5 ms·

> But is it a skill that matters for the job? I think so. For instance, as a software developer, we might reach a point where we have to make a choice about wh

> But is it a skill that matters for the job? I think so. For instance, as a software developer, we might reach a point where we have to make a choice about which programming language to use for the new project. As usual, everyone on the team has differing opinions about what programming language is the right one for this project. You (usually) can't just have everyone go off and use whatever they language they feel like using, so a negotiation process is necessary. A team of strong negotiators will work through all the plusses and minuses and reach a consensus of which one is the best choice for everyone's needs. Everyone may not be completely happy, but they will be confident that the right choice was made. If you have weak negotiators, they will be apt to yield before making their case, leading to a good chance of not making the best technology choice, and almost certainly resulting in people who are not confident in the direction of the project. Soon, you have a toxic work environment.

psyc 10y ago
People have anxieties that are very specific to negotiating their pay, which do not correlate with their passion for advocating for technical directions.
- strken 10y ago
  How would we measure the correlation between "willing to ask for more cash" and "willing to advocate a technical decision"? Has it already been done, are you speaking from anecdotal experience, or are you just conjecturing?
BurningFrog 10y ago
When picking a language everyone on the team has the same interests: Figuring out the best language to use. Ideally in the end everyone agrees on the right decision. A wage negotiation is adversarial. More money for one side means less for the other. I think those are quite different skills and situations.
- randomdata 10y ago
  I would argue that business deals are also of shared interest. Why would you even reach the point of working out the specifics if there was no mutual interest in having the relationship work?
  - BurningFrog 10y ago
    Agreed. The relationship has to be a net positive for both sides to begin with, for there to be anything to negotiate about. The adversarial part is how to divide that mutually created gain. The "surplus", as economists call it.
- user5994461 10y ago
  > A wage negotiation is adversarial. More money for one side means less for the other. Incorrect. More money for you means the manager get more budget for this years and the next and he can write "hire X people for $Y". More money mean you both got more.
Spooky23 10y ago
That's not comparable to a salary negotiation for an engineer. As a technical stakeholder, everyone has a voice of some sort. The architects may have more weight, but your opinion is based in your professional knowledge and work. In a salary negotiation, there is a lot of information asymmetry -- the employer knows the budget, probably knows the market better and knows the cost of fringe benefits that you do not, and has less to lose. IMO, semi-transparent scales work best. They also avoid many discrimination issues. If you want to have financial incentives, use bonuses.
- user5994461 10y ago
  > the employer knows the budget, probably knows the market better and knows the cost of fringe benefits that you do not In my experience, the employer have little clue about the market. He's tainted by the organizational culture. For instance, a $XX-YY band for everyone your age or a habit to import cheap worker from A Mexican city.

psyc 10y ago

People have anxieties that are very specific to negotiating their pay, which do not correlate with their passion for advocating for technical directions.

strken 10y ago
How would we measure the correlation between "willing to ask for more cash" and "willing to advocate a technical decision"? Has it already been done, are you speaking from anecdotal experience, or are you just conjecturing?

BurningFrog 10y ago

When picking a language everyone on the team has the same interests: Figuring out the best language to use. Ideally in the end everyone agrees on the right decision. A wage negotiation is adversarial. More money for one side means less for the other. I think those are quite different skills and situations.

randomdata 10y ago
I would argue that business deals are also of shared interest. Why would you even reach the point of working out the specifics if there was no mutual interest in having the relationship work?
- BurningFrog 10y ago
  Agreed. The relationship has to be a net positive for both sides to begin with, for there to be anything to negotiate about. The adversarial part is how to divide that mutually created gain. The "surplus", as economists call it.
user5994461 10y ago
> A wage negotiation is adversarial. More money for one side means less for the other. Incorrect. More money for you means the manager get more budget for this years and the next and he can write "hire X people for $Y". More money mean you both got more.

Spooky23 10y ago

That's not comparable to a salary negotiation for an engineer. As a technical stakeholder, everyone has a voice of some sort. The architects may have more weight, but your opinion is based in your professional knowledge and work. In a salary negotiation, there is a lot of information asymmetry -- the employer knows the budget, probably knows the market better and knows the cost of fringe benefits that you do not, and has less to lose. IMO, semi-transparent scales work best. They also avoid many discrimination issues. If you want to have financial incentives, use bonuses.

user5994461 10y ago
> the employer knows the budget, probably knows the market better and knows the cost of fringe benefits that you do not In my experience, the employer have little clue about the market. He's tainted by the organizational culture. For instance, a $XX-YY band for everyone your age or a habit to import cheap worker from A Mexican city.