6 ms·

You'd want to be pretty sure of your value to your employer before trying this stunt. Here's a counter-example: a young guy that reports directly to me tried t

You'd want to be pretty sure of your value to your employer before trying this stunt. Here's a counter-example: a young guy that reports directly to me tried to reduce the number of hours he has to work, by threatening to leave if we didn't reduce his hours (whilst keeping pay at the same level). This conversation was with my boss, I only gave him work to do, HR stuff was always handled by my boss. He was out the door of the company 24 hours later.

dagw 16y ago
I wouldn't really consider it a counter-example since in your case the guy was essentially demanding a raise. It's all about how you ask and being reasonable. Less hours for the same pay is not reasonable. Less hours for less pay would be far more reasonable, and might even have been accepted.
- wwortiz 16y ago
  Well less hours and same pay in the form of a raise is perfectly reasonable when you provide a substantial value to the company, though this is obviously not the case with your parent comment. Another thing is that you only tend to add value to a company after a large amount of time (decade[s]) and even so you may not even be adding value after that amount of time.
  - billswift 16y ago
    You are adding value from the beginning or they wouldn't be paying you - that is what you are there for. Caveat - sometime it takes a little while for a new hire to be brought up to speed on exactly how a company does things, the code base, and so forth, but it is rarely as long as a month.
- roc 16y ago
  Less hours for same pay is an extremely reasonable compromise, in these times when many companies can't/won't pass out much in the form of direct raises. Explicitly threatening to quit during any negotiation is the unreasonable part. Frankly, it's an implied threat in any conversation about compensation, just as being fired is an implied threat in any conversation about performance. But coming out and saying it, is wildly unprofessional and immature; there's just no up-side.
  - pbhjpbhj 16y ago
    >Explicitly threatening to quit during any negotiation is the unreasonable part. Frankly, it's an implied threat in any conversation about compensation, [...] coming out and saying it, is wildly unprofessional and immature; there's just no up-side. If it's implied then making it explicit is simply clarifying one-anothers position. I can't see how that's unprofessional: Being honest, open and explicit about your intentions. Leaving because negotiation didn't work for you when you made no explicit indication that your staying was part of the negotiation, that seems wrong to me.
    - roc 16y ago
      > "If it's implied then making it explicit is simply clarifying one-anothers position" The only reason to state it is to add emotion to the argument: to dramatically emphasize your resolve. And the problem with that, is the next negotiation has to go to at least that point again to convince the other party you really do mean it. So if you were earnest about having been at the end of your rope in the first negotiation, you earn only the certainty of being pushed back to the end of your rope in every subsequent negotiation. It's self-defeating and adds wholly unnecessary stress to the workplace. And if you're advocating emotional argument in every negotiation... well, good luck with that. It adds a tangible degree of stress to everyone around you and they won't appreciate it.
      - pbhjpbhj 16y ago
        >he problem with that, is the next negotiation has to go to at least that point again to convince the other party you really do mean it. But you were saying that the argument is already at that point but that card is just being held below the table despite everyone being aware that it is there. It's not necessarily emotional - I can say "I'll leave if I don't get these terms", that's not inherently an emotional demand, nor is it overly dramatic if that's your intention. It's pretty much all-in wrt the negotiation so yes I can see that it increases the stress until terms are agreed. But then the terms from the other side would have to include something to avoid such negotiations if they found it too stressful and/or emotional. Nor does this necessarily lead to future difficulties in negotiation. For sure someone could attempt to use this sort of situation for emotional leverage - I guess it depends whether you're talking about negotiation pay+conditions for a job or negotiating terms of a personal relationship.
noodle 16y ago
the situations are kind of different, though. the obvious one is that this guy wanted to still get paid. but, in most companies there is precedent and policy for extended leave without pay.
shpxnvz 16y ago
There are two important differences between the two stories, which may well explain the different endings. First, the post is about taking unpaid leave, rather than (as in your example) effectively demanding a raise by reducing work. Second, the poster never threatened to leave, which is in my experience always a poor tactic. Instead he effectively did leave and then engaged the company in considering bringing him back onboard after the time he needed, which flipped the power balance in the negotiation. The company was no longer in a position of strength because he had eliminated it's power to fire him - they had already lost and could only realize a gain by negotiating to retain a proven employee and save the cost of recruiting a replacement. I've successfully used the same approach in the past. However, you must be committed to the outcome and be willing to leave (or have already left). I'd never consider trying it as a bluff.
praptak 16y ago
"You'd want to be pretty sure of your value to your employer before trying this stunt." No, you only need to be sure about your value on the job market.

dagw 16y ago

I wouldn't really consider it a counter-example since in your case the guy was essentially demanding a raise. It's all about how you ask and being reasonable. Less hours for the same pay is not reasonable. Less hours for less pay would be far more reasonable, and might even have been accepted.

wwortiz 16y ago
Well less hours and same pay in the form of a raise is perfectly reasonable when you provide a substantial value to the company, though this is obviously not the case with your parent comment. Another thing is that you only tend to add value to a company after a large amount of time (decade[s]) and even so you may not even be adding value after that amount of time.
- billswift 16y ago
  You are adding value from the beginning or they wouldn't be paying you - that is what you are there for. Caveat - sometime it takes a little while for a new hire to be brought up to speed on exactly how a company does things, the code base, and so forth, but it is rarely as long as a month.
roc 16y ago
Less hours for same pay is an extremely reasonable compromise, in these times when many companies can't/won't pass out much in the form of direct raises. Explicitly threatening to quit during any negotiation is the unreasonable part. Frankly, it's an implied threat in any conversation about compensation, just as being fired is an implied threat in any conversation about performance. But coming out and saying it, is wildly unprofessional and immature; there's just no up-side.
- pbhjpbhj 16y ago
  >Explicitly threatening to quit during any negotiation is the unreasonable part. Frankly, it's an implied threat in any conversation about compensation, [...] coming out and saying it, is wildly unprofessional and immature; there's just no up-side. If it's implied then making it explicit is simply clarifying one-anothers position. I can't see how that's unprofessional: Being honest, open and explicit about your intentions. Leaving because negotiation didn't work for you when you made no explicit indication that your staying was part of the negotiation, that seems wrong to me.
  - roc 16y ago
    > "If it's implied then making it explicit is simply clarifying one-anothers position" The only reason to state it is to add emotion to the argument: to dramatically emphasize your resolve. And the problem with that, is the next negotiation has to go to at least that point again to convince the other party you really do mean it. So if you were earnest about having been at the end of your rope in the first negotiation, you earn only the certainty of being pushed back to the end of your rope in every subsequent negotiation. It's self-defeating and adds wholly unnecessary stress to the workplace. And if you're advocating emotional argument in every negotiation... well, good luck with that. It adds a tangible degree of stress to everyone around you and they won't appreciate it.
    - pbhjpbhj 16y ago
      >he problem with that, is the next negotiation has to go to at least that point again to convince the other party you really do mean it. But you were saying that the argument is already at that point but that card is just being held below the table despite everyone being aware that it is there. It's not necessarily emotional - I can say "I'll leave if I don't get these terms", that's not inherently an emotional demand, nor is it overly dramatic if that's your intention. It's pretty much all-in wrt the negotiation so yes I can see that it increases the stress until terms are agreed. But then the terms from the other side would have to include something to avoid such negotiations if they found it too stressful and/or emotional. Nor does this necessarily lead to future difficulties in negotiation. For sure someone could attempt to use this sort of situation for emotional leverage - I guess it depends whether you're talking about negotiation pay+conditions for a job or negotiating terms of a personal relationship.

noodle 16y ago

the situations are kind of different, though. the obvious one is that this guy wanted to still get paid. but, in most companies there is precedent and policy for extended leave without pay.

shpxnvz 16y ago

There are two important differences between the two stories, which may well explain the different endings. First, the post is about taking unpaid leave, rather than (as in your example) effectively demanding a raise by reducing work. Second, the poster never threatened to leave, which is in my experience always a poor tactic. Instead he effectively did leave and then engaged the company in considering bringing him back onboard after the time he needed, which flipped the power balance in the negotiation. The company was no longer in a position of strength because he had eliminated it's power to fire him - they had already lost and could only realize a gain by negotiating to retain a proven employee and save the cost of recruiting a replacement. I've successfully used the same approach in the past. However, you must be committed to the outcome and be willing to leave (or have already left). I'd never consider trying it as a bluff.

praptak 16y ago

"You'd want to be pretty sure of your value to your employer before trying this stunt." No, you only need to be sure about your value on the job market.