6 ms·

This is an admirable display of tactics, but a poor general strategy. His repeated threats to leave, as well as lies about other offers, only worked because the

This is an admirable display of tactics, but a poor general strategy. His repeated threats to leave, as well as lies about other offers, only worked because the company in question was already struggling and needed to hold onto him for fear of not finding a replacement. A more prominent and successful company would have jettisoned him as soon as it found a qualified and, in all probability, more loyal applicant. However, the advice on initial negotiations is solid. Companies generally allow at least 15% headroom on their initial offer for negotiations, and potentially more for those with less industry recognition and thus less negotiating power. I've exploited this headroom in virtually every job I've gotten.

jxm262 11y ago
I've noticed that yes there is headroom, but 15%? This seems like alot, but honestly I'm probably undervaluing it myself (something I'm working on). As I'm just now transitioning from being what I consider "mid" level to "senior" (relative titles I know), I'll try to keep your comment in mind for future jobs. It makes me a bit sad that this game has to be played so much in order to get the full value of your worth.
schneems 11y ago
> A more prominent and successful company would have jettisoned him as soon as it found a qualified and, in all probability, more loyal applicant. Even a successful company needs good engineers. They don't fire people just because they're "not loyal". Sure that medium sized company might want to replace you with a cheaper more "loyal" version, but what is their capability to do so? Beyond loyalty is dollars and cents. I would say it's a solid tactic assuming the developer would actually go and work at those other companies. Worst case scenario of this tactic is that you tell them you've got a better offer and they tell you to go take it. Even then, you could likely backtrack and explain how in your heart of hearts you decided it wasn't the move you wanted to make. Unless you're underperforming in some other area, I've not met a software company that can afford to toss out good engineers.
- s73v3r 11y ago
  "Even a successful company needs good engineers. They don't fire people just because they're "not loyal"." Successful companies can still have a few crappy managers in them.
blazespin 11y ago
"Loyalty" ... riiight - everyone wants chumps as employees. Clearly I disagree. Smart leaders pay above market for real talent, regardless of their 'loyalty'. The bottom line is, if you pay someone well and assist them in their career aspirations (promotions, etc), you know they will be loyal. Loyalty just because your manager is a 'nice guy' is what weak engineers do who can't compete. At least in this market, where talent can always find work. If the market ever turns and there is an oversupply, I agree you should probably STFU and do your job.
Kalium 11y ago
> His repeated threats to leave, as well as lies about other offers, only worked because the company in question was already struggling and needed to hold onto him for fear of not finding a replacement. It's called leverage. Or a strong negotiating position. Or whatever else. Point being that he was valuable to them, knew it, and was willing to use that. This is how any and every negotiation plays out.
MCRed 11y ago
>A more prominent and successful company would have jettisoned him as soon as it found a qualified and, in all probability, more loyal applicant. Notice the implicit assumption that employees should be loyal to companies, but companies are free to "jettison" an employee aggressively negotiating because that's not "loyal"? The only reason engineers are not getting respect as an industry (and I've seen this get worse over the past 30 years) is because we sell ourselves short.

jxm262 11y ago

I've noticed that yes there is headroom, but 15%? This seems like alot, but honestly I'm probably undervaluing it myself (something I'm working on). As I'm just now transitioning from being what I consider "mid" level to "senior" (relative titles I know), I'll try to keep your comment in mind for future jobs. It makes me a bit sad that this game has to be played so much in order to get the full value of your worth.

schneems 11y ago

> A more prominent and successful company would have jettisoned him as soon as it found a qualified and, in all probability, more loyal applicant. Even a successful company needs good engineers. They don't fire people just because they're "not loyal". Sure that medium sized company might want to replace you with a cheaper more "loyal" version, but what is their capability to do so? Beyond loyalty is dollars and cents. I would say it's a solid tactic assuming the developer would actually go and work at those other companies. Worst case scenario of this tactic is that you tell them you've got a better offer and they tell you to go take it. Even then, you could likely backtrack and explain how in your heart of hearts you decided it wasn't the move you wanted to make. Unless you're underperforming in some other area, I've not met a software company that can afford to toss out good engineers.

s73v3r 11y ago
"Even a successful company needs good engineers. They don't fire people just because they're "not loyal"." Successful companies can still have a few crappy managers in them.

blazespin 11y ago

"Loyalty" ... riiight - everyone wants chumps as employees. Clearly I disagree. Smart leaders pay above market for real talent, regardless of their 'loyalty'. The bottom line is, if you pay someone well and assist them in their career aspirations (promotions, etc), you know they will be loyal. Loyalty just because your manager is a 'nice guy' is what weak engineers do who can't compete. At least in this market, where talent can always find work. If the market ever turns and there is an oversupply, I agree you should probably STFU and do your job.

Kalium 11y ago

> His repeated threats to leave, as well as lies about other offers, only worked because the company in question was already struggling and needed to hold onto him for fear of not finding a replacement. It's called leverage. Or a strong negotiating position. Or whatever else. Point being that he was valuable to them, knew it, and was willing to use that. This is how any and every negotiation plays out.

MCRed 11y ago

>A more prominent and successful company would have jettisoned him as soon as it found a qualified and, in all probability, more loyal applicant. Notice the implicit assumption that employees should be loyal to companies, but companies are free to "jettison" an employee aggressively negotiating because that's not "loyal"? The only reason engineers are not getting respect as an industry (and I've seen this get worse over the past 30 years) is because we sell ourselves short.