5 ms·

> At the same time, no one should be screwed simply because they aren't good at negotiation Why is that? You get screwed everywhere in life if you don't have,

by Alupis 10y ago

> At the same time, no one should be screwed simply because they aren't good at negotiation Why is that? You get screwed everywhere in life if you don't have, at a minimum, mediocre negotiation skills. Craigslist, car buying, house shopping, gardening services, plumbers, painters... Heck, even the grocery store has room for negotiations in some cases - "Come on, I only have this one bag of cat food, can you ring me up here in the cosmetics department instead of me standing in that big line?". We should encourage people to get better at negotiations, and not just because they might get paid more... rather, you will succeed in life more and will be far more confident in yourself and your own abilities. Life is one big negotiation.

rcthompson 10y ago
On the employee side, you can certainly say that being good at negotiating is a critical skill. But from the standpoint of an employer looking to distribute raises is the most efficient manner, you don't want to promote someone simply for being a better negotiator or being better at marketing their work, unless negotiating/marketing is a part of their job. Assuming your goal is to pay people in proportion to their contributions, you want your salary-negotiation process to reflect actual contributions as much as possible, rather than reflecting people's ability to play up their contributions. You could compare it to the incentives for an ideal standardized test. For a test taker, the incentive is to study for the test as much as possible to get the highest score. But for test maker interested in measuring actual intelligence, ideally you want to design a test whose scores are relatively insensitive to time spent studying/memorizing, at least after a certain point. Obviously, you're never going to reach the ideal, but getting closer to it is still helpful. Also, "aggressive negotiation" (the phrase used in the article) is not necessarily the same as effective negotiation, so saying that you don't want to reward aggressive negotiation is not necessarily saying that the goal is to remove all negotiation from the equation.
khedoros1 10y ago
> Why is that? Because it's not good to screw someone over unnecessarily. If the job they want to hire you for doesn't require you to negotiate, then why make it a silent requirement to excel in the position, if you don't have to? > We should encourage people to get better at negotiations And to exercise more, eat healthier, learn to cook, take public transit when possible, be generous to the needy ,etc... but a job shouldn't compensate someone more when they do.
lostcolony 10y ago
It hurts the company too. Because people will leave if they're undercompensated. And recruiters are looking for people based on skills, not negotiation skills. If they find someone undercompensated for their skill set who fills a role they're looking to fill, they -will- poach them. Paying people what they're worth benefits everyone involved.
- cellularmitosis 10y ago
  I have to say, I'm surprised I don't see more of this viewpoint represented in here, especially when competent and experienced programmers are very much in a seller's market. I think there are a lot of conflict-averse engineers. Not giving them the raises they deserve (putting the onus on the engineer to negotiate for it) sends a message employee: this company is more concerned with getting a "good deal" than with valuing you as an engineer. That's a breeding ground for sentiments of zero loyalty.
mcbits 10y ago
Being able to lift 300 lbs. is also very often a useful life skill, but it's a skill that shouldn't usually affect one's salary unless it actually leads to better job performance.

by Alupis 10y ago

rcthompson 10y ago

On the employee side, you can certainly say that being good at negotiating is a critical skill. But from the standpoint of an employer looking to distribute raises is the most efficient manner, you don't want to promote someone simply for being a better negotiator or being better at marketing their work, unless negotiating/marketing is a part of their job. Assuming your goal is to pay people in proportion to their contributions, you want your salary-negotiation process to reflect actual contributions as much as possible, rather than reflecting people's ability to play up their contributions. You could compare it to the incentives for an ideal standardized test. For a test taker, the incentive is to study for the test as much as possible to get the highest score. But for test maker interested in measuring actual intelligence, ideally you want to design a test whose scores are relatively insensitive to time spent studying/memorizing, at least after a certain point. Obviously, you're never going to reach the ideal, but getting closer to it is still helpful. Also, "aggressive negotiation" (the phrase used in the article) is not necessarily the same as effective negotiation, so saying that you don't want to reward aggressive negotiation is not necessarily saying that the goal is to remove all negotiation from the equation.

khedoros1 10y ago

> Why is that? Because it's not good to screw someone over unnecessarily. If the job they want to hire you for doesn't require you to negotiate, then why make it a silent requirement to excel in the position, if you don't have to? > We should encourage people to get better at negotiations And to exercise more, eat healthier, learn to cook, take public transit when possible, be generous to the needy ,etc... but a job shouldn't compensate someone more when they do.

lostcolony 10y ago

It hurts the company too. Because people will leave if they're undercompensated. And recruiters are looking for people based on skills, not negotiation skills. If they find someone undercompensated for their skill set who fills a role they're looking to fill, they -will- poach them. Paying people what they're worth benefits everyone involved.

cellularmitosis 10y ago
I have to say, I'm surprised I don't see more of this viewpoint represented in here, especially when competent and experienced programmers are very much in a seller's market. I think there are a lot of conflict-averse engineers. Not giving them the raises they deserve (putting the onus on the engineer to negotiate for it) sends a message employee: this company is more concerned with getting a "good deal" than with valuing you as an engineer. That's a breeding ground for sentiments of zero loyalty.

mcbits 10y ago

Being able to lift 300 lbs. is also very often a useful life skill, but it's a skill that shouldn't usually affect one's salary unless it actually leads to better job performance.