4 ms·

> Don't negotiate. Dictate. Everything is a negotiation. You have only limited power over your employer. If you think you can "dictate", you don't understand

> Don't negotiate. Dictate. Everything is a negotiation. You have only limited power over your employer. If you think you can "dictate", you don't understand the relationship you have. If what you think "dictating" works, that is because it really is a negotiation and your employer decided they will meet your demands. "Dictating" may get you a label attached, that you are hard to negotiate with, fussy, capricious, etc. Don't do it. It is much better to sound reasonable because it has much better chance to be met with reasonable answer.

scotty79 5y ago
If you can leave the next day there's no much room for the employer to negotiate anything. It's not a negotiation if there's no option for the employer to get any concessions from you and give you less than what you demand. So not everything is a negotiation. Sometimes it's just offer and decission.
- lmilcin 5y ago
  First of all, the only time there is no negotiation is if you don't have a choice. Will the company fold if you leave it? I have personally been in this situation and even then I have negotiated because the owners were only able to put so much money and above that they would prefer to just cut their losses and dissolve the company. > If you can leave the next day there's no much room for the employer to negotiate anything. No, you just decided to give them your terms and allow the company to only approve or deny them. You take away their ability to negotiate with you in response to your demands but you did not take their ability to make their own decision. You did not dictate anything. You would dictate if you had actual power over the company. You are not really a dictator if they can refuse your offer, are you?
  - InvertedRhodium 5y ago
    By that logic, does the concept of dictator even exist? Even under threat of torture and death you can refuse to do or say whatever is being demanded of you - and if you can be refused then are you really a dictator?
  - scotty79 5y ago
    I'm not saying employer cannot decide. I'm just saying that statement "everything is a negotiation" is not true. Because if you refuse to participate in any bargaining then there's no negotiation. Just a statement (from one side) and decision (from the other). I see you are mostly opposed to the word dictate because you understand it as employee dictating what company will do. And he's obviously not capable of that. The word dictate used by OP was about dictating the terms of decision they have to make, not dictating what the decision should be.
  - account42 5y ago
    You can dictate that you will be working from home even if your current employer still has the choice that you will not be working for them.
    - lmilcin 5y ago
      Again, you are not dictating if it is up to them to decide whether they accept it or not. I am not native English speaker, but the dictionaries are rather precise that authority is a necessary ingredient of being able to dictate something. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/dictate https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/dictate "to give orders, or tell someone exactly what they must do, with total authority" https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dictate https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dictate "to issue as an order; to impose, pronounce, or specify authoritatively" If you don't have authority over the company you can still think you are dictating, but that's not how the company views it. The company view is "are you too much of a problem for the benefit of keeping you?" not "John said it so we must do it because he has authority around here".
      - adamhp 5y ago
        >I am not native English speaker There is a bit of nuance here. As someone else mentioned, he is not saying he is literally dictating what decision the employer must make, he is dictating his own terms. In fact, you conveniently left out a definition that doesn't fit your argument from the pages you linked: > to influence something or make it necessary Example (from the Cambridge URL that you linked): "He shouldn't be allowed to dictate all the terms and conditions - it's supposed to be a democratic decision." That's exactly what OP is doing. Dictating the terms and conditions. Influencing what "must be done". Giving them an ultimatum, by dictating his conditions. He is "dictating" in this case, because he does have total authority on his own actions. If they do not cede, he will leave. It's kind of a semantic argument, and moot at that, but even the resources you linked support OP's usage of the word dictate.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
luch 5y ago
faking being irrational about your position unfortunately may be quite successful when negotiating against a rational actor : https://www.ismanundpartner.com/blog/irrational-negotiator https://www.ismanundpartner.com/blog/irrational-negotiator However, I'm not sure it is the way to go for employment contracts where you have an ongoing relationship with the other party.
- lmilcin 5y ago
  It depends. If you your image is already of a bright immature developer (basically a prodigy grownup child) and you hold a lot of value for the company, then it might be useful to do something like that just to make the point that you really mean it, if they did not feel you are going to go through with your threat. On the other hand if the image of myself that I try to create is that of a rational person that aims at finding solutions to problems, that wants to take more responsibility for bigger problems for the company, doing something like that could potentially be very damaging. There is many ways to make the threat believable. First is not making threats that you are not willing and prepared to go through. If you have a history of mentioning on multiple occasion that you are going to leave the company then your next threat is not really believable because the only difference between it and previous attempts is in your mind. Second, I am prepared. Having facts and being prepared for the discussion is immediate indication to the other person that you are serious enough to put some effort. Never go to a discussion like that on a whim, just after a stimulus that triggered you. Third, I reduce this to just business. Business is language your managers talk and understand on daily basis. I explain that I have obligation to the family and there is only so much I can do to stay at the company if I have other, better paid options. I don't complain at the company, I don't try to create false image of accomplishment that somebody can see through. Instead I put it logically so they understand I have logically arrived at conclusion they also agree with that there is absolutely no way for me to stay unless they concede at least something. That this is just business and I have no ill thoughts or intentions, that as much as possible I would like to remain at the company but it is the logic that compels me to change job. If I wanted to stay working remotely but my company did not I would try to do following: 1. Set up the meeting in advance and give advance of the topic that I want to broach. This gives them time to prepare but also makes it less useful for them to say they need to think about it after we have finished the meeting. 2. I would come prepared with arguments to show that working remotely was not detrimental to my productivity and in fact I was more productive because I was able to manage my time better. 3. I would empathize with why they would want to bring people back to the office, but then point out that even though not every person is, I am grown up, reasonable person and I don't need handholding to manage my time and keep pulse on my productivity. 4. I would say that my family is so happy with me working remotely that now this becomes a requirement so much, that if I can't meet that requirement with my current company I will have to start looking around for a job that will suit me. No hard feelings, but I am pressed by outside factors. 5. I would point out there is a new market for remote work and I am more than capable of finding a new job that will be paying reasonably for remote position. 6. I would ask that if they have some specific concerns about me doing my work remotely when the rest of the team does not, they bring it up to me and I trust we can reasonably discuss and find some solutions and we can delay my decision to leave the company until such time they decide that it is not working for them. The outcome is still the same (they agree or not) but now they know they are talking to a reasonable person they can solve future problems with. Because I am not unpredictable and unreasonable it pays more to invest a little bit in the relationship.

scotty79 5y ago

If you can leave the next day there's no much room for the employer to negotiate anything. It's not a negotiation if there's no option for the employer to get any concessions from you and give you less than what you demand. So not everything is a negotiation. Sometimes it's just offer and decission.

lmilcin 5y ago
First of all, the only time there is no negotiation is if you don't have a choice. Will the company fold if you leave it? I have personally been in this situation and even then I have negotiated because the owners were only able to put so much money and above that they would prefer to just cut their losses and dissolve the company. > If you can leave the next day there's no much room for the employer to negotiate anything. No, you just decided to give them your terms and allow the company to only approve or deny them. You take away their ability to negotiate with you in response to your demands but you did not take their ability to make their own decision. You did not dictate anything. You would dictate if you had actual power over the company. You are not really a dictator if they can refuse your offer, are you?
- InvertedRhodium 5y ago
  By that logic, does the concept of dictator even exist? Even under threat of torture and death you can refuse to do or say whatever is being demanded of you - and if you can be refused then are you really a dictator?
- scotty79 5y ago
  I'm not saying employer cannot decide. I'm just saying that statement "everything is a negotiation" is not true. Because if you refuse to participate in any bargaining then there's no negotiation. Just a statement (from one side) and decision (from the other). I see you are mostly opposed to the word dictate because you understand it as employee dictating what company will do. And he's obviously not capable of that. The word dictate used by OP was about dictating the terms of decision they have to make, not dictating what the decision should be.
- account42 5y ago
  You can dictate that you will be working from home even if your current employer still has the choice that you will not be working for them.
  - lmilcin 5y ago
    Again, you are not dictating if it is up to them to decide whether they accept it or not. I am not native English speaker, but the dictionaries are rather precise that authority is a necessary ingredient of being able to dictate something. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/dictate https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/dictate "to give orders, or tell someone exactly what they must do, with total authority" https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dictate https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dictate "to issue as an order; to impose, pronounce, or specify authoritatively" If you don't have authority over the company you can still think you are dictating, but that's not how the company views it. The company view is "are you too much of a problem for the benefit of keeping you?" not "John said it so we must do it because he has authority around here".
    - adamhp 5y ago
      >I am not native English speaker There is a bit of nuance here. As someone else mentioned, he is not saying he is literally dictating what decision the employer must make, he is dictating his own terms. In fact, you conveniently left out a definition that doesn't fit your argument from the pages you linked: > to influence something or make it necessary Example (from the Cambridge URL that you linked): "He shouldn't be allowed to dictate all the terms and conditions - it's supposed to be a democratic decision." That's exactly what OP is doing. Dictating the terms and conditions. Influencing what "must be done". Giving them an ultimatum, by dictating his conditions. He is "dictating" in this case, because he does have total authority on his own actions. If they do not cede, he will leave. It's kind of a semantic argument, and moot at that, but even the resources you linked support OP's usage of the word dictate.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

luch 5y ago

faking being irrational about your position unfortunately may be quite successful when negotiating against a rational actor : https://www.ismanundpartner.com/blog/irrational-negotiator https://www.ismanundpartner.com/blog/irrational-negotiator However, I'm not sure it is the way to go for employment contracts where you have an ongoing relationship with the other party.

lmilcin 5y ago
It depends. If you your image is already of a bright immature developer (basically a prodigy grownup child) and you hold a lot of value for the company, then it might be useful to do something like that just to make the point that you really mean it, if they did not feel you are going to go through with your threat. On the other hand if the image of myself that I try to create is that of a rational person that aims at finding solutions to problems, that wants to take more responsibility for bigger problems for the company, doing something like that could potentially be very damaging. There is many ways to make the threat believable. First is not making threats that you are not willing and prepared to go through. If you have a history of mentioning on multiple occasion that you are going to leave the company then your next threat is not really believable because the only difference between it and previous attempts is in your mind. Second, I am prepared. Having facts and being prepared for the discussion is immediate indication to the other person that you are serious enough to put some effort. Never go to a discussion like that on a whim, just after a stimulus that triggered you. Third, I reduce this to just business. Business is language your managers talk and understand on daily basis. I explain that I have obligation to the family and there is only so much I can do to stay at the company if I have other, better paid options. I don't complain at the company, I don't try to create false image of accomplishment that somebody can see through. Instead I put it logically so they understand I have logically arrived at conclusion they also agree with that there is absolutely no way for me to stay unless they concede at least something. That this is just business and I have no ill thoughts or intentions, that as much as possible I would like to remain at the company but it is the logic that compels me to change job. If I wanted to stay working remotely but my company did not I would try to do following: 1. Set up the meeting in advance and give advance of the topic that I want to broach. This gives them time to prepare but also makes it less useful for them to say they need to think about it after we have finished the meeting. 2. I would come prepared with arguments to show that working remotely was not detrimental to my productivity and in fact I was more productive because I was able to manage my time better. 3. I would empathize with why they would want to bring people back to the office, but then point out that even though not every person is, I am grown up, reasonable person and I don't need handholding to manage my time and keep pulse on my productivity. 4. I would say that my family is so happy with me working remotely that now this becomes a requirement so much, that if I can't meet that requirement with my current company I will have to start looking around for a job that will suit me. No hard feelings, but I am pressed by outside factors. 5. I would point out there is a new market for remote work and I am more than capable of finding a new job that will be paying reasonably for remote position. 6. I would ask that if they have some specific concerns about me doing my work remotely when the rest of the team does not, they bring it up to me and I trust we can reasonably discuss and find some solutions and we can delay my decision to leave the company until such time they decide that it is not working for them. The outcome is still the same (they agree or not) but now they know they are talking to a reasonable person they can solve future problems with. Because I am not unpredictable and unreasonable it pays more to invest a little bit in the relationship.