played once you get to the offer stage.
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.
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.
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.
Also, usually the high bound is set to catch desperate overqualifieds into the job competing process, not to be actually paid.
YMMV, speaking from experience in non-US job market culture.
I deal with non-US shops as well, it is surprising how many of them can and do pay US rates when asked.
They remained firm that they couldn't budge on salary even a little. Then remained firm as I asked for a signing bonus (denied) and reduced hours (denied). This company doesn't do stock at all and they've already got unlimited PTO so no room to negotiate there.
Meanwhile, their interview feedback indicated I did very well. They unanimously wanted me, and I slightly exceeded their technical expectations for the role.
Seems tougher than I remember from before covid.
(Throwaway since I don't want this tied to my name for my current or future employer to find.)
Some years ago there were job posts left and right, salaries were high and hiring was smooth - now there are comparatively fewer jobs posted, salaries are almost half of what it was before, and many don't even write back.
Many companies are even turning away from remote work. It used to be very doable to find a job in the US from Europe, now everyone is demanding you have work authorization and can be in the US.
This was also my observation. Everyone is talking about "outsourcing" but what I am seeing is work-authorization required everywhere. I wonder if this is a legal change that restricts them because it works against their negotiation power.
Publishers are not actually idiots. By and large, they know what sells.
Reviews are at least something of a filter.