10 ms·

Ten Rules for Negotiating a Job Offer

182 points by andyxor 5y ago

ayy_lmao 5y ago
And everything crumble down when I've stood my ground against "we have other motivated candidates" and my backup alternatives turned out to be a complete mess upon further inspection, started back pedaling on previously agreed terms (written but not signed), and just simply ghosted me. Oh well.
- hoppla 5y ago
  I would assume the interview was over if they mentioned other motivated candidates
  - ayy_lmao 5y ago
    Maybe a cultural difference considering I'm in Asia but in roughly 1/3 of the follow up interview I've experienced, the HR / manager mentioned there were other motivated candidates. Most of the times it came after I expressed I was hesitant after being low balled hard in term of income.
    - hoppla 5y ago
      Could be a cultural difference, but still think it sounds like they signal that something is non negotiable, either you accept it or leave.
      - ghaff 5y ago
        Assuming they've actually made an offer, I agree that it sounds like something they're firm on and, probably, while they might indeed be willing to hire you, they're perfectly fine with their fallbacks.
jeffrallen 5y ago
I confess I didn't read it all, because there was too much of the adversarial stuff I'm not interested in. His point that it's a agreement to exchange labor for something else is spot on. My last two jobs had, statutorily and morally ZERO financial negotiating margin. One was an NGO, where I believed in the goals and strategy of the organization and so I enthusiastically accepted the salary level in exchange for what the job gave me. Next, I moved to academia, where the opportunity to have contact with young people and world class researchers also balanced out for me the constraints of the civil service salary grid (thus, statutorily impossible to negotiate $). Both jobs also respected my family life, which is precious, way beyond $$$. Negotiate how you spend your life, yes! But with all the variables on the table, not only $$$.
- whall6 5y ago
  At the NGO, any foregone salary can be used to further the interests of the organization. This likely brought you as much utility as additional salary itself.
- daniellarusso 5y ago
  The article does mention this, to evaluate the offer beyond the money aspect, work-life balance, enrichment, culture, etc.
aliswe 5y ago
This was actually very good! Many of these articles on HN are a bit one sided but this one really feels grounded in reality and not just perception and "in my experience".
- blagie 5y ago
  I think it was good for one context. As comments here mention, there are many other contexts: 1. Many jobs have fixed pay grades and no leverage. 2. There are buyers and sellers markets. Most of the advice was horrible for a recession. 3. Many jobs have other value. If you're a soft money researcher, lower salary may actually help you. If you're working for a not-for-profit, you need to consider where your salary is coming from. I'll also mention: Exploding job offers aren't always b-llsh-t. If I have a 3 person startup and need a fourth person, and two strong candidates, I'll want to extend the offer to candidate number 2 if candidate number 1 doesn't accept. They're sometimes hardball negotiating tactics, but sometimes, business reality.
  - ghaff 5y ago
    A lot of it's situational. I know there are a lot of folks who think (or, to be fair, maybe know) that they can have their choice of highly paid jobs in a week. That's not true for a lot of people in a lot of roles (or a lot of ages). Sometimes people who are not in a great situation currently get an offer that looks pretty darned good. It may make sense to take the position that trying to wring out a bit more is really not worth the risk as opposed to making it happen now.
  - DistressedDrone 5y ago
    > I'll also mention: Exploding job offers aren't always b-llsh-t. If I have a 3 person startup and need a fourth person, and two strong candidates, I'll want to extend the offer to candidate number 2 if candidate number 1 doesn't accept. They're sometimes hardball negotiating tactics, but sometimes, business reality. This point only serves to validate the article's point though. If you already have an acceptable alternative, negotiating with you is far less likely to be rewarding than negotiating with someone who doesn't have one.
pella 5y ago
from (2016) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12197795 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12197795
linspace 5y ago
I think the very first you need to know is the market. Talk with colleagues, better if they recently moved, and ask for a little more. I think most of my friends know my salary, some earn more and some less, who cares? I'm not sure about not mentioning your current salary because a lot of interviews have ended at that point without wasting anyone's time. You can give a figure and ask for a 30% raise, it's perfectly reasonable because moving has always some associated risk and HR knows, better than anyone, that it is your better chance at improving your salary.
Traster 5y ago
I think this is great advice. You're not always in a position to use this advice, this is the most extreme approach, but I think it's good to be aware of the most extreme approach. Very often a lot of this doesn't apply. 2 Years ago the company I work for really struggled to fill the roles in my team. We would've been very flexible with compensation to bring people in. Today we simply don't have that problem, if you push too hard we have about 3 other good people for the role. 1 year ago we would've dismissed you out of hand for working from home, today that would absolutely be part of our negotiating armory. It's very important to probe and find out where the company is flexible. Also, it is actually true that if you've really managed to sell yourself to HR and got a big old salary and you end up on my team underperforming it's going to be a much bigger problem for you. At my current company you want to be underpaid and overperform - because our compensation structure is highhly bonus orientated so you don't need to worry about it working out. At previous companies I've worked at your compensation for the entire tenure at the company is set the day you sign - bonuses and salary budget are both determined as a % of base pay and your ability to increase your compensation is basically a fight between you and the rest of the team who are all part of one budget (horribly dysfunctional system, accidentally hire 1 person at a grade level lower than where they should be and it's going to completely screw your whole team's compensation for the next couple of years).
- daniellarusso 5y ago
  How are your bonuses calculated? What metrics are used in determining it?
- potatoz2 5y ago
  I don't think it hurts to use this advice. The worst that can happen is that the company is only willing to pay you 90k (either they don't think you can net them more or they think you're bluffing, but that's risky if you have other offers to show them). You can still pick that company if you want in the end.
monster_group 5y ago
I really don't get this advise about not giving out a number. Seems like you yourself don't know your worth. Most of the times, save for FAANG companies, no other company is willing to pay me what I am asking for. So to go through the whole laborious and lengthy interview process only to find out during negotiation stage that they are not going to even match my current compensation is a lot of wasted time. If I talk to a recruiter, I tell them what I want even before interviewing. Most of the times, recruiters from non FAANG companies tell me that they won't be able to pay that much even if I performed stellar in the interview. I don't give out a number to FAANG recruiter before the interview but I do give out during the negotiation stage and so far my comp has been at at least as good as my peers'. My understanding is that most companies have a salary range and they want all the employees on the same level to be within that range. They won't break those rules regardless of how good you are. You are only one among many good candidates. So you should aim to be at the high end of that range during negotiation. That's how I decide the number to give out.
- whall6 5y ago
  You appear to know your market rate. I’m guessing OP wrote the article for those that don’t yet.
  - pwkbl837 5y ago
    Employers will usually tell you the comp range for the role you are being evaluated for if you ask them. This is what I think OP was referring to. You can still ask to be leveled up though :)
    - pm90 5y ago
      They actually don’t tell you if you ask them. I’ve tried to do this with a few recruiters at the phone screen stage just to save everyone’s time but they usually don’t give a number, presumably because they do have flexibility for filling out roles that are in demand.
- pwkbl837 5y ago
  Yes employers have comp bands for each level within an org. You can always ask to come in at a higher level. The thing is you never know how much a company values a particular role. By giving a number first you basically preempt the scenario where they might offer more than you would have thought to ask for. If they come in low to anchor the negotiations on a lower number, that can also give valuable information about how much the organization values your role / function. Either way it is in your best interest for them to show their hand first.
gorgoiler 5y ago
I am a teacher in the UK, working in the private sector. This industry has many ticking time bombs: the pension scheme is collapsing, regulatory burden means small schools must consolidate or die, and above all a class action sword of liability must surely be hanging over the closed-shop hiring practices. These are some of the anti-competitive informal rules about moving schools: A new prospective employer (usually the head of the school you are applying to) expects to be able to talk to your current head from the moment you apply. This in turn means that you have to tell your current employer the moment you start looking for jobs elsewhere. Any other references are done before interview, not during an offer. Your referees will be writing a lot, on your behalf, O(n) — jobs applied for — and not O(1) — job offers you want to accept. It is considered obstructive behaviour to not be open about your current salary. You are immediately viewed as “difficult”: just like candidates who apply without telling their current school, so too with candidates cagey about money. Taking time off during term is not allowed. Taking time off to interview will be deducted from your pay unless you get prior approval, and you have to declare that you are interviewing. Resumes / CVs are not allowed as part of the application. No one will read them. Some other gems, when negotiating salary: “b-but no one goes into teaching for the money!”, “sorry we don’t aim to compete with the commercial sector”, and “we don’t define the hours you’ll need to work, only that you do what is deemed necessary and appropriate” only to later be told that it’s not the done thing old chap to work any less than 50 hours a week.
- monster_group 5y ago
  It is very sad how under-appreciated and underpaid teachers are (especially in US). I know my son's teacher works a lot of hours just by knowing how much responsibility she is expected to take on for her class. And she gets paid a fraction of what I get paid. Sometimes when I am having beer with my team-mates during team happy hour on company time, I realize how lucky I am.
  - gorgoiler 5y ago
    An uncomfortable fact of teaching is that it is 15% inspirational and highly nuanced technical leadership, and 85% unskilled labour. When most of the job is rock breaking then it’s easy to see why the supply of new teachers is so high. Coupled with the romance of wanting to be that inspirational teacher, and the genuine privilege of wanting to work with young people, and it’s not hard to see how schools can get away with murder when it comes to pay. Money isn’t the worst of it though. Alongside the low salary there’s also a huge risk of employers developing a them/us relationship. The involvement of unions exacerbated this, and schools are already high-rules / low-trust environments even before any of this kind of staff/management internecine conflict. But: (1) I love working with kids; (2) while the job attracts good people and bad people, the good ones are great. PS: I’d eat my hat if exactly the same wasn’t also true for police detectives and nurses.
monster_group 5y ago
The best leverage you have during negotiation is to negotiate when you don't really need the job. Don't wait to be out of a job before interviewing. If you can do this, most of the advise in this article is immaterial. Have a number in mind that will make you happy and make you switch. Give out the number. If they can do it, you take it else you stay in your current job. That cuts out all the bullshit mind games described in this verbose article.
- pm90 5y ago
  The article is describing a process of maximizing ones compensation. You can continue to have a number you care about in your mind and judge the final offer against that. Shifting jobs is usually the only time you have lots of opportunities to negotiate up by a lot. Personally Ive found that the better offer I can get, the better tenure I have at a company since I’m not focused on playing games to get promoted, but have negotiated a somewhat higher than expected level and salary.
- tasuki 5y ago
  That's great if you're optimizing leverage. If you're optimizing quality of life (and if you can afford it; and I'll take the liberty to assume you can, since you're here), I can't but recommend taking long breaks between jobs, at least a month or two.
string 5y ago
Good article, articulated a lot of my own feelings on the subject. The only part I can never quite get my head around is having multiple offers at once. It takes me months if not years to find a company I actually want to work for. The chance of finding many hiring for a suitable position—let alone receiving offers almost simultaneously—seems miniscule. I feel like these types of articles assume everyone has a sort of drag net approach to finding employment, but my own approach is more like fly fishing (pardon the analogy). I feel like I've been successful in the past because I can explain exactly why I've applied for the specific position. I suppose this must be atypical, perhaps I'm a terrible negotiator.
- ghaff 5y ago
  I agree with you. Also the sentiment that "I can quit my job on Monday and have my choice of plum offers by Friday." To the degree these exist I assume it's some in-demand cookie cutter keyword skill backed up by the right resume. Certainly the few times I've changed jobs, it's happened fairly quickly but it was very targeted and always came through someone I knew well (and almost certainly involved a degree of luck).
- joezydeco 5y ago
  The author says so, but doesn't realize it: The appropriate advice for an Asian male in Silicon Valley may not be appropriate for a black woman in Birmingham, Alabama. An Asian male dancing around the FAANGs in SV has a much better chance of getting multiple, simultaneous, offers quickly. The reality out there is that 99.99% of companies completely suck at recruiting when it comes to first contact, resume/application processing, turnaround time, and interview scheduling. And LinkedIn has made them lazier and suckier. I love it when recruiters write whiny blog posts that make it to HN complaining about being ghosted by candidates when in reality their companies are treating people way shittier. But we're getting off topic here. IMO this whole "multiple offers give you leverage!" bullshit knocks a good majority of these job negotiation blogposts off the table. It's you and one company, negotiating a salary 1:1. The BATNA is zero. The author also makes a dangerous assumption that getting an offer means the company has closed the door on every other candidate. All it means is that you were on top, but that could change. I have no problem extending an offer to #2 and moving on. It's a few clicks of a mouse to do that and get back to my donut.
dominotw 5y ago
you can only negotiate if you are ready to lose. Most ppl don't have that luxury.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
frellus 5y ago
With phrases like "your interlocutor will try to trick you into making a decision" I would treat this article as less than gospel. I've been on both sides of the negotiation table. With any negotiation, both sides must "win" and neither side should try to "trick" the other party. On the prospective employee side, should they inflate their credentials and experience? Sooner than later after working at the new place, they will find out and credibility will be lost, so of course you shouldn't. So let me take the perspective the the hiring manager: should the hiring manager try to quickly close the candidate? Of course not. I'm after the candidate. I want them to work for me (something the article doesn't mention). I want them to work, in fact, for something more than compensation because compensation is not a strong motivator. Paychecks are important, of course, but no one can say that a more highly paid individual always outperforms a lower paid one. As the hiring manager, I represent the company. Of course I would prefer to acquire talent for the lowest amount as possible, but you might be surprised that we don't want candidates to be underpaid. Underpaid employees are not long term invested in the company and will seek a higher salary elsewhere eventually. I would hope the employee has a salary which supports them (and their family), pay the bills, save and enjoy life with another variable tied to their performance and commitment as a long term investment. Whether it be options, RSUs, bonus, etc. you want employees who can achieve a higher compensation and tie that to goals. In this way of thinking, the negotiation process is never closed. There are some good things to take from the article from the candidate side, specifically around taking notes, being positive, not taking undue pressure and how to push back (exploding offers). To be honest, having non-timebound offers are never a good thing, because too much time to think or continue shopping are not only against the employers wish (assume we have limited people we can hire, and the time to get someone onboard is opportunity cost), but sometimes it's against the candidates best interests as well. People often have difficulty making choices, and limitations are a healthy thing -- sometimes especially when you have the ability to overthink and analyze things, as most engineers do. The language of "exploding" offers is counter to an employers interest, because it's basically saying, "take it or leave it, I'm going to walk away in 48 hours" is insanity, in my opinion. You might say to a candidate, "If you give me a verbal 'yes' now I can get to <$offer + x%>" as a way to try to close them. Hiring managers want to close a candidate as quickly as possible, there is no such thing as an infinite time scale on either side, and there are many candidates who are, unfortunately, not negotiating in good faith. Example: a candidate who is just trying to get a counter-offer from their current employer, or just trying to bump up an offer for another company they're really interested in. I assume when someone tells me they're interested in the company and joining that they're telling the truth, which above all both sides should do. Words matter.
gumby 5y ago
Negotiation in job offers is unfair. Most people (as is called out in the article) are poor negotiators (and what’s wrong with that?). Negotiating is a skill not required for most jobs*, so negotiation results in unequal pay just because someone had a skill unrelated to their job. There’s also an imbalance (hiring teams do more job negotiations than individual employees do). Likewise past salary is not relevant. The environment can be different today from when you got your previous job and the market price could have gone up or down. Finally: what a waste. If the employee isn’t interested in the salary on offer why find that out at the end of the process?
fierro 5y ago
What is the game theoretic outcome if both parties have read this article?

182 points by andyxor 5y ago

And everything crumble down when I've stood my ground against "we have other motivated candidates" and my backup alternatives turned out to be a complete mess upon further inspection, started back pedaling on previously agreed terms (written but not signed), and just simply ghosted me. Oh well.

hoppla 5y ago
I would assume the interview was over if they mentioned other motivated candidates
- ayy_lmao 5y ago
  Maybe a cultural difference considering I'm in Asia but in roughly 1/3 of the follow up interview I've experienced, the HR / manager mentioned there were other motivated candidates. Most of the times it came after I expressed I was hesitant after being low balled hard in term of income.
  - hoppla 5y ago
    Could be a cultural difference, but still think it sounds like they signal that something is non negotiable, either you accept it or leave.
    - ghaff 5y ago
      Assuming they've actually made an offer, I agree that it sounds like something they're firm on and, probably, while they might indeed be willing to hire you, they're perfectly fine with their fallbacks.

jeffrallen 5y ago

I confess I didn't read it all, because there was too much of the adversarial stuff I'm not interested in. His point that it's a agreement to exchange labor for something else is spot on. My last two jobs had, statutorily and morally ZERO financial negotiating margin. One was an NGO, where I believed in the goals and strategy of the organization and so I enthusiastically accepted the salary level in exchange for what the job gave me. Next, I moved to academia, where the opportunity to have contact with young people and world class researchers also balanced out for me the constraints of the civil service salary grid (thus, statutorily impossible to negotiate $). Both jobs also respected my family life, which is precious, way beyond $$$. Negotiate how you spend your life, yes! But with all the variables on the table, not only $$$.

whall6 5y ago
At the NGO, any foregone salary can be used to further the interests of the organization. This likely brought you as much utility as additional salary itself.
daniellarusso 5y ago
The article does mention this, to evaluate the offer beyond the money aspect, work-life balance, enrichment, culture, etc.

aliswe 5y ago

This was actually very good! Many of these articles on HN are a bit one sided but this one really feels grounded in reality and not just perception and "in my experience".

blagie 5y ago
I think it was good for one context. As comments here mention, there are many other contexts: 1. Many jobs have fixed pay grades and no leverage. 2. There are buyers and sellers markets. Most of the advice was horrible for a recession. 3. Many jobs have other value. If you're a soft money researcher, lower salary may actually help you. If you're working for a not-for-profit, you need to consider where your salary is coming from. I'll also mention: Exploding job offers aren't always b-llsh-t. If I have a 3 person startup and need a fourth person, and two strong candidates, I'll want to extend the offer to candidate number 2 if candidate number 1 doesn't accept. They're sometimes hardball negotiating tactics, but sometimes, business reality.
- ghaff 5y ago
  A lot of it's situational. I know there are a lot of folks who think (or, to be fair, maybe know) that they can have their choice of highly paid jobs in a week. That's not true for a lot of people in a lot of roles (or a lot of ages). Sometimes people who are not in a great situation currently get an offer that looks pretty darned good. It may make sense to take the position that trying to wring out a bit more is really not worth the risk as opposed to making it happen now.
- DistressedDrone 5y ago
  > I'll also mention: Exploding job offers aren't always b-llsh-t. If I have a 3 person startup and need a fourth person, and two strong candidates, I'll want to extend the offer to candidate number 2 if candidate number 1 doesn't accept. They're sometimes hardball negotiating tactics, but sometimes, business reality. This point only serves to validate the article's point though. If you already have an acceptable alternative, negotiating with you is far less likely to be rewarding than negotiating with someone who doesn't have one.

pella 5y ago

from (2016) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12197795 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12197795

linspace 5y ago

I think the very first you need to know is the market. Talk with colleagues, better if they recently moved, and ask for a little more. I think most of my friends know my salary, some earn more and some less, who cares? I'm not sure about not mentioning your current salary because a lot of interviews have ended at that point without wasting anyone's time. You can give a figure and ask for a 30% raise, it's perfectly reasonable because moving has always some associated risk and HR knows, better than anyone, that it is your better chance at improving your salary.

Traster 5y ago

I think this is great advice. You're not always in a position to use this advice, this is the most extreme approach, but I think it's good to be aware of the most extreme approach. Very often a lot of this doesn't apply. 2 Years ago the company I work for really struggled to fill the roles in my team. We would've been very flexible with compensation to bring people in. Today we simply don't have that problem, if you push too hard we have about 3 other good people for the role. 1 year ago we would've dismissed you out of hand for working from home, today that would absolutely be part of our negotiating armory. It's very important to probe and find out where the company is flexible. Also, it is actually true that if you've really managed to sell yourself to HR and got a big old salary and you end up on my team underperforming it's going to be a much bigger problem for you. At my current company you want to be underpaid and overperform - because our compensation structure is highhly bonus orientated so you don't need to worry about it working out. At previous companies I've worked at your compensation for the entire tenure at the company is set the day you sign - bonuses and salary budget are both determined as a % of base pay and your ability to increase your compensation is basically a fight between you and the rest of the team who are all part of one budget (horribly dysfunctional system, accidentally hire 1 person at a grade level lower than where they should be and it's going to completely screw your whole team's compensation for the next couple of years).

daniellarusso 5y ago
How are your bonuses calculated? What metrics are used in determining it?
potatoz2 5y ago
I don't think it hurts to use this advice. The worst that can happen is that the company is only willing to pay you 90k (either they don't think you can net them more or they think you're bluffing, but that's risky if you have other offers to show them). You can still pick that company if you want in the end.

monster_group 5y ago

I really don't get this advise about not giving out a number. Seems like you yourself don't know your worth. Most of the times, save for FAANG companies, no other company is willing to pay me what I am asking for. So to go through the whole laborious and lengthy interview process only to find out during negotiation stage that they are not going to even match my current compensation is a lot of wasted time. If I talk to a recruiter, I tell them what I want even before interviewing. Most of the times, recruiters from non FAANG companies tell me that they won't be able to pay that much even if I performed stellar in the interview. I don't give out a number to FAANG recruiter before the interview but I do give out during the negotiation stage and so far my comp has been at at least as good as my peers'. My understanding is that most companies have a salary range and they want all the employees on the same level to be within that range. They won't break those rules regardless of how good you are. You are only one among many good candidates. So you should aim to be at the high end of that range during negotiation. That's how I decide the number to give out.

whall6 5y ago
You appear to know your market rate. I’m guessing OP wrote the article for those that don’t yet.
- pwkbl837 5y ago
  Employers will usually tell you the comp range for the role you are being evaluated for if you ask them. This is what I think OP was referring to. You can still ask to be leveled up though :)
  - pm90 5y ago
    They actually don’t tell you if you ask them. I’ve tried to do this with a few recruiters at the phone screen stage just to save everyone’s time but they usually don’t give a number, presumably because they do have flexibility for filling out roles that are in demand.
pwkbl837 5y ago
Yes employers have comp bands for each level within an org. You can always ask to come in at a higher level. The thing is you never know how much a company values a particular role. By giving a number first you basically preempt the scenario where they might offer more than you would have thought to ask for. If they come in low to anchor the negotiations on a lower number, that can also give valuable information about how much the organization values your role / function. Either way it is in your best interest for them to show their hand first.

gorgoiler 5y ago

I am a teacher in the UK, working in the private sector. This industry has many ticking time bombs: the pension scheme is collapsing, regulatory burden means small schools must consolidate or die, and above all a class action sword of liability must surely be hanging over the closed-shop hiring practices. These are some of the anti-competitive informal rules about moving schools: A new prospective employer (usually the head of the school you are applying to) expects to be able to talk to your current head from the moment you apply. This in turn means that you have to tell your current employer the moment you start looking for jobs elsewhere. Any other references are done before interview, not during an offer. Your referees will be writing a lot, on your behalf, O(n) — jobs applied for — and not O(1) — job offers you want to accept. It is considered obstructive behaviour to not be open about your current salary. You are immediately viewed as “difficult”: just like candidates who apply without telling their current school, so too with candidates cagey about money. Taking time off during term is not allowed. Taking time off to interview will be deducted from your pay unless you get prior approval, and you have to declare that you are interviewing. Resumes / CVs are not allowed as part of the application. No one will read them. Some other gems, when negotiating salary: “b-but no one goes into teaching for the money!”, “sorry we don’t aim to compete with the commercial sector”, and “we don’t define the hours you’ll need to work, only that you do what is deemed necessary and appropriate” only to later be told that it’s not the done thing old chap to work any less than 50 hours a week.

monster_group 5y ago
It is very sad how under-appreciated and underpaid teachers are (especially in US). I know my son's teacher works a lot of hours just by knowing how much responsibility she is expected to take on for her class. And she gets paid a fraction of what I get paid. Sometimes when I am having beer with my team-mates during team happy hour on company time, I realize how lucky I am.
- gorgoiler 5y ago
  An uncomfortable fact of teaching is that it is 15% inspirational and highly nuanced technical leadership, and 85% unskilled labour. When most of the job is rock breaking then it’s easy to see why the supply of new teachers is so high. Coupled with the romance of wanting to be that inspirational teacher, and the genuine privilege of wanting to work with young people, and it’s not hard to see how schools can get away with murder when it comes to pay. Money isn’t the worst of it though. Alongside the low salary there’s also a huge risk of employers developing a them/us relationship. The involvement of unions exacerbated this, and schools are already high-rules / low-trust environments even before any of this kind of staff/management internecine conflict. But: (1) I love working with kids; (2) while the job attracts good people and bad people, the good ones are great. PS: I’d eat my hat if exactly the same wasn’t also true for police detectives and nurses.

monster_group 5y ago

The best leverage you have during negotiation is to negotiate when you don't really need the job. Don't wait to be out of a job before interviewing. If you can do this, most of the advise in this article is immaterial. Have a number in mind that will make you happy and make you switch. Give out the number. If they can do it, you take it else you stay in your current job. That cuts out all the bullshit mind games described in this verbose article.

pm90 5y ago
The article is describing a process of maximizing ones compensation. You can continue to have a number you care about in your mind and judge the final offer against that. Shifting jobs is usually the only time you have lots of opportunities to negotiate up by a lot. Personally Ive found that the better offer I can get, the better tenure I have at a company since I’m not focused on playing games to get promoted, but have negotiated a somewhat higher than expected level and salary.
tasuki 5y ago
That's great if you're optimizing leverage. If you're optimizing quality of life (and if you can afford it; and I'll take the liberty to assume you can, since you're here), I can't but recommend taking long breaks between jobs, at least a month or two.

string 5y ago

Good article, articulated a lot of my own feelings on the subject. The only part I can never quite get my head around is having multiple offers at once. It takes me months if not years to find a company I actually want to work for. The chance of finding many hiring for a suitable position—let alone receiving offers almost simultaneously—seems miniscule. I feel like these types of articles assume everyone has a sort of drag net approach to finding employment, but my own approach is more like fly fishing (pardon the analogy). I feel like I've been successful in the past because I can explain exactly why I've applied for the specific position. I suppose this must be atypical, perhaps I'm a terrible negotiator.

ghaff 5y ago
I agree with you. Also the sentiment that "I can quit my job on Monday and have my choice of plum offers by Friday." To the degree these exist I assume it's some in-demand cookie cutter keyword skill backed up by the right resume. Certainly the few times I've changed jobs, it's happened fairly quickly but it was very targeted and always came through someone I knew well (and almost certainly involved a degree of luck).
joezydeco 5y ago
The author says so, but doesn't realize it: The appropriate advice for an Asian male in Silicon Valley may not be appropriate for a black woman in Birmingham, Alabama. An Asian male dancing around the FAANGs in SV has a much better chance of getting multiple, simultaneous, offers quickly. The reality out there is that 99.99% of companies completely suck at recruiting when it comes to first contact, resume/application processing, turnaround time, and interview scheduling. And LinkedIn has made them lazier and suckier. I love it when recruiters write whiny blog posts that make it to HN complaining about being ghosted by candidates when in reality their companies are treating people way shittier. But we're getting off topic here. IMO this whole "multiple offers give you leverage!" bullshit knocks a good majority of these job negotiation blogposts off the table. It's you and one company, negotiating a salary 1:1. The BATNA is zero. The author also makes a dangerous assumption that getting an offer means the company has closed the door on every other candidate. All it means is that you were on top, but that could change. I have no problem extending an offer to #2 and moving on. It's a few clicks of a mouse to do that and get back to my donut.

dominotw 5y ago

you can only negotiate if you are ready to lose. Most ppl don't have that luxury.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

frellus 5y ago

With phrases like "your interlocutor will try to trick you into making a decision" I would treat this article as less than gospel. I've been on both sides of the negotiation table. With any negotiation, both sides must "win" and neither side should try to "trick" the other party. On the prospective employee side, should they inflate their credentials and experience? Sooner than later after working at the new place, they will find out and credibility will be lost, so of course you shouldn't. So let me take the perspective the the hiring manager: should the hiring manager try to quickly close the candidate? Of course not. I'm after the candidate. I want them to work for me (something the article doesn't mention). I want them to work, in fact, for something more than compensation because compensation is not a strong motivator. Paychecks are important, of course, but no one can say that a more highly paid individual always outperforms a lower paid one. As the hiring manager, I represent the company. Of course I would prefer to acquire talent for the lowest amount as possible, but you might be surprised that we don't want candidates to be underpaid. Underpaid employees are not long term invested in the company and will seek a higher salary elsewhere eventually. I would hope the employee has a salary which supports them (and their family), pay the bills, save and enjoy life with another variable tied to their performance and commitment as a long term investment. Whether it be options, RSUs, bonus, etc. you want employees who can achieve a higher compensation and tie that to goals. In this way of thinking, the negotiation process is never closed. There are some good things to take from the article from the candidate side, specifically around taking notes, being positive, not taking undue pressure and how to push back (exploding offers). To be honest, having non-timebound offers are never a good thing, because too much time to think or continue shopping are not only against the employers wish (assume we have limited people we can hire, and the time to get someone onboard is opportunity cost), but sometimes it's against the candidates best interests as well. People often have difficulty making choices, and limitations are a healthy thing -- sometimes especially when you have the ability to overthink and analyze things, as most engineers do. The language of "exploding" offers is counter to an employers interest, because it's basically saying, "take it or leave it, I'm going to walk away in 48 hours" is insanity, in my opinion. You might say to a candidate, "If you give me a verbal 'yes' now I can get to <$offer + x%>" as a way to try to close them. Hiring managers want to close a candidate as quickly as possible, there is no such thing as an infinite time scale on either side, and there are many candidates who are, unfortunately, not negotiating in good faith. Example: a candidate who is just trying to get a counter-offer from their current employer, or just trying to bump up an offer for another company they're really interested in. I assume when someone tells me they're interested in the company and joining that they're telling the truth, which above all both sides should do. Words matter.

gumby 5y ago

Negotiation in job offers is unfair. Most people (as is called out in the article) are poor negotiators (and what’s wrong with that?). Negotiating is a skill not required for most jobs*, so negotiation results in unequal pay just because someone had a skill unrelated to their job. There’s also an imbalance (hiring teams do more job negotiations than individual employees do). Likewise past salary is not relevant. The environment can be different today from when you got your previous job and the market price could have gone up or down. Finally: what a waste. If the employee isn’t interested in the salary on offer why find that out at the end of the process?

fierro 5y ago

What is the game theoretic outcome if both parties have read this article?