3 ms·

Can you explain that a bit more? What if candidate A was sourced internally, had a slight edge over B, and wanted 20-33% more in pay?

itronitron 9y ago
The salary would be recurring annually so 20% higher salary is a bigger cost than a one shot commission
- scarface74 9y ago
  I have heard of people being able to negotiate a one time hiring bonus if they didn’t go through a recruiter. I was also offered a $5000 bonus through a recruiter to try to persuade me to take a job.
- sokoloff 9y ago
  Largely this. I welcome employees who know/can articulate their value and negotiate in good faith to take home in salary roughly 1/4 to 2/5 of the value they create for our company every year. That doesn’t extend to paying cash bonuses because our in-house team found them nor to pay cash in lieu of relocation benefits just because they already live here. To answer GP’s question where candidate A had a slight edge but wanted 20-30% more, first I probably wouldn’t know that at decision time (it’s not like I’m shopping cars where I can go pretty far down the negotiation path with two Honda dealers and one Toyota dealer or an Amazon purchase where I can use camelcamelcamel or something; these are human beings contemplating upending their lives in some way). Second, talent is the key element of this game. Candidate A has a (perceived) edge and I’m going to pursue that candidate first, realizing that the pay is capped by some proper fraction of the business value they can create. Where it’s a software IC role, I will likely pursue both A and B individually, intending to hire both. Where it’s a one-off role (I’m not going to hire two CISOs or two tribe leads for one tribe), I pursue A first. If I hear “I want more salary/shares because you’re not paying a recruiter”, that’s a terrifically strong signal that maybe they’re not going to create as much business value as I thought because they’re prone to thinking shallowly or outright wrongly about what matters to the business. “I want more money because of my X, Y, and Z talents/skills/ability/dedication/other options”? Great, I’m interested; let’s talk about that.
  - scarface74 9y ago
    I agree, I've never asked for hiring bonus from an employer because I didn't go through a recruiter - I've never had that opportunity and I wouldn't anyway. It feels tacky. I might ask for a slightly higher salary thinking they have more wiggle room because they didn't go through a recruiter, but I wouldn't mention that as a rationale. I've never been in a position to ask for the highest salary in the range. Any job for which I would be able to ask for top dollar would imply that I meet all of the qualifications perfectly. That would mean that I won't have the opportunity to grow and after two years, my resume and skill set won't look any better than when I first started. I've always aimed for jobs that are a slight stretch, meaning I have all of the "must haves" but not many of the "nice to haves". That gives me the opportunity to be exposed to new to me technologies.

itronitron 9y ago

The salary would be recurring annually so 20% higher salary is a bigger cost than a one shot commission

scarface74 9y ago
I have heard of people being able to negotiate a one time hiring bonus if they didn’t go through a recruiter. I was also offered a $5000 bonus through a recruiter to try to persuade me to take a job.
sokoloff 9y ago
Largely this. I welcome employees who know/can articulate their value and negotiate in good faith to take home in salary roughly 1/4 to 2/5 of the value they create for our company every year. That doesn’t extend to paying cash bonuses because our in-house team found them nor to pay cash in lieu of relocation benefits just because they already live here. To answer GP’s question where candidate A had a slight edge but wanted 20-30% more, first I probably wouldn’t know that at decision time (it’s not like I’m shopping cars where I can go pretty far down the negotiation path with two Honda dealers and one Toyota dealer or an Amazon purchase where I can use camelcamelcamel or something; these are human beings contemplating upending their lives in some way). Second, talent is the key element of this game. Candidate A has a (perceived) edge and I’m going to pursue that candidate first, realizing that the pay is capped by some proper fraction of the business value they can create. Where it’s a software IC role, I will likely pursue both A and B individually, intending to hire both. Where it’s a one-off role (I’m not going to hire two CISOs or two tribe leads for one tribe), I pursue A first. If I hear “I want more salary/shares because you’re not paying a recruiter”, that’s a terrifically strong signal that maybe they’re not going to create as much business value as I thought because they’re prone to thinking shallowly or outright wrongly about what matters to the business. “I want more money because of my X, Y, and Z talents/skills/ability/dedication/other options”? Great, I’m interested; let’s talk about that.
- scarface74 9y ago
  I agree, I've never asked for hiring bonus from an employer because I didn't go through a recruiter - I've never had that opportunity and I wouldn't anyway. It feels tacky. I might ask for a slightly higher salary thinking they have more wiggle room because they didn't go through a recruiter, but I wouldn't mention that as a rationale. I've never been in a position to ask for the highest salary in the range. Any job for which I would be able to ask for top dollar would imply that I meet all of the qualifications perfectly. That would mean that I won't have the opportunity to grow and after two years, my resume and skill set won't look any better than when I first started. I've always aimed for jobs that are a slight stretch, meaning I have all of the "must haves" but not many of the "nice to haves". That gives me the opportunity to be exposed to new to me technologies.